Jaime Branco

EULAR evidence-based recommendations for the management of fibromyalgia syndrome

Objective: To develop evidence-based recommendations for the management of fibromyalgia syndrome. Methods: A multidisciplinary task force was formed representing 11 European countries. The design of the study, including search strategy, participants, interventions, outcome measures, data collection and analytical method, was defined at the outset. A systematic review was undertaken with the keywords “fibromyalgia”, “treatment or management” and “trial”. Studies were excluded if they did not utilise the American College of Rheumatology classification criteria, were not clinical trials, or included patients with chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis. Primary outcome measures were change in pain assessed by visual analogue scale and fibromyalgia impact questionnaire. The quality of the studies was categorised based on randomisation, blinding and allocation concealment. Only the highest quality studies were used to base recommendations on. When there was insufficient evidence from the literature, a Delphi process was used to provide basis for recommendation. Results: 146 studies were eligible for the review. 39 pharmacological intervention studies and 59 non-pharmacological were included in the final recommendation summary tables once those of a lower quality or with insufficient data were separated. The categories of treatment identified were antidepressants, analgesics, and “other pharmacological” and exercise, cognitive behavioural therapy, education, dietary interventions and “other non-pharmacological”. In many studies sample size was small and the quality of the study was insufficient for strong recommendations to be made. Conclusions: Nine recommendations for the management of fibromyalgia syndrome were developed using a systematic review and expert consensus.

Prevalence of Fibromyalgia: A Survey in Five European Countries

OBJECTIVE A survey was performed in 5 European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and Spain) to estimate the prevalence of fibromyalgia (FM) in the general population. METHODS In each country, the London Fibromyalgia Epidemiological Study Screening Questionnaire (LFESSQ) was administered by telephone to a representative sample of the community over 15 years of age. A positive screen was defined as the following: (1) meeting the 4-pain criteria alone (LFESSQ-4), or (2) meeting both the 4-pain and the 2-fatigue criteria (LFESSQ-6). The questionnaire was also submitted to all outpatients referred to the 8 participating rheumatology clinics for 1 month. These patients were examined by a rheumatologist to confirm or exclude the FM diagnosis according to the 1990 American College of Rheumatology classification criteria. The prevalence of FM in the general population was estimated by applying the positive-predictive values to eligible community subjects (ie, positive screens). RESULTS Among rheumatology outpatients, 46% screened positive for chronic widespread pain (LFESSQ-4), 32% for pain and fatigue (LFESSQ-6), and 14% were confirmed FM cases. In the whole general population, 13 and 6.7% screened positive for LFESSQ-4 and LFESSQ-6, respectively. 3The estimated overall prevalence of FM was 4.7% (95% CI: 4.0 to 5.3) and 2.9% (95% CI: 2.4 to 3.4), respectively, in the general population. The prevalence of FM was age- and sex-related and varied among countries. CONCLUSION FM appears to be a common condition in these 5 European countries, even if data derived from the most specific criteria set (LFESSQ-6) are considered.

An algorithm recommendation for the management of knee osteoarthritis in Europe and internationally: a report from a task force of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO).

OBJECTIVES Existing practice guidelines for osteoarthritis (OA) analyze the evidence behind each proposed treatment but do not prioritize the interventions in a given sequence. The objective was to develop a treatment algorithm recommendation that is easier to interpret for the prescribing physician based on the available evidence and that is applicable in Europe and internationally. The knee was used as the model OA joint. METHODS ESCEO assembled a task force of 13 international experts (rheumatologists, clinical epidemiologists, and clinical scientists). Existing guidelines were reviewed; all interventions listed and recent evidence were retrieved using established databases. A first schematic flow chart with treatment prioritization was discussed in a 1-day meeting and shaped to the treatment algorithm. Fine-tuning occurred by electronic communication and three consultation rounds until consensus. RESULTS Basic principles consist of the need for a combined pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment with a core set of initial measures, including information access/education, weight loss if overweight, and an appropriate exercise program. Four multimodal steps are then established. Step 1 consists of background therapy, either non-pharmacological (referral to a physical therapist for re-alignment treatment if needed and sequential introduction of further physical interventions initially and at any time thereafter) or pharmacological. The latter consists of chronic Symptomatic Slow-Acting Drugs for OA (e.g., prescription glucosamine sulfate and/or chondroitin sulfate) with paracetamol at-need; topical NSAIDs are added in the still symptomatic patient. Step 2 consists of the advanced pharmacological management in the persistent symptomatic patient and is centered on the use of oral COX-2 selective or non-selective NSAIDs, chosen based on concomitant risk factors, with intra-articular corticosteroids or hyaluronate for further symptom relief if insufficient. In Step 3, the last pharmacological attempts before surgery are represented by weak opioids and other central analgesics. Finally, Step 4 consists of end-stage disease management and surgery, with classical opioids as a difficult-to-manage alternative when surgery is contraindicated. CONCLUSIONS The proposed treatment algorithm may represent a new framework for the development of future guidelines for the management of OA, more easily accessible to physicians.

