Background-Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is characterized by increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality that cannot be explained solely by traditional cardiovascular risk factors. Cardiovascular morbidity is related to disease activity and can be normalized by effective therapy. Because the quantity of endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) in the peripheral blood is correlated inversely with cardiovascular risk, we studied whether such abnormalities could also be observed in patients with RA. Methods and Results-EPCs were determined in 52 RA patients and in 16 healthy referents (HRs) by fluorescence-activated cell-sorting (FACS) analysis. Patients were divided into groups characterized by active disease (nϭ36) and low disease activity (nϭ16). Cells that were positive by flow cytometry for CD34/KDR/AC133 within the lymphocyte population were characterized as EPCs. Furthermore, in subgroups of patients, circulating EPCs were also quantified by a colony-forming unit (CFU) and a circulating angiogenic cell (CAC) assay.

No abstract

No abstract

Rheumatoid arthritis is a heterogeneous disease with respect to clinical manifestations, serologic abnormalities, joint damage and functional impairment. Predicting outcome in a reliable way to allow for strategic therapeutic decision-making as well as for prediction of the response to the various therapeutic modalities available today, especially biological agents, would provide means for optimization of care. In the present article, the current information on biological and clinical markers related to disease activity and joint damage as well as for predictive purposes is reviewed. It will be shown that the relationship of many biomarkers with disease characteristics is confounded by factors unrelated to the disease, and that only few biomarkers exist with some predictive value. Moreover, clinical markers appear of equal value as biomarkers for this purpose, although they likewise have limited capacity in these regards. The analysis suggests the search for better markers to predict outcomes and therapeutic responsiveness in rheumatoid arthritis needs to be intensified. Introduction: setting the stageRheumatoid arthritis (RA) is characterized by many different phenotypes. Joint involvement, although characteristically symmetrical, can range from a monoarticular pattern to a highly polyarticular pattern, and joint damage can span from mild cartilage degradation to progressive erosive disease of juxtarticular bone [1,2]. The course of RA may be cyclic or relentlessly active [3], and extraarticular manifestations such as rheumatoid nodules or vasculitis may be present. Patients may be seronegative or may have many different autoantibodies [4]. Variable combinations of all these characteristics create a broad heterogeneity that is partly manifested by differences in disease outcomes spanning from remission to severe disability and premature mortality [5,6]. When therapeutic targets are tested in clinical trials and are prescribed in clinical practice, however, RA is still regarded as a single disorder. Biomarkers and clinical markersDisease activity, joint damage and functional impairment form the anchor points of the natural history of RA, and are characterized by a triangular interrelationship (Figure 1). It is well established that continued disease activity leads to joint damage, resulting in reduction of physical functioning -and if damage is progressive, to irreversible disability [7]. For any clinical and biological marker to be useful, therefore, it should reflect one or more of the components of the RA triad.Traditionally, a marker in the present sense should constitute an indicator or a surrogate with diagnostic or prognostic utility [8] (Figure 1). A biological marker, then, would be involved in or would be a consequence of a pathological (or normal) biological process, a product of the organism that is measurable and thus bears the attribute of objectivity.In the context of rheumatic diseases, a typical biomarker could be a gene or some product of gene expression, an autoantibody, a cytokine, an...

An approach to estimate the numerical relationship between HAQ and damage as 0.01 HAQ points/TSS unit is presented, although the linear relationship may not be generally valid. This allows the assessment of functional correlates of radiographic changes in trials.

IntroductionTo determine the validity and reliability of patients' self-performed joint counts compared to joint counts by professional assessors in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in different disease activity states.MethodsIn patients with established RA we determined the inter-rater reliability of joint counts performed by an independent evaluator and the patient using intraclass correlation (ICC), and agreement on activity in individual joints by kappa statistics. We also performed longitudinal analyses to assess consistency of assessments over time. Finally, we investigated the concordance of joint counts of different assessors in patients with different levels of disease activity.ResultsThe reliability of patient self-performed joint counts was high when compared to independent objective assessment (ICC; 95%confidence interval (CI)) for the assessment of swelling (0.32; 0.15 to 0.46) and tenderness (0.75; 0.66 to 0.81), with higher agreement for larger joints (kappa: 0.57 and 0.45, respectively) compared to smaller joints (metacarpo-phalangeal joint (MCPs): 0.31 and 0.45; and proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPs): 0.22 and 0.47, for swelling and tenderness, respectively).Patients in remission according to the Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI ≤ 3.3) showed better concordance of the joint counts (swollen joint count (SJC) ties 25/37, tender joint count (TJC) ties 26/37) compared to moderate/high disease activity states (SDAI > 11; MDA/HDA: SJC ties 9/72, TJC ties 21/72). Positive and negative predictive values regarding the presence of SDAI remission were reasonably good (0.86 and 0.95, respectively). A separate training session for patients did not improve the reliability of joint assessment. The results were consistent in the longitudinal analyses.ConclusionsSelf-performed joint counts are particularly useful for monitoring in patients having attained remission, as these patients seem able to detect state of remission.

Objective: To determine the survival and clinical effectiveness of leflunomide (LEF) compared with methotrexate (MTX) and sulfasalazine (SSZ) for RA in an observational study. Methods: An observational database of 1088 patients and 5141 patient years of DMARD treatment (2680 courses) from two academic hospitals was filtered for treatment with LEF, MTX, and SSZ. LEF treatment groups were matched for patients' age, baseline ESR, number of previous DMARDs, and hospital cohort with MTX and SSZ treatment groups. For these treatments, Kaplan-Meier analyses of time until the drug was discontinued (drug "survival"), and the effectiveness and safety of continuation of treatment, were performed. The change in disease activity markers (CRP, ESR) was compared between the groups. Results: The median dose during the study increased from 10 to 15 mg MTX/week and from 1.5 to 2.0 g SSZ/day. Matched survival analysis showed better retention rates for MTX (mean (SEM) survival 28 (1) months) than for LEF (20 (1) months; p=0.001), whereas retention rates of SSZ (23 (1) months) were similar to those of LEF (p=NS). Treatments were stopped earlier because of adverse events (AEs, 3 months) than because of ineffectiveness (IE, 10 months; p<0.001). LEF and MTX were less likely to be stopped because of AEs than SSZ. LEF courses were stopped earlier for AEs (p<0.001) than MTX. Conclusions: Current dosing strategies should be re-evaluated, and coping strategies for common AEs should be investigated. This will be necessary to achieve better drug retention of LEF. At present, MTX continues to be the most effective drug in clinical practice.

The discovery of endothelial progenitor cells in the 1990s challenged the paradigm of angiogenesis by showing that cells derived from hematopoietic stem cells are capable of forming new blood vessels even in the absence of a pre-existing vessel network, a process termed vasculogenesis. Since then, the majority of studies in the field have found a strong association between circulating endothelial progenitor cells and cardiovascular risk. Several studies have also reported that inflammation influences the mobilization and differentiation of endothelial progenitor cells. In this review, we discuss the emerging role of endothelial progenitor cells as biomarkers of cardiovascular disease as well as the interplay between inflammation and endothelial progenitor cell biology. We will also review the challenges in the field of endothelial progenitor cell-based therapy.