ObjectiveOur objective was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the EULAR, American College of Rheumatology (ACR), and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) criteria by... Show moreObjectiveOur objective was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the EULAR, American College of Rheumatology (ACR), and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) criteria by using clinical experts' diagnosis of clinically relevant knee osteoarthritis (OA) as the outcome of interest.MethodsIn a previous study, we recruited clinical experts to evaluate longitudinal (5-, 8-, and 10-year follow-up) clinical and radiographic data of symptomatic knees from the Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee (CHECK) study for the presence or absence of clinically relevant OA. In the current study, ACR, EULAR, and NICE criteria were applied to the same 5-, 8-, and 10-year follow-up data; then a knee was diagnosed with OA if fulfilling the criteria at one of the three time points (F1), two of the time points (F2), or at all three time points (F3). Using clinically relevant OA as the reference standard, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the three criteria were assessed.ResultsA total of 539 participants for a total of 833 examined knees were included. Thirty-six percent of knees were diagnosed with clinically relevant OA by experts. Sixty-seven percent to 74% of the knees received the same diagnosis (OA or non-OA) by the three criteria sets for the different definitions (F1 to F3). EULAR consistently (F1 through F3) had the highest specificity, and NICE consistently had the highest sensitivity.ConclusionThe diagnoses only moderately overlapped among the three criteria sets. The EULAR criteria seemed to be more suitable for study enrollment (when aimed at recruiting clinically relevant OA knees), given the highest specificities. The NICE criteria, given the highest sensitivities, could be more useful for an initial diagnosis in clinical practice. Show less
Ouwerkerk, L. van; Verschueren, P.; Boers, M.; Emery, P.; Jong, P.H.P. de; Landewé, R.B.M.; ... ; Bergstra, S.A. 2023
Objectives To compare the use of glucocorticoids (GC) over time in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were or were not treated initially with GC bridging therapy.Methods Data from the BeSt... Show moreObjectives To compare the use of glucocorticoids (GC) over time in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were or were not treated initially with GC bridging therapy.Methods Data from the BeSt, CareRA and COBRA trials were combined in an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis. We compared GC use between bridgers and non-bridgers at 12, 18 and 24 months from baseline with mixed-effects regression analysis. Secondary outcomes were mean cumulative GC dose until 24 months after baseline with and without the bridging period, Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints (DAS28) over time and number of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) changes.Results 252/625 patients (40%) were randomised to GC bridging (bridgers). Excluding the period of bridging, later GC use was low in both groups and cumulative doses were similar. Mean DAS28 was similar between the groups, but bridgers improved more rapidly (p<0.001) in the first 6 months and the bridgers required significantly fewer changes in DMARDs (incidence rate ratio 0.59 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.94)). GC use was higher in the bridgers at t=12 months (OR 3.27 (95% CI 1.06 to 10.08)) and the bridging schedules resulted in a difference in cumulative GC dose of 2406 mg (95% CI 1403 to 3408) over 24 months.Conclusion In randomised trials comparing GC bridging and no GC bridging, bridgers had a more rapid clinical improvement, fewer DMARD changes and similar late use of GC compared with non-bridgers. GC bridging per protocol resulted, as could be expected, in a higher cumulative GC dose over 2 years. Show less
Almayali, A.A.H.; Boers, M.; Hartman, L.; Opris, D.; Bos, R.; Kok, M.R.; ... ; Wee, M.M. ter 2023
