搜索结果：Clinical rheumatology

OBJECTIVE: The OMERACT Drug Safety Working Group focuses on standardization of assessment and reporting of adverse events in clinical trials and longitudinal and observational studies in rheumatology. This group developed the Rheumatology Common Toxicity Criteria (RCTC) in 1999, building on the Oncology Common Toxicity Criteria. At OMERACT 8, a workshop group reviewed the use of the RCTC and other instruments in rheumatology clinical trials to date, to revise and to stimulate its implementation. METHODS: The Working Group drafted a revision of the RCTC after an iterative examination of its contents, terms, and definitions. The RCTC were compared with the Oncology Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC v.2.0), and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v.3.0). In addition a pharmaceutical company focus group met to clarify the challenges of application of RCTC terms and definitions, relative to the standard in pharmaceutical clinical trials, i.e., verbatim recording of adverse events followed by mapping to Medical Dictionary of Drug Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) terms. The workshop focused on the proposed revision of RCTC to version 2.0 and on the research agenda, including a validation of the RCTC in future trials. RESULTS: At OMERACT 8, breakout groups amended the contents of the 4 current and 2 new categories of adverse event terms within the draft RCTC v.2.0. Participants recognized the need to standardize the definitions for disease flares, infection, malignancy, and certain syndromes such as drug hypersensitivity and infusion reactions. Moderate consensus (62%) was reached in the final plenary session that the amended RCTC v.2.0 should be promulgated and tested in available trials of anti-tumor necrosis factor agents. CONCLUSION: The RCTC has face validity and construct validity. However, documentation of discrimination and feasibility (the other elements of the OMERACT filter) is needed. Collaboration with drug safety working groups in rheumatology professional organizations is necessary to enable this project.

The WHO/ILAR core set of endpoints for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials signifies progress in a continuing worldwide effort. This core set includes the following measures: pain, patient global assessment, physical disability, swollen joints, tender joints, acute phase reactants, and physician global assessment; in studies of one or more years' duration, radiographs of joints should be performed.

暂无摘要（点击查看原文获取完整内容）

OBJECTIVE: To describe the character and composition of the 2015 US adult rheumatology workforce, evaluate workforce trends, and project supply and demand for clinical rheumatology care for 2015-2030. METHODS: The 2015 Workforce Study of Rheumatology Specialists in the US used primary and secondary data sources to estimate the baseline adult rheumatology workforce and determine demographic and geographic factors relevant to workforce modeling. Supply and demand was projected through 2030, utilizing data-driven estimations regarding the proportion and clinical full-time equivalent (FTE) of academic versus nonacademic practitioners. RESULTS: The 2015 adult workforce (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) was estimated to be 6,013 providers (5,415 clinical FTE). At baseline, the estimated demand exceeded the supply of clinical FTE by 700 (12.9%). By 2030, the supply of rheumatology clinical providers is projected to fall to 4,882 providers, or 4,051 clinical FTE (a 25.2% decrease in supply from 2015 baseline levels). Demand in 2030 is projected to exceed supply by 4,133 clinical FTE (102%). CONCLUSION: The adult rheumatology workforce projections reflect a major demographic and geographic shift that will significantly impact the supply of the future workforce by 2030. These shifts include baby-boomer retirements, a millennial predominance, and an increase of female and part-time providers, in parallel with an increased demand for adult rheumatology care due to the growing and aging US population. Regional and innovative strategies will be necessary to manage access to care and reduce barriers to care for rheumatology patients.

Rheumatologists remain divided on whether they should introduce musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) into their clinical practice. A central issue in the application of MSUS in clinical rheumatology is the need for proof of clinical relevance and improved patient care. There is now accumulating evidence that MSUS improves clinical diagnosis and intervention skills. High-resolution ultrasound is superior to clinical examination in the diagnosis and localization of joint and bursal effusion and synovitis. MSUS is the imaging modality of choice for the diagnosis of tendon pathology. MSUS is seven times more sensitive than plain radiography in the detection of rheumatoid erosions, allowing earlier diagnosis of progressive rheumatoid arthritis. Ligament, muscle, peripheral nerve and cartilage pathology can also be readily demonstrated by MSUS. There is exciting evidence that MSUS may potentially be used by rheumatologists to non-invasively diagnose and monitor not just joint and muscle disease but also nerve compression syndromes, scleroderma, vasculitis and Sjögren's syndrome. Joint aspiration and injection accuracy can be improved by MSUS, with initial evidence confirming improved efficacy. As the number of rheumatologists performing MSUS increases and the technical capabilities of MSUS improve, there is likely to be a growing number of proven clinical indications for the application of MSUS in rheumatology practice. This paper reviews the evidence for the application of MSUS in rheumatology.

