Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: recommendations of an international task force.

Department of Internal Medicine 3, Division of Rheumatology, Medical University of Vienna,Waehringer Guertel 18-20, Vienna, Austria.
Annals of the rheumatic diseases (Impact Factor: 9.27). 03/2010; 69(4):631-7. DOI: 10.1136/ard.2009.123919
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Aiming at therapeutic targets has reduced the risk of organ failure in many diseases such as diabetes or hypertension. Such targets have not been defined for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
/st> To develop recommendations for achieving optimal therapeutic outcomes in RA.
A task force of rheumatologists and a patient developed a set of recommendations on the basis of evidence derived from a systematic literature review and expert opinion; these were subsequently discussed, amended and voted upon by >60 experts from various regions of the world in a Delphi-like procedure. Levels of evidence, strength of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived.
The treat-to-target activity resulted in 10 recommendations. The treatment aim was defined as remission with low disease activity being an alternative goal in patients with long-standing disease. Regular follow-up (every 1-3 months during active disease) with appropriate therapeutic adaptation to reach the desired state within 3 to a maximum of 6 months was recommended. Follow-up examinations ought to employ composite measures of disease activity which include joint counts. Additional items provide further details for particular aspects of the disease. Levels of agreement were very high for many of these recommendations (> or =9/10).
The 10 recommendations are supposed to inform patients, rheumatologists and other stakeholders about strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA based on evidence and expert opinion.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aims and objectives To evaluate the usability of the educational needs assessment tool in clinical practice, from a practitioner and patient perspective and to establish whether patients perceive that they are getting an equally good or equally inadequate education service for their needs. Background The educational needs assessment tool was developed to enable patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis to assess their education needs prior to a consultation with a health professional. The educational needs assessment tool has been translated into nine languages and measurement properties have been established, however, its usability in clinical practice has not been studied. Design A qualitative study embedded into a multicentre RCT in which patients had been randomised into either educational needs assessment tool-focused education (Experimental Group) or usual care (control group). Methods Both groups were seen by a clinical nurse specialist. Sixteen patients and four clinical nurse specialists were recruited from the Rheumatology Outpatient Departments of three Acute Hospitals within the U K. Data were collected by interviews with patients and clinical nurse specialist. Analysis followed the Framework approach. Results Patients and clinical nurse specialist found completion of the educational needs assessment tool straightforward, comprehensive and easy to use. Completing the educational needs assessment tool helped patients to focus on what they needed to know from the clinical nurse specialist. Patients in both the control group and the experimental group felt supported and reassured by their clinical nurse specialist and perceived that they received a good and adequate education provision. Conclusion This study provides useful insights into the ability of the educational needs assessment tool to assess the educational needs of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in routine clinical practice. Relevance to clinical practice The educational needs assessment tool would be useful as a structured guide for nurses when assessing and meeting individual patient educational needs. This has the potential to improve patient-centred care, involve patients more actively in their care and enhance the long-term effects of patient education provision.
    Journal of Clinical Nursing 11/2014; · 1.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is increased compared to the general population. Immune dysregulation and systemic inflammation are thought to be associated with this increased risk. Early diagnosis with immediate treatment and tight control of RA forms a central treatment paradigm. It remains unclear, however, whether using tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) to achieve remission confer additional beneficial effects over standard therapy, especially on the development of CVD.Methods/design: Coronary Artery Disease Evaluation in Rheumatoid Arthritis (CADERA) is a prospective cardiovascular imaging study that bolts onto an existing single-centre, randomized controlled trial, VEDERA (Very Early versus Delayed Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis). VEDERA will recruit 120 patients with early, treatment-naive RA, randomized to TNFi therapy etanercept (ETN) combined with methotrexate (MTX), or therapy with MTX with or without additional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs with escalation to ETN following a 'treat-to-target' regimen. VEDERA patients will be recruited into CADERA and undergo cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) assessment with; cine imaging, rest/stress adenosine perfusion, tissue-tagging, aortic distensibility, T1 mapping and late gadolinium imaging. Primary objectives are to detect the prevalence and change of cardiovascular abnormalities by CMR between TNFi and standard therapy over a 12-month period. All patients will enter an inflammatory arthritis registry for long-term follow-up.
    Trials 11/2014; 15(1):436. · 2.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: Various factors are known to determine the disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The ‘simplified disease activity’ index (SDAI) is new tool of measurement of disease activity. The present study was designed to assess validity of SDAI using C-reactive protein (CRP) titer in comparison to ‘disease activity score in 28 joints’ (DAS28) in Iraqi patients with active RA. Methods: Sixty nine Iraqi RA patients were included in this study. All patients were active and fulfilled the ACR (American College of Rheumatology) classification criteria. Full history was taken and complete clinical examination was done for all patients. Patients' age, sex, number of swollen joints, visual analogue scale (VAS), and evaluators’ global assessment (EGA) were documented. Laboratory analysis included erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), CRP, SDAI and DAS28 were measured to assess disease activity. Results: The results revealed direct significant correlation between SDAI and DAS28 (r = 0.903, p < 0.001), and reported a good agreement between SDAI and DAS28 (κ = 0.777, p < 0.001). SDAI was found as a valid measure for disease activity using CRP as a screening test compared to DAS28 (AUC = 0.983, p < 0.001). Conclusion: SDAI is a valid and sensitive measure for assessment of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity that is comparable with the DAS28 using semi quantitative method to estimate CRP.
    Journal of experimental and integrative medicine. 06/2012; 2(3).

Full-text (4 Sources)

Available from
May 29, 2014