Objective The randomised placebo-controlled GLORIA (Glucocorticoid LOw-dose in RheumatoId Arthritis) trial evaluated the benefits and harms of prednisolone 5 mg/day added to standard care for 2... Show moreObjective The randomised placebo-controlled GLORIA (Glucocorticoid LOw-dose in RheumatoId Arthritis) trial evaluated the benefits and harms of prednisolone 5 mg/day added to standard care for 2 years in patients aged 65+ years with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Here, we studied disease activity, flares and possible adrenal insufficiency after blinded withdrawal of study medication.Methods Per protocol, patients successfully completing the 2-year trial period linearly tapered and stopped blinded study medication in 3 months. We compared changes in disease activity after taper between treatment groups (one-sided testing). Secondary outcomes (two-sided tests) comprised disease flares (DAS28 (Disease Activity Score 28 joints) increase >0.6, open-label glucocorticoids or disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) increase/switch after week 4 of tapering) and symptoms/signs of adrenal insufficiency. In a subset of patients from 3 Dutch centres, cortisol and ACTH were measured in spot serum samples after tapering.Results 191 patients were eligible; 36 met treatment-related flare criteria and were only included in the flare analysis. Mean (SD) DAS28 change at follow-up: 0.2 (1.0) in the prednisolone group (n=76) vs 0.0 (1.2) in placebo (n=79). Adjusted for baseline, the between-group difference in DAS28 increase was 0.16 (95% confidence limit –0.06, p=0.12). Flares occurred in 45% of prednisolone patients compared with 33% in placebo, relative risk (RR) 1.37 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.98; p=0.12). We found no evidence for adrenal insufficiency.Conclusions Tapering prednisolone moderately increases disease activity to the levels of the placebo group (mean still at low disease activity levels) and numerically increases the risk of flare without evidence for adrenal insufficiency. This suggests that withdrawal of low-dose prednisolone is feasible and safe after 2 years of administration. Show less
Wang, Q.K.; Runhaar, J.; Kloppenburg, M.; Boers, M.; Bijlsma, J.W.J.; Bacardit, J.; ... ; CREDO Experts Grp 2022
Objectives To identify highly ranked features related to clinicians' diagnosis of clinically relevant knee OA. Methods General practitioners (GPs) and secondary care physicians (SPs) were recruited... Show moreObjectives To identify highly ranked features related to clinicians' diagnosis of clinically relevant knee OA. Methods General practitioners (GPs) and secondary care physicians (SPs) were recruited to evaluate 5-10 years follow-up clinical and radiographic data of knees from the CHECK cohort for the presence of clinically relevant OA. GPs and SPs were gathered in pairs; each pair consisted of one GP and one SP, and the paired clinicians independently evaluated the same subset of knees. A diagnosis was made for each knee by the GP and SP before and after viewing radiographic data. Nested 5-fold cross-validation enhanced random forest models were built to identify the top 10 features related to the diagnosis. Results Seventeen clinician pairs evaluated 1106 knees with 139 clinical and 36 radiographic features. GPs diagnosed clinically relevant OA in 42% and 43% knees, before and after viewing radiographic data, respectively. SPs diagnosed in 43% and 51% knees, respectively. Models containing top 10 features had good performance for explaining clinicians' diagnosis with area under the curve ranging from 0.76-0.83. Before viewing radiographic data, quantitative symptomatic features (i.e. WOMAC scores) were the most important ones related to the diagnosis of both GPs and SPs; after viewing radiographic data, radiographic features appeared in the top lists for both, but seemed to be more important for SPs than GPs. Conclusions Random forest models presented good performance in explaining clinicians' diagnosis, which helped to reveal typical features of patients recognized as clinically relevant knee OA by clinicians from two different care settings. Show less
Ouwerkerk, L. van; Boers, M.; Emery, P.; Jong, P.H.P. de; Landewe, R.B.M.; Lems, W.; ... ; Bergstra, S.A. 2022
Objectives: To investigate whether patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can discontinue glucocorticoids (GC) after GC 'bridging' in the initial treatment step and to identify factors that may... Show moreObjectives: To investigate whether patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can discontinue glucocorticoids (GC) after GC 'bridging' in the initial treatment step and to identify factors that may affect this. Methods: Data from 7 clinical trial arms (with 1653 patients) that included a GC bridging schedule, previously identified in a systematic literature search, were combined in an individual patient data meta-analysis. Outcomes were GC use (yes/no) at predefined time points (1/3/6/12/18 months after bridging had ended), cumulative GC dose and continuous (>= 3 months) GC use after bridging had ended. Age, sex, ACPA status, initial GC dose, duration of bridging schedule, oral versus parenteral GC administration and initial co-treatment were univariably tested with each outcome. Results: The probability of using GC 1 month after