OBJECTIVE: The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria for fibromyalgia are the de facto criteria used for research. However, ACR criteria are not generally utilized by nonrheumatologists, and rheumatologists may diagnose fibromyalgia in patients who do not satisfy the ACR criteria. We undertook this study to determine concordance between ACR criteria and clinician diagnosis and between proposed survey criteria and clinician diagnosis. METHODS: Consecutive patients in a clinical practice setting were evaluated by tender point examination, survey criteria for fibromyalgia (Regional Pain Scale score > or =8 and fatigue score > or =6), and clinical diagnosis. RESULTS: Among the 206 patients, the clinician diagnosed fibromyalgia in 49.0%, while 29.1% satisfied ACR criteria and 40.3% satisfied survey criteria. Clinical and survey criteria were concordant in 74.8% of cases (kappa = 0.49 [95% confidence interval 0.36, 0.60]). Clinical criteria and ACR criteria were concordant in 75.2% of cases (kappa = 0.50 [95% confidence interval 0.35, 0.59]), and survey criteria and ACR criteria were concordant in 72.3% (kappa = 0.40 [95% confidence interval 0.25, 0.51]). The ACR tender point criterion (> or =11) was not a factor in clinical and survey criteria. However, the tender point count was useful in clinical diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Clinical diagnosis and ACR and survey criteria are moderately concordant (72-75%) and address a common pool of symptoms and physical findings. Because there is no gold standard for fibromyalgia diagnosis and because fibromyalgia is often viewed as a trait diagnosis, all methods of diagnosis have utility. The survey method has the advantage that it does not require physical examination.

OBJECTIVE: Although the systematic measurement of disease activity facilitates clinical decision making in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), no recommendations currently exist on which measures should be applied in clinical practice in the US. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) convened a Working Group (WG) to comprehensively evaluate the validity, feasibility, and acceptability of available RA disease activity measures and derive recommendations for their use in clinical practice. METHODS: The Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Disease Activity Measures Working Group conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify RA disease activity measures. Using exclusion criteria, input from an Expert Advisory Panel (EAP), and psychometric analysis, a list of potential measures was created. A survey was administered to rheumatologists soliciting input. The WG used these survey results in conjunction with the psychometric analyses to derive final recommendations. RESULTS: Systematic review of the literature resulted in identification of 63 RA disease activity measures. Application of exclusion criteria and ratings by the EAP narrowed the list to 14 measures for further evaluation. Practicing rheumatologists rated 9 of these 14 measures as most useful and feasible. From these 9 measures, the WG selected 6 with the best psychometric properties for inclusion in the final set of ACR-recommended RA disease activity measures. CONCLUSION: We recommend the Clinical Disease Activity Index, Disease Activity Score with 28-joint counts (erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein), Patient Activity Scale (PAS), PAS-II, Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data with 3 measures, and Simplified Disease Activity Index because they are accurate reflections of disease activity; are sensitive to change; discriminate well between low, moderate, and high disease activity states; have remission criteria; and are feasible to perform in clinical settings.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a set of disease activity measures for use in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) clinical trials, as well as to recommend specific methods for assessing each outcome measure. This is not intended to be a restrictive list, but rather, a core set of measures that should be included in all trials. METHODS: We evaluated disease activity measures commonly used in RA trials, to determine which measures best met each of 5 types of validity: construct, face, content, criterion, and discriminant. The evaluation consisted of an initial structured review of the literature on the validity of measures, with an analysis of data obtained from clinical trials to fill in gaps in this literature. A committee of experts in clinical trials, health services research, and biostatistics reviewed the validity data. A nominal group process method was used to reach consensus on a core set of disease activity measures. This set was then reviewed and finalized at an international conference on outcome measures for RA clinical trials. The committee also selected specific ways to assess each outcome. RESULTS: The core set of disease activity measures consists of a tender joint count, swollen joint count, patient's assessment of pain, patient's and physician's global assessments of disease activity, patient's assessment of physical function, and laboratory evaluation of 1 acute-phase reactant. Together, these measures sample the broad range of improvement in RA (have content validity), and all are at least moderately sensitive to change (have discriminant validity). Many of them predict other important long-term outcomes in RA, including physical disability, radiographic damage, and death. Other disease activity measures frequently used in clinical trials were not chosen for any one of several reasons, including insensitivity to change or duplication of information provided by one of the core measures (e.g., tender joint score and tender joint count). The committee also proposes specific ways of measuring each outcome. CONCLUSION: We propose a core set of outcome measures for RA clinical trials. We hope this will decrease the number of outcomes assessed and standardize outcomes assessments. Further, we hope that these measures will be found useful in long-term studies.

