Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectivesTo characterise peripheral musculoskeletal involvement in patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA) including psoriatic arthritis (PsA), across the world.MethodsCross-sectional study with 24 participating countries. Patients with a diagnosis of axial SpA (axSpA), peripheral SpA (pSpA) or PsA according to their rheumatologist were included. The investigators were asked which diagnosis out of a list of six (axSpA, PsA, pSpA, inflammatory bowel disease-associated SpA, reactive arthritis or juvenile SpA (Juv-SpA)) fitted the patient best. Peripheral manifestations (ie, peripheral joint disease, enthesitis, dactylitis and root joint disease), their localisation and treatments were evaluated.ResultsA total of 4465 patients were included (61% men, mean age 44.5 years) from four geographic areas: Latin America (n=538), Europe plus North America (n=1677), Asia (n=975) and the Middle East plus North Africa (n=1275). Of those, 78% had ever suffered from at least one peripheral musculoskeletal manifestation; 57% had peripheral joint disease, 44% had enthesitis and 15% had dactylitis. Latin American had far more often peripheral joint disease (80%) than patients from other areas. Patients with PsA had predominantly upper limb and small joint involvement (52%).Hip and shoulder involvement was found in 34% of patients. The prevalence of enthesitis ranged between 41% in patients with axSpA and 65% in patients with Juv-SpA. Dactylitis was most frequent among patients with PsA (37%).ConclusionThese results suggest that all peripheral features can be found in all subtypes of SpA, and that differences are quantitative rather than qualitative. In a high proportion of patients, axial and peripheral manifestations coincided. These findings reconfirm SpA clinical subtypes are descendants of the same underlying disease, called SpA.

Objectives To assess (A) determinants of patient's global assessment of disease activity (PTGL) and patient's assessment of general health (GH) scores of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients; (B) whether they are equivalent as individual variables; and (C) whether they may be used interchangeably in calculating common RA activity assessment composite indices. Methods Data of 7023 patients from 30 countries in the Quantitative Standard Monitoring of Patients with RA (QUEST-RA) was analysed. PTGL and GH determinants were assessed by mixed-effects analyses of covariance models. PTGL and GH equivalence was determined by Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement (BALOA) and Lin's coefficient of concordance (LCC). Concordance between PTGL and GH based Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) indices were calculated using LCC, and the level of agreement in classifying RA activity in four states (remission, low, moderate, high) using κ statistics. Results Significant differences in relative and absolute contribution of RA and non-RA related variables in PTGL and GH ratings were noted. LCC of 0.64 and BALOA of −4.41 to 4.54 showed that PTGL and GH are not equivalent. There was excellent concordance (LCC 0.95–0.99) for PTGL and GH based DAS28, CDAI and RAPID3 indices, and >80% absolute agreement (κ statistics 0.75–0.84) in RA activity state classification for all three indices. Conclusions PTGL and GH ratings differ in their determinants. Although they are individually not equivalent, they may be used interchangeably for calculating composite indices for RA activity assessment.

To update and integrate the recommendations for ankylosing spondylitis and the recommendations for the use of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) into one set applicable to the full spectrum of patients with axSpA. Following the latest version of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Standardised Operating Procedures, two systematic literature reviews first collected the evidence regarding all treatment options (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) that were published since 2009. After a discussion of the results in the steering group and presentation to the task force, overarching principles and recommendations were formulated, and consensus was obtained by informal voting. A total of 5 overarching principles and 13 recommendations were agreed on. The first three recommendations deal with personalised medicine including treatment target and monitoring. Recommendation 4 covers non-pharmacological management. Recommendation 5 describes the central role of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as first-choice drug treatment. Recommendations 6–8 define the rather modest role of analgesics, and disprove glucocorticoids and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for axSpA patents with predominant axial involvement. Recommendation 9 refers to biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) including TNFi and IL-17 inhibitors (IL-17i) for patients with high disease activity despite the use (or intolerance/contraindication) of at least two NSAIDs. In addition, they should either have an elevated C reactive protein and/or definite inflammation on MRI and/or radiographic evidence of sacroiliitis. Current practice is to start with a TNFi. Switching to another TNFi or an IL-17i is recommended in case TNFi fails (recommendation 10). Tapering, but not stopping a bDMARD, can be considered in patients in sustained remission (recommendation 11). The final two recommendations (12, 13) deal with surgery and spinal fractures. The 2016 Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society-EULAR recommendations provide up-to-date guidance on the management of patients with axSpA.