Multinational evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of gout: integrating systematic literature review and expert opinion of a broad panel of rheumatologists in the 3e initiative

We aimed to develop evidence-based multinational recommendations for the diagnosis and management of gout. Using a formal voting process, a panel of 78 international rheumatologists developed 10 key clinical questions pertinent to the diagnosis and management of gout. Each question was investigated with a systematic literature review. Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and abstracts from 2010–2011 European League Against Rheumatism and American College of Rheumatology meetings were searched in each review. Relevant studies were independently reviewed by two individuals for data extraction and synthesis and risk of bias assessment. Using this evidence, rheumatologists from 14 countries (Europe, South America and Australasia) developed national recommendations. After rounds of discussion and voting, multinational recommendations were formulated. Each recommendation was graded according to the level of evidence. Agreement and potential impact on clinical practice were assessed. Combining evidence and clinical expertise, 10 recommendations were produced. One recommendation referred to the diagnosis of gout, two referred to cardiovascular and renal comorbidities, six focused on different aspects of the management of gout (including drug treatment and monitoring), and the last recommendation referred to the management of asymptomatic hyperuricaemia. The level of agreement with the recommendations ranged from 8.1 to 9.2 (mean 8.7) on a 1–10 scale, with 10 representing full agreement. Ten recommendations on the diagnosis and management of gout were established. They are evidence-based and supported by a large panel of rheumatologists from 14 countries, enhancing their utility in clinical practice.

A European Multicenter Randomized Double-blind Placebo-controlled Monotherapy Clinical Trial of Milnacipran in Treatment of Fibromyalgia

Objective. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study investigated the efficacy and safety of milnacipran in the treatment of fibromyalgia (FM) in a European population. Methods. Outpatients diagnosed with FM according to 1990 American College of Rheumatology criteria (N = 884) were randomized to placebo (n = 449) or milnacipran 200 mg/day (n = 435) for 17 weeks (4-week dose escalation, 12-week stable dose, 9-day down-titration), followed by a 2-week posttreatment period. The primary efficacy criterion was a 2-measure composite responder analysis requiring patients to achieve simultaneous improvements in pain (≥ 30% improvement from baseline in visual analog scale, 24-hour morning recall) and a rating of “very much” or “much” improved on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale. If responder analysis was positive, Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) was included as an additional key primary efficacy measure. Results. At the end of the stable dose period (Week 16), milnacipran 200 mg/day showed significant improvements from baseline relative to placebo in the 2-measure composite responder criteria (p = 0.0003) and FIQ total score (p = 0.015). Significant improvements were also observed in multiple secondary efficacy endpoints, including Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (p = 0.025), SF-36 Mental Component Summary (p = 0.007), Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (p = 0.006), and Multiple Ability Self-Report Questionnaire (p = 0.041). Milnacipran was safe and well tolerated; nausea, hyperhidrosis, and headache were the most common adverse events. Conclusion. Milnacipran is an effective and safe treatment for pain and other predominant symptoms of FM. Registered as trial no. NCT00436033.

Multinational evidence-based recommendations for pain management by pharmacotherapy in inflammatory arthritis: integrating systematic literature research and expert opinion of a broad panel of rheumatologists in the 3e Initiative

Objective. To develop evidence-based recommendations for pain management by pharmacotherapy in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA). Methods. A total of 453 rheumatologists from 17 countries participated in the 2010 3e (Evidence, Expertise, Exchange) Initiative. Using a formal voting process, 89 rheumatologists representing all 17 countries selected 10 clinical questions regarding the use of pain medications in IA. Bibliographic fellows undertook a systematic literature review for each question, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and 2008–09 European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/ACR abstracts. Relevant studies were retrieved for data extraction and quality assessment. Rheumatologists from each country used this evidence to develop a set of national recommendations. Multinational recommendations were then formulated and assessed for agreement and the potential impact on clinical practice. Results. A total of 49 242 references were identified, from which 167 studies were included in the systematic reviews. One clinical question regarding different comorbidities was divided into two separate reviews, resulting in 11 recommendations in total. Oxford levels of evidence were applied to each recommendation. The recommendations related to the efficacy and safety of various analgesic medications, pain measurement scales and pain management in the pre-conception period, pregnancy and lactation. Finally, an algorithm for the pharmacological management of pain in IA was developed. Twenty per cent of rheumatologists reported that the algorithm would change their practice, and 75% felt the algorithm was in accordance with their current practice. Conclusions. Eleven evidence-based recommendations on the management of pain by pharmacotherapy in IA were developed. They are supported by a large panel of rheumatologists from 17 countries, thus enhancing their utility in clinical practice.