OBJECTIVE: Remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an increasingly attainable goal, but there is no widely used definition of remission that is stringent but achievable and could be applied uniformly as an outcome measure in clinical trials. This work was undertaken to develop such a definition. METHODS: A committee consisting of members of the American College of Rheumatology, the European League Against Rheumatism, and the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Initiative met to guide the process and review prespecified analyses from RA clinical trials. The committee requested a stringent definition (little, if any, active disease) and decided to use core set measures including, as a minimum, joint counts and levels of an acute-phase reactant to define remission. Members were surveyed to select the level of each core set measure that would be consistent with remission. Candidate definitions of remission were tested, including those that constituted a number of individual measures of remission (Boolean approach) as well as definitions using disease activity indexes. To select a definition of remission, trial data were analyzed to examine the added contribution of patient-reported outcomes and the ability of candidate measures to predict later good radiographic and functional outcomes. RESULTS: Survey results for the definition of remission suggested indexes at published thresholds and a count of core set measures, with each measure scored as 1 or less (e.g., tender and swollen joint counts, C-reactive protein [CRP] level, and global assessments on a 0-10 scale). Analyses suggested the need to include a patient-reported measure. Examination of 2-year followup data suggested that many candidate definitions performed comparably in terms of predicting later good radiographic and functional outcomes, although 28-joint Disease Activity Score-based measures of remission did not predict good radiographic outcomes as well as the other candidate definitions did. Given these and other considerations, we propose that a patient's RA can be defined as being in remission based on one of two definitions: (a) when scores on the tender joint count, swollen joint count, CRP (in mg/dl), and patient global assessment (0-10 scale) are all ≤ 1, or (b) when the score on the Simplified Disease Activity Index is ≤ 3.3. CONCLUSION: We propose two new definitions of remission, both of which can be uniformly applied and widely used in RA clinical trials. We recommend that one of these be selected as an outcome measure in each trial and that the results on both be reported for each trial.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance on the management of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a condition characterized by fever, inflammation, and multiorgan dysfunction that manifests late in the course of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, and to provide recommendations for children with hyperinflammation during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the acute, infectious phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: A multidisciplinary task force was convened by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) to provide guidance on the management of MIS-C associated with SARS-CoV-2 and hyperinflammation in COVID-19. The task force was composed of 9 pediatric rheumatologists, 2 adult rheumatologists, 2 pediatric cardiologists, 2 pediatric infectious disease specialists, and 1 pediatric critical care physician. Preliminary statements addressing clinical questions related to MIS-C and hyperinflammation in COVID-19 were developed based on evidence reports. Consensus was built through a modified Delphi process that involved 2 rounds of anonymous voting and 2 webinars. A 9-point scale was used to determine the appropriateness of each statement (median scores of 1-3 for inappropriate, 4-6 for uncertain, and 7-9 for appropriate), and consensus was rated as low, moderate, or high based on dispersion of the votes along the numeric scale. Approved guidance statements were those that were classified as appropriate with moderate or high levels of consensus, as prespecified prior to voting. RESULTS: The ACR task force approved a total of 128 guidance statements addressing the management of MIS-C and hyperinflammation in pediatric COVID-19. These statements were refined into 40 final clinical guidance statements, accompanied by a flow diagram depicting the diagnostic pathway for MIS-C. CONCLUSION: Our understanding of SARS-CoV-2-related syndromes in the pediatric population continues to evolve. The guidance provided in this "living document" reflects currently available evidence, coupled with expert opinion, and will be revised as further evidence becomes available.

OBJECTIVE: New classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) have been validated by the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) working group. We applied these criteria to estimate prevalence of SpA in randomly selected, retrospectively reviewed medical records from representative US rheumatology practices. METHODS: Rheumatologists from 101 US practices identified at-risk patients, ages 18-44 years, with chronic back pain. Medical records were reviewed against ASAS criteria. The proportion of patients meeting ASAS criteria was compared to an estimate of the total number of at-risk patients treated at participating sites and, following weighting, was extrapolated to 5,520 US rheumatology practices. US Census data were used to estimate national prevalence. RESULTS: In a sample of 816 randomly selected records, 514 (63%) at-risk patients (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 59.6-66.3%) met ASAS criteria. By applying this proportion to 1,217,097 Americans estimated at risk, 766,652 were projected to meet ASAS criteria. This projection corresponds to a national prevalence of 0.70% (95% CI 0.38-1.1%) or 701 per 100,000 individuals. The prevalence estimates of ankylosing spondylitis and nonradiographic axial SpA are 0.35% (95% CI 0.18-0.554%) and 0.35% (95% CI 0.18-0.554%), respectively. Rheumatologists diagnosed axial SpA in 491 (60%) of those at risk, corresponding to 0.67% (95% CI 0.36-1.01%) prevalence overall. However, of 514 patients meeting ASAS criteria, 124 (24%) were undiagnosed by rheumatologists. CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic epidemiology study of axial SpA using ASAS criteria. Better recognition of axial symptoms is needed, as rheumatologists' expert clinical diagnoses are not always in agreement with ASAS criteria.