bridging therapy had ended was 0.18, decreasing to 0.07 from 6 until 18 months after bridging had ended. The probability of continuous GC use after bridging had ended was 0.18 at 1 year and 0.30 at 2 years of follow-up. In oral GC bridging studies only, the probabilities of later and continuous GC use and the cumulative GC doses were higher compared to the combined analyses with also parenteral GC bridging studies included. A higher initial dose and a longer GC bridging schedule were associated with higher cumulative GC doses and more patients on GC at 18 months after bridging had ended. Conclusions Based on these RA clinical trial arms with an initial GC bridging schedule, the probability of subsequent ongoing GC use following bridging is low. Show less
Hartman, L.; Silva, J.A.P. da; Buttgereit, F.; Cutolo, M.; Opris-Belinski, D.; Szekanecz, Z.; ... ; Boers, M. 2022
Objective: To develop prediction models for individual patient harm and benefit outcomes in elderly patients with RA and comorbidities treated with chronic low-dose glucocorticoid therapy or... Show moreObjective: To develop prediction models for individual patient harm and benefit outcomes in elderly patients with RA and comorbidities treated with chronic low-dose glucocorticoid therapy or placebo. Methods: In the Glucocorticoid Low-dose Outcome in Rheumatoid Arthritis (GLORIA) study, 451 RA patients >= 65 years of age were randomized to 2 years 5 mg/day prednisolone or placebo. Eight prediction models were developed from the dataset in a stepwise procedure based on prior knowledge. The first set of four models disregarded study treatment and examined general predictive factors. The second set of four models was similar but examined the additional role of low-dose prednisolone. In each set, two models focused on harm [the occurrence of one or more adverse events of special interest (AESIs) and the number of AESIs per year) and two on benefit (early clinical response/disease activity and a lack of joint damage progression). Linear and logistic multivariable regression methods with backward selection were used to develop the models. The final models were assessed and internally validated with bootstrapping techniques. Results: A few variables were slightly predictive for one of the outcomes in the models, but none were of immediate clinical value. The quality of the prediction models was sufficient and the performance was low to moderate (explained variance 12-15%, area under the curve 0.67-0.69). Conclusion: Baseline factors are not helpful in selecting elderly RA patients for treatment with low-dose prednisolone given their low power to predict the chance of benefit or harm. Show less
Wang, Q.K.; Runhaar, J.; Kloppenburg, M.; Boers, M.; Bijlsma, J.W.J.; Bierma-Zeinstra, S.M.A.; CREDO Expert Grp 2022
Objective: To internally and externally validate our diagnostic criteria of early stage knee osteoarthritis (OA) in the CHECK and OAI cohorts. Design: We applied two previously developed diagnostic... Show moreObjective: To internally and externally validate our diagnostic criteria of early stage knee osteoarthritis (OA) in the CHECK and OAI cohorts. Design: We applied two previously developed diagnostic models to all knees in CHECK and OAI cohorts to calculate probabilities of early stage knee OA at baseline. Knees were categorized into three groups based on probability: 'no OA' (probability <= 30%), 'uncertain' (probability between 30% and 70%) and 'early stage OA' (probability >= 70%). To validate the diagnosis, we obtained OA related outcome measures at 10-year follow-up in the CHECK cohort, and at 8-9-year follow-up in the OAI cohort. We compared outcome measures between 'no OA' and 'early stage OA' knees, and between 'no OA' and 'uncertain' knees using generalized estimating equations. Results: In CHECK (n = 1042 knees) both models showed 'early stage OA' knees presented with significant and clinically relevant higher WOMAC scores, higher Kellgren & Lawrence (KL) grade, and higher rates of joint space narrowing (JSN) progression after 10 years, compared to 'no OA' knees. In OAI (n = 2937 knees) both models showed 'early stage OA' knees presented with significant and clinically relevant higher WOMAC scores, higher KL grade, and higher rates of KL and JSN progression after 8-9 years, compared to 'no OA' knees. Smaller, but still significant differences between 'uncertain' and 'no OA' knees were observed in both cohorts. Conclusions: These results support internal and external validity of the two sets of diagnostic criteria for early stage knee OA. (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. Show less