ObjectivesTo update the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS)-EULAR recommendations for the management of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).MethodsFollowing the EULAR Standardised Operating Procedures, two systematic literature reviews were conducted on non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment of axSpA. In a task force meeting, the evidence was presented, discussed, and overarching principles and recommendations were updated, followed by voting.ResultsFive overarching principles and 15 recommendations with a focus on personalised medicine were agreed: eight remained unchanged from the previous recommendations; three with minor edits on nomenclature; two with relevant updates (#9, 12); two newly formulated (#10, 11). The first five recommendations focus on treatment target and monitoring, non-pharmacological management and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as first-choice pharmacological treatment. Recommendations 6–8 deal with analgesics and discourage long-term glucocorticoids and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for pure axial involvement. Recommendation 9 describes the indication of biological DMARDs (bDMARDs, that is, tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i)) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs, ie, Janus kinase inhibitors) for patients who have Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score ≥2.1 and failed ≥2 NSAIDs and also have either elevated C reactive protein, MRI inflammation of sacroiliac joints or radiographic sacroiliitis. Current practice is to start a TNFi or IL-17i. Recommendation 10 addresses extramusculoskeletal manifestations with TNF monoclonal antibodies preferred for recurrent uveitis or inflammatory bowel disease, and IL-17i for significant psoriasis. Treatment failure should prompt re-evaluation of the diagnosis and consideration of the presence of comorbidities (#11). If active axSpA is confirmed, switching to another b/tsDMARD is recommended (#12). Tapering, rather than immediate discontinuation of a bDMARD, can be considered in patients in sustained remission (#13). The last recommendations (#14, 15) deal with surgery and spinal fractures.ConclusionsThe 2022 ASAS-EULAR recommendations provide up-to-date guidance on the management of patients with axSpA.

Objective To determine which of two referral strategies, when used by referring physicians for patients with chronic back pain (CBP), is superior for diagnosing axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) by rheumatologists across several countries. Methods Primary care referral sites in 16 countries were randomised (1 : 1) to refer patients with CBP lasting >3 months and onset before age 45 years to a rheumatologist using either strategy 1 (any of inflammatory back pain (IBP), HLA-B27 or sacroiliitis on imaging) or strategy 2 (two of the following: IBP, HLA-B27, sacroiliitis, family history of axial SpA, good response to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, extra-articular manifestations). The rheumatologist established the diagnosis. The primary analysis compared the proportion of patients diagnosed with definite axial SpA by referral strategy. Results Patients (N=1072) were referred by 278 sites to 64 rheumatologists: 504 patients by strategy 1 and 568 patients by strategy 2. Axial SpA was diagnosed in 35.6% and 39.8% of patients referred by these respective strategies (between-group difference 4.40%; 95% CI −7.09% to 15.89%; p=0.447). IBP was the most frequently used referral criterion (94.7% of cases), showing high concordance (85.4%) with rheumatologists' assessments, and having sensitivity and a negative predictive value of >85% but a positive predictive value and specificity of <50%. Combining IBP with other criteria (eg, sacroiliitis, HLA-B27) increased the likelihood for diagnosing axial SpA. Conclusions A referral strategy based on three criteria leads to a diagnosis of axial SpA in approximately 35% of patients with CBP and is applicable across countries and geographical locales with presumably different levels of expertise in axial SpA.

Background The outcome of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) should be determined early. Rapid radiological progression (RRP) is > or = 5 units increase according to the van der Heijde-Sharp score within a year. The risk of RRP can be estimated by a matrix model using non-radiographic indicators, such as C-reactive protein (CRP), rheumatoid factor (RF) and swollen joint count (SJC). Patients and methods A non-interventional, cross-sectional, retrospective study was conducted in eleven Hungarian arthritis centres. We assessed RRP risk in biologic-naïve RA patients with the prevalence of high RRP risk as primary endpoint. RRP was calculated according to this matrix model. As a secondary endpoint, we compared RRP in methotrexate (MTX) responders vs non-responders. Results We analyzed data from 1356 patients. Mean CRP was 17.7 mg/l, RF was 139.3 IU/ml, mean 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28) was 5.00 and mean SJC was 6.56. Altogether 18.2% of patients had high risk (≥40%) of RRP. RA patients with high RRP risk of RRP ( n  = 247) had significantly lower age compared to those with RRP < 40% ( n  = 1109). MTX non-response (OR: 16.84), male gender (OR: 1.67), erosions at baseline (OR: 1.50) and ACPA seropositivity (OR: 2.18) were independent predictors of high-risk RRP. Male gender (OR: 5.20), ACPA seropositivity (OR: 4.67) and erosions (OR: 7.98) were independent predictors of high RRP risk in MTX responders. Conclusions In this Hungarian study, high RRP risk occurred in 18% of RA patients. These patients differ from others in various parameters. RRP was associated with non-response to MTX.

Beta-endorphin (betaE) is an important reliever of pain. Various stressors and certain modalities of physiotherapy are potent inducers of the release of endogenous betaE to the blood stream. Most forms of exercise also increase blood betaE level, especially when exercise intensity involves reaching the anaerobic threshold and is associated with the elevation of serum lactate level. Age, gender, and mental activity during exercise also may influence betaE levels. Publications on the potential stimulating effect of manual therapy and massage on betaE release are controversial. Sauna, mud bath, and thermal water increase betaE levels through conveying heat to the tissues. The majority of the techniques for electrical stimulation have a similar effect, which is exerted both centrally and--to a lesser extent--peripherally. However, the parameters of electrotherapy have not yet been standardised. The efficacy of analgesia and the improvement of general well-being do not necessarily correlate with betaE level. Although in addition to blood, increased brain and cerebrospinal fluid betaE levels are also associated with pain, the majority of studies have concerned blood betaE levels. In general, various modalities of physical therapy might influence endorphin levels in the serum or in the cerebrospinal fluid--this is usually manifested by elevation with potential mitigation of pain. However, a causal relationship between the elevation of blood, cerebrospinal fluid or brain betaE levels and the onset of the analgesic action cannot be demonstrated with certainty.