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively validate the preliminary criteria for clinical inactive disease (CID) in patients with select categories of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). METHODS: We used the process for development of classification and response criteria recommended by the American College of Rheumatology Quality of Care Committee. Patient-visit profiles were extracted from the phase III randomized controlled trial of infliximab in polyarticular-course JIA (i.e., patients considered to resemble those with select categories of JIA) and sent to an international group of expert physician raters. Using the physician ratings as the gold standard, the sensitivity and specificity were calculated using the preliminary criteria. Modifications to the criteria were made, and these were sent to a larger group of pediatric rheumatologists to determine quantitative, face, and content validity. RESULTS: Variables weighted heaviest by physicians when making their judgment were the number of joints with active arthritis, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), physician's global assessment, and duration of morning stiffness. Three modifications were made: the definition of uveitis, the definition of abnormal ESR, and the addition of morning stiffness. These changes did not alter the accuracy of the preliminary set. CONCLUSION: The modified criteria, termed the "criteria for CID in select categories of JIA," have excellent feasibility and face, content, criterion, and discriminant validity to detect CID in select categories of JIA. The small changes made to the preliminary criteria set did not alter the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.954) or accuracy (91%), but have increased face and content validity.

Clinical criteria for the classification of patients with hip pain associated with osteoarthritis (OA) were developed through a multicenter study. Data from 201 patients who had experienced hip pain for most days of the prior month were analyzed. The comparison group of patients had other causes of hip pain, such as rheumatoid arthritis or spondylarthropathy. Variables from the medical history, physical examination, laboratory tests, and radiographs were used to develop different sets of criteria to serve different investigative purposes. Multivariate methods included the traditional "number of criteria present" format and "classification tree" techniques. Clinical criteria: A classification tree was developed, without radiographs, for clinical and laboratory criteria or for clinical criteria alone. A patient was classified as having hip OA if pain was present in combination with either 1) hip internal rotation greater than or equal to 15 degrees, pain present on internal rotation of the hip, morning stiffness of the hip for less than or equal to 60 minutes, and age greater than 50 years, or 2) hip internal rotation less than 15 degrees and an erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) less than or equal to 45 mm/hour; if no ESR was obtained, hip flexion less than or equal to 115 degrees was substituted (sensitivity 86%; specificity 75%). Clinical plus radiographic criteria: The traditional format combined pain with at least 2 of the following 3 criteria: osteophytes (femoral or acetabular), joint space narrowing (superior, axial, and/or medial), and ESR less than 20 mm/hour (sensitivity 89%; specificity 91%). The radiographic presence of osteophytes best separated OA patients and controls by the classification tree method (sensitivity 89%; specificity 91%). The "number of criteria present" format yielded criteria and levels of sensitivity and specificity similar to those of the classification tree for the combined clinical and radiographic criteria set. For the clinical criteria set, the classification tree provided much greater specificity. The value of the radiographic presence of an osteophyte in separating patients with OA of the hip from those with hip pain of other causes is emphasized.

This evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of Lyme disease was developed by a multidisciplinary panel representing the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). The scope of this guideline includes prevention of Lyme disease, and the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease presenting as erythema migrans, Lyme disease complicated by neurologic, cardiac, and rheumatologic manifestations, Eurasian manifestations of Lyme disease, and Lyme disease complicated by coinfection with other tick-borne pathogens. This guideline does not include comprehensive recommendations for babesiosis and tick-borne rickettsial infections, which are published in separate guidelines. The target audience for this guideline includes primary care physicians and specialists caring for this condition such as infectious diseases specialists, emergency physicians, internists, pediatricians, family physicians, neurologists, rheumatologists, cardiologists and dermatologists in North America.