Background: Concerns have been raised regarding the risks of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in vaccinated patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases treated with immunosuppressants,... Show moreBackground: Concerns have been raised regarding the risks of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in vaccinated patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases treated with immunosuppressants, but clinical data on breakthrough infections are still scarce. The primary objective of this study was to compare the incidence and severity of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections between patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases using immunosuppressants, and controls (patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases not taking immunosuppressants and healthy controls) who had received full COVID-19 vaccinations. The secondary objective was to explore determinants of breakthrough infections of the delta (B.1.617.2) variant of SARS-CoV-2, including humoral immune responses after vaccination. Methods: In this substudy, we pooled data collected in two large ongoing prospective multicentre cohort studies conducted in the Netherlands (Target to-B! [T2B!] study and Amsterdam Rheumatology Center COVID [ARC-COVID] study). Both studies recruited adult patients (age >= 18 years) with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and healthy controls. We sourced clinical data from standardised electronic case record forms, digital questionnaires, and medical files. We only included individuals who were vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. For T2B!, participants were recruited between Feb 2 and Aug 1, 2021, and for ARC-COVID, participants were recruited between April 26, 2020, and March 1, 2021. In this study we assessed data on breakthrough infections collected between July 1 and Dec 15, 2021, a period in which the delta SARS-CoV-2 variant was the dominant variant in the Netherlands. We defined a SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection as a PCR-confirmed or antigen test-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection that occurred at least 14 days after vaccination. All breakthrough infections during this period were assumed to be due to the delta variant due to its dominance during the study period. We analysed post-vaccination serum samples for anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibodies to assess the humoral vaccination response (T2B! study only) and anti-nucleocapsid antibodies to identify asymptomatic breakthrough infections (ARC-COVID study only). We used multivariable logistic regression analyses to explore potential clinical and humoral determinants associated with the odds of breakthrough infections. The T2B! study is registered with the Dutch Trial Register, Trial ID NL8900, and the ARC-COVID study is registered with Dutch Trial Register, trial ID NL8513. Findings: We included 3207 patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who receive immunosuppressants, and 1807 controls (985 patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease not on immunosuppressants and 822 healthy controls). Among patients receiving immunosuppressants, mean age was 53 years (SD 14), 2042 (64%) of 3207 were female and 1165 (36%) were male; among patients not receiving immunosuppressants, mean age was 54 years (SD 14), 598 (61%) of 985 were female and 387 (39%) were male; and among healthy controls, mean age was 57 years (SD 13), 549 (67%) of 822 were female and 273 (33%) were male. The cumulative incidence of PCR-test or antigen-test confirmed SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections was similar in patients on immunosuppressants (148 of 3207; 4.6% [95% CI 3.9-5.4]), patients not on immunosuppressants (52 of 985; 5.3% [95% CI 4.0-6.9]), and healthy controls (33 of 822; 4.0% [95% CI 2.8-5.6]). There was no difference in the odds of breakthrough infection for patients with immune-mediate inflammatory disease on immunosuppressants versus combined controls (ie, patients not on immunosuppressants and healthy controls; adjusted odds ratio 0.88 [95% CI 0.66-1.18]). Seroconversion after vaccination (odds ratio 0.58 [95% CI 0.34-0.98]; T2B! cohort only) and SARS-CoV-2 infection before vaccination (0.34 [0.18-0.56]) were associated with a lower odds of breakthrough infections. Interpretation: The incidence and severity of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases on immunosuppressants was similar to that in controls. However, caution might still be warranted for those on anti-CD20 therapy and those with traditional risk factors. Copyright (C) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
Boers, M.; Hartman, L.; Opris-Belinski, D.; Bos, R.; Kok, M.R.; Silva, J.A.P. da; ... ; GLORIA Trial Consortium 2022