Classification of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics Versus American College of Rheumatology Criteria. A Comparative Study of 2,055 Patients From a Real-Life, International Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Cohort.

The new Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) 2012 classification criteria aimed to improve the performance of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification over the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 1997 criteria. However, the SLICC 2012 criteria need further external validation. Our objective was to compare the sensitivity for SLE classification between the ACR 1997 and the SLICC 2012 criteria sets in a real‐life, multicenter, international SLE population.

Generalised musculoskeletal pain syndromes

The study of the descriptive epidemiology of chronic widespread pain (CWP) in several countries is of interest, as the occurrence of this condition varies among different populations. However, reports of pain prevalence are not consensual: it is clear that chronic musculoskeletal pain is frequent all over the world, varying from 4.2% to 13.3%. The reasons for the prevalence differences in CWP might include genetic and/or environmental factors. Multifactorial aetiopathogenesis of CWP and fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) certainly includes genetic susceptibility and environmental influences. The risk factors for the occurrence and maintenance of CWP/FMS include female gender, increasing age, family history of chronic pain, several causes of distress, obesity and poorest mental and/or physical status. On the other hand, risk factors that negatively influence the outcome of CWP/FMS are: high levels of psychological distress, presence of somatisation, presence of fatigue, poor sleep, higher number of painful sites and pain intensity, poorest mental status and functional capacity, presence of co-morbid conditions and highest number of primary-care consultations. Mild alcohol consumption and individualised social support seem to have a protective effect on the outcome of CWP/FMS.

Goal-directed treatment of osteoporosis in Europe

SummaryDespite the proven predictive ability of bone mineral density, Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®), bone turnover markers, and fracture for osteoporotic fracture, their use as targets for treatment of osteoporosis is limited.IntroductionTreat-to-target is a strategy applied in several fields of medicine and has recently become an area of interest in the management of osteoporosis. Its role in this setting remains controversial. This article was prepared following a European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) working group meeting convened under the auspices of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) to discuss the feasibility of applying such a strategy in osteoporosis in Europe.MethodsPotential targets range from the absence of an incident fracture to fixed levels of bone mineral density (BMD), a desired FRAX® score, a specified level of bone turnover markers or indeed changes in any one or a combination of these parameters.ResultsDespite the proven predictive ability of all of these variables for fracture (particularly BMD and FRAX), their use as targets remains limited due to low sensitivity, the influence of confounders and current lack of evidence that targets can be consistently reached.ConclusionESCEO considers that it is not currently feasible to apply a treat-to-target strategy in osteoporosis, though it did identify a need to continue to improve the targeting of treatment to those at higher risk (target-to-treat strategy) and a number of issues for the research agenda. These include international consensus on intervention thresholds and definition of treatment failure, further exploration of the relationship between fracture and BMD, and FRAX and treatment efficacy and investigation of the potential of short-term targets to improve adherence.

Can we identify patients with high risk of osteoarthritis progression who will respond to treatment? A focus on epidemiology and phenotype of osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis is a syndrome affecting a variety of patient profiles. A European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis and the European Union Geriatric Medicine Society working meeting explored the possibility of identifying different patient profiles in osteoarthritis. The risk factors for the development of osteoarthritis include systemic factors (e.g., age, sex, obesity, genetics, race, and bone density) and local biomechanical factors (e.g., obesity, sport, joint injury, and muscle weakness); most also predict disease progression, particularly joint injury, malalignment, and synovitis/effusion. The characterization of patient profiles should help to better orientate research, facilitate trial design, and define which patients are the most likely to benefit from treatment. There are a number of profile candidates. Generalized, polyarticular osteoarthritis and local, monoarticular osteoarthritis appear to be two different profiles; the former is a feature of osteoarthritis co-morbid with inflammation or the metabolic syndrome, while the latter is more typical of post-trauma osteoarthritis, especially in cases with severe malalignment. Other biomechanical factors may also define profiles, such as joint malalignment, loss of meniscal function, and ligament injury. Early- and late-stage osteoarthritis appear as separate profiles, notably in terms of treatment response. Finally, there is evidence that there are two separate profiles related to lesions in the subchondral bone, which may determine benefit from bone-active treatments. Decisions on appropriate therapy should be made considering clinical presentation, underlying pathophysiology, and stage of disease. Identification of patient profiles may lead to more personalized healthcare, with more targeted treatment for osteoarthritis.