Faculty Bibliography

A proposed approach is presented to recognise a status of 'near-remission' in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on the basis of patient self-report questionnaire data without formal joint counts or laboratory tests. Indices of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures distinguish active from control treatments in RA clinical trials at levels similar to American College of Rheumatology (ACR) or disease activity score (DAS) 28 improvement levels. PRO measures on a multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ) can be compiled into a routine assessment of patient index data (RAPID) score. RAPID 3 includes the three PRO measures from the ACR Core Data Set - physical function, pain, and global estimate. RAPID 4 adds a self-report joint count from a rheumatoid arthritis disease activity index (RADAI). RAPID 5 adds a physician estimate of global status. RAPID cores may be classified into four preliminary proposed categories, as 'near-remission' (0-1), 'low severity' (1.01-2), 'moderate severity' (2.01-4), and 'high severity' (> 4), analogous to the four categories of the DAS28 of 'remission' (< 2.6), as well as 'low' (2.6-3.19), 'moderate' (3.2-5.1), and 'high' (> 5.1) disease activity. RAPID scores are correlated significantly with DAS28 (rho = 0.64-0.67, p < 0.001), and about 75% of patients with DAS < 2.6 have RAPID scores < 2, while about 75% of patients with DAS > 5.1 have RAPID scores > 4. RAPID data are available on one side of one page, and are feasible to collect in standard clinical care. RAPID 3 scores may be calculated in about 10 seconds, and RAPID 4 and RAPID 5 scores in 20 to 30 seconds. RAPID scores every 3 months or more on simple flowsheets can be a basis for a 'continuous quality improvement' strategy in standard clinical care to recognise a need for aggressive therapy, an inadequate response to a therapy, and 'near- remission' status

The purpose of this report is to provide suggested guidance concerning the monitoring of TNF blocker therapy. Since the completion of randomized trials, several new long-term safety concerns have arisen, involving mycobacterial and opportunistic infections, cytopenias, lymphoma, demyelinating disease, drug-induced lupus, congestive heart failure and hepatotoxicity. Since these serious events are rare, widespread post-marketing use and prolonged follow-up have been required to analyze their prevalence. Monitoring of TNF inhibitors is necessary to reassure physicians and patients of the continued efficacy and safety of these drugs. No published recommendations on monitoring are available. The clinician must weigh the potential clinical benefits of TNF inhibition against potential adverse effects. Patients should be evaluated carefully for the risk or presence of infection, tuberculosis and other serious adverse events by regular visits, careful clinical assessments, and an assiduous, high index of suspicion for these rare events. Tuberculin skin testing using PPD is recommended before starting treatment with any TNF inhibitor.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the proportion of patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria widely used in most clinical trials for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)--including the recent clinical trials of anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor alpha (TNFalpha) agents--in a Turkish cohort. METHODS: 186 consecutive RA patients attending a routine tertiary rheumatology clinic were evaluated in 2 groups: Early RA group (group E): 31 patients with a disease duration of < or = 3 years (mean: 1.9 +/- 0.9 years); late RA group (group L): 155 patients with a disease duration of > 3 years (mean: 13.3 +/- 8.6 years). Patients were evaluated according to 2 different sets of inclusion criteria: (i) The widely used common inclusion criteria for RA clinical studies, as outlined by Sokka and Pincus; (ii) the criteria of two major anti-TNF clinical studies, ERA and ATTRACT. RESULTS: No patients in group E, and 9 (6%) patients in group L fulfilled the common criteria used in clinical studies for RA. In group E, 28 patients had already been started on methotrexate; 2 patients were on sulphasalazine and one patient was on leflunomide. Nevertheless, even if the criterion for previous use of methotrexate was not applied patients did not fulfill the rest of the criteria of ERA study. In group L, 9 out of 155 patients (6%) met the criteria for the ATTRACT study. CONCLUSION: Only few patients met the widely used inclusion criteria for most RA clinical trials and the recent clinical trials of TNFalpha agents in this Turkish cohort. This may be explained by the milder disease activity in this geographical region, which further emphasizes the need to consider development of new criteria for inclusion in clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of liver function tests (LFT) abnormalities associated with methotrexate (MTX) use in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: A retrospective chart review for demographic information, RA-specific history, medication history, complications of therapy, results of all available blood tests (specifically aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), complete blood count (CBC), albumin, creatinine), and liver biopsy reports was conducted for RA patients, who were currently using or have used MTX in the past. RESULTS: A total of 2791 LFTs were performed among 182 RA patients with 94 abnormal results. 152 patients (83.5%) with 2007 LFT evaluations demonstrated no abnormal results, compared with 30 patients (16.5%) who had at least one abnormal LFT in 784 tests. Twenty-two of the 30 patients with at least one LFT abnormality (73.3%) continued treatment despite the elevation without further evaluation or change in therapy, and subsequent LFT assessments were within normal limits. 128 patients (70.3%) remained on MTX at the time of our study. The most common reason for discontinuation was inadequate response. CONCLUSIONS: MTX appears to be associated with very few clinically significant hepatic side effects. In view of these data, consideration as to revision of the current MTX monitoring guidelines in the direction of less frequent monitoring, especially in patients with no risk factors for liver disease, may be considered.