Background: Low-dose glucocorticoid (GC) therapy is widely used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) but the balance of benefit and harm is still unclear. Methods: The GLORIA (Glucocorticoid LOw-dose in... Show moreBackground: Low-dose glucocorticoid (GC) therapy is widely used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) but the balance of benefit and harm is still unclear. Methods: The GLORIA (Glucocorticoid LOw-dose in Rheumatoid Arthritis) pragmatic double-blind randomised trial compared 2 years of prednisolone, 5 mg/day, to placebo in patients aged 65+ with active RA. We allowed all cotreatments except long-term open label GC and minimised exclusion criteria, tailored to seniors. Benefit outcomes included disease activity (disease activity score; DAS28, coprimary) and joint damage (Sharp/van der Heijde, secondary). The other coprimary outcome was harm, expressed as the proportion of patients with >= 1 adverse event (AE) of special interest. Such events comprised serious events, GC-specific events and those causing study discontinuation. Longitudinal models analysed the data, with one-sided testing and 95% confidence limits (95% CL). Results: We randomised 451 patients with established RA and mean 2.1 comorbidities, age 72, disease duration 11 years and DAS28 4.5. 79% were on disease-modifying treatment, including 14% on biologics. 63% prednisolone versus 61% placebo patients completed the trial. Discontinuations were for AE (both, 14%), active disease (3 vs 4%) and for other (including covid pandemic-related disease) reasons (19 vs 21%); mean time in study was 19 months. Disease activity was 0.37 points lower on prednisolone (95% CL 0.23, p<0.0001); joint damage progression was 1.7 points lower (95% CL 0.7, p=0.003). 60% versus 49% of patients experienced the harm outcome, adjusted relative risk 1.24 (95% CL 1.04, p=0.02), with the largest contrast in (mostly non-severe) infections. Other GC-specific events were rare. Conclusion: Add-on low-dose prednisolone has beneficial long-term effects in senior patients with established RA, with a trade-off of 24% increase in patients with mostly non-severe AE; this suggests a favourable balance of benefit and harm. Show less
Buttgereit, T.; Palmowski, A.; Forsat, N.; Boers, M.; Witham, M.D.; Rodondi, N.; ... ; Buttgereit, F. 2021
Background: older people remain underrepresented in clinical trials, and evidence generated in younger populations cannot always be generalized to older patients.Objective: to identify key barriers... Show moreBackground: older people remain underrepresented in clinical trials, and evidence generated in younger populations cannot always be generalized to older patients.Objective: to identify key barriers and to discuss solutions to specific issues affecting recruitment and retention of older participants in clinical trials based on experience gained from six current European randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on older people.Methods: a multidisciplinary group of experts including representatives of the six RCTs held two networking conferences and compiled lists of potential barriers and solutions. Every item was subsequently allocated points by each study team according to how important it was perceived to be for their RCTs.Results: the six RCTs enrolled 7,612 older patients. Key barriers to recruitment were impaired health status, comorbidities and diverse health beliefs including priorities within different cultural systems. All trials had to increase the number of recruitment sites. Other measures felt to be effective included the provision of extra time, communication training for the study staff and a re-design of patient information. Key barriers for retention included the presence of severe comorbidities and the occurrence of adverse events. Long study duration, frequent study visits and difficulties accessing the study site were also mentioned. Solutions felt to be effective included spending more time maintaining close contact with the participants, appropriate measures to show appreciation and reimbursement of travel arrangements.Conclusion: recruitment and retention of older patients in trials requires special recognition and a targeted approach. Our results provide scientifically-based practical recommendations for optimizing future studies in this population. Show less
Runhaar, J.; Ozbulut, O.; Kloppenburg, M.; Boers, M.; Bijlsma, J.W.J.; Bierma-Zeinstra, S.M.A.; CREDO Expert Grp 2021
