BackgroundReaching the therapeutic target of remission or low-disease activity has improved outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) significantly. The treat-to-target recommendations, formulated in 2010, have provided a basis for implementation of a strategic approach towards this therapeutic goal in routine clinical practice, but these recommendations need to be re-evaluated for appropriateness and practicability in the light of new insights.ObjectiveTo update the 2010 treat-to-target recommendations based on systematic literature reviews (SLR) and expert opinion.MethodsA task force of rheumatologists, patients and a nurse specialist assessed the SLR results and evaluated the individual items of the 2010 recommendations accordingly, reformulating many of the items. These were subsequently discussed, amended and voted upon by >40 experts, including 5 patients, from various regions of the world. Levels of evidence, strengths of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived.ResultsThe update resulted in 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations. The previous recommendations were partly adapted and their order changed as deemed appropriate in terms of importance in the view of the experts. The SLR had now provided also data for the effectiveness of targeting low-disease activity or remission in established rather than only early disease. The role of comorbidities, including their potential to preclude treatment intensification, was highlighted more strongly than before. The treatment aim was again defined as remission with low-disease activity being an alternative goal especially in patients with long-standing disease. Regular follow-up (every 1–3 months during active disease) with according therapeutic adaptations to reach the desired state was recommended. Follow-up examinations ought to employ composite measures of disease activity that include joint counts. Additional items provide further details for particular aspects of the disease, especially comorbidity and shared decision-making with the patient. Levels of evidence had increased for many items compared with the 2010 recommendations, and levels of agreement were very high for most of the individual recommendations (≥9/10).ConclusionsThe 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations are based on stronger evidence than before and are supposed to inform patients, rheumatologists and other stakeholders about strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA.

IntroductionWe analyzed the prevalence of cardiovascular (CV) disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and its association with traditional CV risk factors, clinical features of RA, and the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in a multinational cross-sectional cohort of nonselected consecutive outpatients with RA (The Questionnaires in Standard Monitoring of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Program, or QUEST-RA) who were receiving regular clinical care.MethodsThe study involved a clinical assessment by a rheumatologist and a self-report questionnaire by patients. The clinical assessment included a review of clinical features of RA and exposure to DMARDs over the course of RA. Comorbidities were recorded; CV morbidity included myocardial infarction, angina, coronary disease, coronary bypass surgery, and stroke. Traditional risk factors recorded were hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus, smoking, physical inactivity, and body mass index. Unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence interval [CI]) for CV morbidity were calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression models.ResultsBetween January 2005 and October 2006, the QUEST-RA project included 4,363 patients from 48 sites in 15 countries; 78% were female, more than 90% were Caucasian, and the mean age was 57 years. The prevalence for lifetime CV events in the entire sample was 3.2% for myocardial infarction, 1.9% for stroke, and 9.3% for any CV event. The prevalence for CV risk factors was 32% for hypertension, 14% for hyperlipidemia, 8% for diabetes, 43% for ever-smoking, 73% for physical inactivity, and 18% for obesity. Traditional risk factors except obesity and physical inactivity were significantly associated with CV morbidity. There was an association between any CV event and age and male gender and between extra-articular disease and myocardial infarction. Prolonged exposure to methotrexate (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.81 to 0.89), leflunomide (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.79), sulfasalazine (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.87 to 0.98), glucocorticoids (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.92 to 0.98), and biologic agents (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81; P < 0.05) was associated with a reduction of the risk of CV morbidity; analyses were adjusted for traditional risk factors and countries.ConclusionIn conclusion, prolonged use of treatments such as methotrexate, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, glucocorticoids, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha blockers appears to be associated with a reduced risk of CV disease. In addition to traditional risk factors, extra-articular disease was associated with the occurrence of myocardial infarction in patients with RA.

RAPID3 provides a feasible, informative quantitative index for busy clinical settings.