OBJECTIVE: We propose new classification criteria for Sjögren's syndrome (SS), which are needed considering the emergence of biologic agents as potential treatments and their associated comorbidity. These criteria target individuals with signs/symptoms suggestive of SS. METHODS: Criteria are based on expert opinion elicited using the nominal group technique and analyses of data from the Sjögren's International Collaborative Clinical Alliance. Preliminary criteria validation included comparisons with classifications based on the American–European Consensus Group (AECG) criteria, a model-based “gold standard”obtained from latent class analysis (LCA) of data from a range of diagnostic tests, and a comparison with cases and controls collected from sources external to the population used for criteria development. RESULTS: Validation results indicate high levels of sensitivity and specificity for the criteria. Case definition requires at least 2 of the following 3: 1) positive serum anti-SSA and/or anti-SSB or (positive rheumatoid factor and antinuclear antibody titer >1:320), 2) ocular staining score >3, or 3) presence of focal lymphocytic sialadenitis with a focus score >1 focus/4 mm2 in labial salivary gland biopsy samples. Observed agreement with the AECG criteria is high when these are applied using all objective tests. However, AECG classification based on allowable substitutions of symptoms for objective tests results in poor agreement with the proposed and LCA-derived classifications. CONCLUSION: These classification criteria developed from registry data collected using standardized measures are based on objective tests. Validation indicates improved classification performance relative to existing alternatives, making them more suitable for application in situations where misclassification may present health risks.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a standardized nomenclature system for the neuropsychiatric syndromes of systemic lupus erythematosus (NPSLE). METHODS: An international, multidisciplinary committee representing rheumatology, neurology, psychiatry, neuropsychology, and hematology developed case definitions, reporting standards, and diagnostic testing recommendations. Before and after the meeting, clinician committee members assigned diagnoses to sets of vignettes randomly generated from a pool of 108 NPSLE patients. To assess whether the nomenclature system improved diagnostic agreement, a consensus index was developed and pre- and postmeeting scores were compared by t-tests. RESULTS: Case definitions including diagnostic criteria, important exclusions, and methods of ascertainment were developed for 19 NPSLE syndromes. Recommendations for standard reporting requirements, minimum laboratory evaluation, and imaging techniques were formulated. A short neuropsychological test battery for the diagnosis of cognitive deficits was proposed. In the postmeeting exercise, a statistically significant improvement in diagnostic agreement was observed. CONCLUSION: The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Nomenclature for NPSLE provides case definitions for 19 neuropsychiatric syndromes seen in SLE, with reporting standards and recommendations for laboratory and imaging tests. It is intended to facilitate and enhance clinical research, particularly multicenter studies, and reporting. In clinical settings, consultation with other specialists may be required. It should be useful for didactic purposes but should not be used uncritically or as a substitute for a clinical diagnosis. The complete case definitions are available on the ACR World Wide Web site: http://www.rheumatology .org/ar/ar.html.

In the United States, approximately 35% of adults with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) have clinical evidence of nephritis at the time of diagnosis; with an estimated total of 50–60% developing nephritis during the first 10 years of disease [1–4]. The prevalence of nephritis is significantly higher in African Americans and Hispanics than in Caucasians, and is higher in men than in women. Renal damage is more likely to develop in non-Caucasian groups [2–4]. Overall survival in patients with SLE is approximately 95% at 5 years after diagnosis and 92% at 10 years [5, 6]. The presence of lupus nephritis significantly reduces survival, to approximately 88% at 10 years, with even lower survival in African Americans [5, 6]. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) last published guidelines for management of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in 1999 [7]. That publication was designed primarily for education of primary care physicians and recommended therapeutic and management approaches for many manifestations of SLE. Recommendations for management of lupus nephritis (LN) consisted of pulse glucocorticoids followed by high dose daily glucocorticoids in addition to an immunosuppressive medication, with cyclophosphamide viewed as the most effective immunosuppressive medication for diffuse proliferative glomerulonephritis. Mycophenolate mofetil was not yet in use for lupus nephritis and was not mentioned. Since that time, many clinical trials of glucocorticoids-plus-immunosuppressive interventions have been published, some of which are high quality prospective trials, and some not only prospective but also randomized. Thus, the ACR determined that a new set of management recommendations was in order. A combination of extensive literature review and the opinions of highly qualified experts, including rheumatologists, nephrologists and pathologists, has been used to reach the recommendations. The management strategies discussed here apply to lupus nephritis in adults, particularly to those receiving care in the United States of America, and include interventions that were available in the United States as of April 2011. While these recommendations were developed using rigorous methodology, guidelines do have inherent limitations in informing individual patient care; hence the selection of the term “recommendations.” While they should not supplant clinical judgment or limit clinical judgment, they do provide expert advice to the practicing physician managing patients with lupus nephritis.