Objectives. Although there is a general focus on early diagnosis and treatment of hip OA, there are no validated diagnostic criteria for early-stage hip OA. The current study aimed to take the... Show moreObjectives. Although there is a general focus on early diagnosis and treatment of hip OA, there are no validated diagnostic criteria for early-stage hip OA. The current study aimed to take the first steps in developing diagnostic criteria for early-stage hip OA, using factors obtained through history taking, physical examination, radiography and blood testing at the first consultation in individuals presenting with hip pain, suspicious for hip OA, in primary care.Methods. Data of the 543 individuals with 735 symptomatic hips at baseline who had any follow-up data available from the prospective CHECK cohort study were used. A group of 26 clinical experts [general practitioners (GPs), rheumatologists and orthopaedic surgeons] evaluated standardized clinical assessment forms of all subjects on the presence of clinically relevant hip OA 5-10 years after baseline. Using the expert-based diagnoses as reference standard, a backward selection method was used to create predictive models based on pre-defined baseline factors from history taking, physical examination, radiography and blood testing.Results. Prevalence of clinically relevant hip OA during follow-up was 22%. Created models contained four to eight baseline factors (mainly WOMAC pain items, painful/restricted movements and radiographic features) and obtained area under the curve between 0.62 (0.002) and 0.71 (0.002).Conclusion. Based on clinical and radiographic features of hip OA obtained at first consultation at a GP for pain/stiffness of the hip, the prediction of clinically relevant hip OA within 5-10 years was 'poor' to /fair'. Show less
Hartman, L.; Cutolo, M.; Bos, R.; Opris-Belinski, D.; Kok, M.R.; Griep-Wentink, H.J.R.M.; ... ; Boers, M. 2021
Objectives. Suboptimal medication adherence is a serious problem in the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases. To measure medication adherence, electronic monitoring is regarded as superior to... Show moreObjectives. Suboptimal medication adherence is a serious problem in the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases. To measure medication adherence, electronic monitoring is regarded as superior to pill count. GLORIA is an ongoing two-year trial on the addition of low-dose (5 mg/d) prednisolone or placebo to standard care in older people (65+ years) with RA. During the entire trial, adherence is measured with electronic caps, and with pill counts. The objective is to describe medication adherence patterns, and to compare the adherence results of the two methods.Methods. The recorded adherence patterns of patients (blinded for treatment group) were classified according to descriptive categories. The cutoff for good adherence was set at 80% of prescribed pills taken.Results. Trial inclusion closed in 2018 at 451 patients, but trial follow-up is ongoing; the current dataset contains adherence data of 371 patients. Mean number of recorded 90-day periods per patient was 4 (range 1-8). Based on pill count over all periods, 90% of the patients had good adherence; based on cap data, only 20%. Cap data classified 30% of patients as non-user (<20% of days an opening) and 40% as irregular user (different adherence patterns, in or between periods).Conclusion. In our trial of older people with RA, the majority appeared to be adherent to medication according to pill count. Results from caps conflicted with those of pill counts, with patterns suggesting patients did not use the bottle for daily dispensing, despite specific advice to do so. Show less
Background Clinical studies with work participation (WP) as an outcome domain pose particular methodological challenges that hamper interpretation, comparison between studies and meta-analyses... Show moreBackground Clinical studies with work participation (WP) as an outcome domain pose particular methodological challenges that hamper interpretation, comparison between studies and meta-analyses.Objectives To develop Points to Consider (PtC) for design, analysis and reporting of studies of patients with inflammatory arthritis that include WP as a primary or secondary outcome domain.Methods The EULAR Standardised Operating Procedures were followed. A multidisciplinary taskforce with 22 experts including patients with rheumatic diseases, from 10 EULAR countries and Canada, identified methodologic areas of concern. Two systematic literature reviews (SLR) appraised the methodology across these areas. In parallel, two surveys among professional societies and experts outside the taskforce sought for additional methodological areas or existing conducting/reporting recommendations. The taskforce formulated the PtC after presentation of the SLRs and survey results, and discussion. Consensus was obtained through informal voting, with