To identify clusters of peripheral involvement according to the specific location of peripheral manifestations (ie, arthritis, enthesitis and dactylitis) in patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA) including psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and to evaluate whether these clusters correspond with the clinical diagnosis of a rheumatologist. Cross-sectional study with 24 participating countries. Consecutive patients diagnosed by their rheumatologist as PsA, axial SpA or peripheral SpA were enrolled. Four different cluster analyses were conducted: one using information on the specific location from all the peripheral manifestations, and a cluster analysis for each peripheral manifestation, separately. Multiple correspondence analyses and k-means clustering methods were used. Distribution of peripheral manifestations and clinical characteristics were compared across the different clusters. The different cluster analyses performed in the 4465 patients clearly distinguished a predominantly axial phenotype (cluster 1) and a predominantly peripheral phenotype (cluster 2). In the predominantly axial phenotype, hip involvement and lower limb large joint arthritis, heel enthesitis and lack of dactylitis were more prevalent. In the predominantly peripheral phenotype, different subgroups were distinguished based on the type and location of peripheral involvement: a predominantly involvement of upper versus lower limbs joints, a predominantly axial enthesitis versus peripheral enthesitis, and predominantly finger versus toe involvement in dactylitis. A poor agreement between the clusters and the rheumatologist's diagnosis as well as with the classification criteria was found. These results suggest the presence of two main phenotypes (predominantly axial and predominantly peripheral) based on the presence and location of the peripheral manifestations.

Abstract Objectives The aim of the SIMPACT study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MTX-free s.c. tocilizumab (TCZ) therapy in RA patients. Methods SIMPACT was an open-label, non-controlled, non-randomized, non-interventional study, in which RA patients for whom the treating physicians ordered s.c. TCZ were observed during a 24-week treatment period in Hungarian centres. Although the use of MTX was avoided during the study period, other conventional synthetic DMARDs, oral CSs and NSAIDs were allowed. Study endpoints included the change in DAS28 and clinical activity index (CDAI) scores, the proportion of patients achieving remission in the whole population and in subgroups defined based on prior RA treatment history, and age, weight or biological sex post hoc. The extent of supplementary medication use was monitored. Results Three hundred and thirty-seven RA patients were enrolled in 18 study centres. TCZ therapy significantly decreased the disease activity measured by both DAS28 (P = 0.0001) and CDAI (P = 0.0001). Clinical response was more pronounced in biologic-naïve patients and was lower in patients >75 years of age. In the whole population, DAS28 ESR or CRP and CDAI remission rates were 70.10%, 78.95% and 33.59%, respectively. In patients <45 years of age, the CDAI remission rate doubled (67.86%). A significant decrease in the frequency of co-administered medication was reported, including oral CSs and DMARDs. Conclusion Real-world clinical evidence on s.c. TCZ reported here is in line with the efficacy outcomes of randomized clinical trials. Subgroup analysis revealed that TCZ was more effective in biologic-naïve patients and in those <75 years old. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02402686.

To investigate that a 6-month treatment with avocado soybean unsaponifiable (Piascledine® 300 mg) once daily is as effective as with chondroitin sulfate 400 mg three times daily in femorotibial gonarthrosis, and also the carry-over effect for two more months is comparable. Patients were randomized (1:1) to the treatment groups. They received for 6 months 3 capsules chondroitin sulfate per day or one capsule of avocado soybean unsaponifiable (ASU) in a double-dummy technique. A 2-month post-treatment period followed to determine the carry-over effect. Primary efficacy criterion was the change of the WOMAC-index from study begin to end of treatment. Secondary criteria were the changes in Lequesne-index, pain on active movement and at rest, global assessment of efficacy. Three hundred sixty-four patients have been taken up into the trial. Three hundred sixty one patients were eligible for evaluation. One hundred eighty three received ASU 300 mg once daily, one hundred seventy eight chondroitin sulfate three times daily. The WOMAC-index decreased in both groups for approx. 50% to the end of therapy. During the post-treatment observation there was a further slight improvement. There was no statistical significant difference between the treatment groups during the entire observation. All other observed parameters showed the same pattern. The daily intake of rescue medication was reduced continuously. Overall efficacy has been rated excellent and good in more than 80% of the patients in both groups. Both drugs were safe and well tolerated. The first direct comparison between avocado soybean unsaponifiable 300 mg once daily and chondroitin sulfate three times daily reveiled no difference in efficacy or safety aspects between 1 capsule ASU 300 mg per day and 3 capsules chondroitin sulfate per day. It can be assumed that the once daily intake of ASU will lead to a better compliance in routine therapy.