Objective To assess the determinants of patients’ (PTGL) and physicians’ (MDGL) global assessment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) activity and factors associated with discordance among them. Methods A total of 7,028 patients in the Quantitative Standard Monitoring of Patients with RA study had PTGL and MDGL assessed at the same clinic visit on a 0–10-cm visual analog scale (VAS). Three patient groups were defined: concordant rating group (PTGL and MDGL within ±2 cm), higher patient rating group (PTGL exceeding MDGL by >2 cm), and lower patient rating group (PTGL less than MDGL by >2 cm). Multivariable regression analysis was used to identify determinants of PTGL and MDGL and their discordance. Results The mean ± SD VAS scores for PTGL and MDGL were 4.01 ± 2.70 and 2.91 ± 2.37, respectively. Pain was overwhelmingly the single most important determinant of PTGL, followed by fatigue. In contrast, MDGL was most influenced by swollen joint count (SJC), followed by erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and tender joint count (TJC). A total of 4,454 (63.4%), 2,106 (30%), and 468 (6.6%) patients were in the concordant, higher, and lower patient rating groups, respectively. Odds of higher patient rating increased with higher pain, fatigue, psychological distress, age, and morning stiffness, and decreased with higher SJC, TJC, and ESR. Lower patient rating odds increased with higher SJC, TJC, and ESR, and decreased with lower fatigue levels. Conclusion Nearly 36% of patients had discordance in RA activity assessment from their physicians. Sensitivity to the “disease experience” of patients, particularly pain and fatigue, is warranted for effective care of RA.

BackgroundMost knowledge of fibromyalgia comes from the clinical setting, where healthcare-seeking behavior and selection issues influence study results. The characteristics of fibromyalgia in the general population have not been studied in detail.MethodsWe developed and tested surrogate study specific criteria for fibromyalgia in rheumatology practices using variables from the US National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the modification (for surveys) of the 2010 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) preliminary fibromyalgia criteria. The surrogate criteria were applied to the 2012 NHIS and identified persons who satisfied criteria from symptom data. The NHIS weighted sample of 8446 persons represents 225.7 million US adults.ResultsFibromyalgia was identified in 1.75% (95% CI 1.42, 2.07), or 3.94 million persons. However, 73% of identified cases self-reported a physician’s diagnosis other than fibromyalgia. Identified cases had high levels of self-reported pain, non-pain symptoms, comorbidity, psychological distress, medical costs, Social Security and work disability. Caseness was associated with gender, education, ethnicity, citizenship and unhealthy behaviors. Demographics, behaviors, and comorbidity were predictive of case status. Examination of the surrogate polysymptomatic distress scale (PSD) of the 2010 ACR criteria found fibromyalgia symptoms extending through the full length of the scale.ConclusionsPersons identified with criteria-based fibromyalgia have severe symptoms, but most (73%) have not received a clinical diagnosis of fibromyalgia. The association of fibromyalgia-like symptoms over the full length of the PSD scale with physiological as well as mental stressors suggests PSD may be a universal response variable rather than one restricted to fibromyalgia.

Objective To provide updated American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommendations on rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity measurements to facilitate a treat‐to‐target approach in routine clinical care. Methods A working group conducted a systematic literature review from the time of the prior ACR recommendations literature search. Properties of disease activity measures were abstracted, and study quality was assessed using the Consensus‐Based Standards for the selection of Health Measurement Instruments 4‐point scoring method, allowing for overall level of evidence assessment. Measures that fulfilled a minimum standard were identified, and through a modified Delphi process preferred measures were selected for regular use in most clinic settings. Results The search identified 5,199 articles, of which 110 were included in the review. This search identified 46 RA disease activity measures that contained patient, provider, laboratory, and/or imaging data. Descriptions of the measures, properties, study quality, level of evidence, and feasibility were abstracted and scored. Following a modified Delphi process, 11 measures fulfilled a minimum standard for regular use in most clinic settings, and 5 measures were recommended: the Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints with Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate or C‐Reactive Protein Level, Clinical Disease Activity Index, Simplified Disease Activity Index, Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3, and Patient Activity Scale‐II. Conclusion We have updated prior ACR recommendations for preferred RA disease activity measures, identifying 11 measures that met a minimum standard for regular use and 5 measures that were preferred for regular use in most clinic settings.

, 23 for the Questionnaires in Standard Monitoring of Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Group Objective. To compare the performance of different definitions of remission in a large multinational cross-sectional cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods. The Questionnaires in Standard Monitoring of Patients with RA (QUEST-RA) database, which (as of January 2008) included 5,848 patients receiving usual care at 67 sites in 24 countries, was used for this study. Patients were clinically assessed by rheumatologists and completed a 4-page self-report questionnaire. The database was analyzed according to the following definitions of remission: American College of Rheumatology (ACR) definition, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), clinical remission assessed using 42 and 28 joints (Clin42 and Clin28), patient self-report Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3), and physician report of no disease activity (MD remission). Results. The overall remission rate was lowest

A RAPID3 'patient-only' index, without a joint count or any measure from a health professional or laboratory, distinguishes active from control treatments in two abatacept clinical trials, at levels similar to DAS28 and to other RAPID-based indices that add physician-reported measures.