levels of agreement obtained anonymously.Results Two overarching principles and nine PtC were formulated. The taskforce recommends to align the work-related study objective to the design, duration, and outcome domains/measurement instruments of the study (PtC: 1-3); to identify contextual factors upfront and account for them in analyses (PtC: 4); to account for interdependence of different work outcome domains and for changes in work status over time (PtC: 5-7); to present results as means as well as proportions of patients reaching predefined meaningful categories (PtC: 8) and to explicitly report volumes of productivity loss when costs are an outcome (PtC:9).Conclusion Adherence to these EULAR PtC will improve the methodological quality of studies evaluating WP. Show less
Wang, Q.K.; Runhaar, J.; Kloppenburg, M.; Boers, M.; Bijlsma, J.W.J.; Bierma-Zeinstra, S.M.A.; CREDO Expert Grp 2021
Background Early diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis (OA) is important in managing this disease, but such an early diagnostic tool is still lacking in clinical practice. The purpose of this study was... Show moreBackground Early diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis (OA) is important in managing this disease, but such an early diagnostic tool is still lacking in clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to develop diagnostic models for early stage knee OA based on the first 2-year clinical course after the patient's initial presentation in primary care and to identify whether these course factors had additive discriminative value over baseline factors. Methods We extracted eligible patients' clinical and radiographic data from the CHECK cohort and formed the first 2-year course factors according to the factors' changes over the 2 years. Clinical expert consensus-based diagnosis, which was made via evaluating patients' 5- to 10-year follow-up data, was used as the outcome factor. Four models were developed: model 1, included clinical course factors only; model 2, included clinical and radiographic course factors; model 3, clinical baseline factors + clinical course factors; and model 4, clinical and radiographic baseline factors + clinical and radiographic course factors. All the models were built by a generalized estimating equation with a backward selection method. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for assessing model discrimination. Delong's method compared AUCs. Results Seven hundred sixty-one patients with 1185 symptomatic knees were included in this study. Thirty-seven percent knees were diagnosed as OA at follow-up. Model 1 contained 6 clinical course factors; model 2: 6 clinical and 3 radiographic course factors; model 3: 6 baseline clinical factors combined with 5 clinical course factors; and model 4: 4 clinical and 1 radiographic baseline factors combined with 5 clinical and 3 radiographic course factors. Model discriminations are as follows: model 1, AUC 0.70 (95% CI 0.67-0.74); model 2, 0.74 (95% CI 0.71-0.77); model 3, 0.77 (95% CI 0.74-0.80); and model 4, 0.80 (95% CI 0.77-0.82). AUCs of model 3 and model 4 were slightly but significantly higher than corresponding baseline-factor models (model 3 0.77 vs 0.75, p = 0.031; model 4 0.80 vs 0.76, p = 0.003). Conclusions Four diagnostic models were developed with "fair" to "good" discriminations. First 2-year course factors had additive discriminative value over baseline factors. Show less
Costantino, F.; Carmona, L.; Boers, M.; Backhaus, M.; Balint, P.V.; Bruyn, G.A.; ... ; D'Agostino, M.A. 2021
Objective To produce European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the reporting of ultrasound studies in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). Methods Based on the... Show moreObjective To produce European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the reporting of ultrasound studies in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). Methods Based on the literature reviews and expert opinion (through Delphi surveys), a taskforce of 23 members (12 experts in ultrasound in RMDs, 9 in methodology and biostatistics together with a patient research partner and a health professional in rheumatology) developed a checklist of items to be reported in every RMD study using ultrasound. This checklist was further refined by involving a panel of 79 external experts (musculoskeletal imaging experts, methodologists, journal editors), who evaluated its comprehensibility, feasibility and comprehensiveness. Agreement on each proposed item was assessed with an 11-point Likert scale, grading from 0 (total disagreement) to 10 (full agreement). Results Two face-to-face meetings, as well as two Delphi rounds of voting, resulted in a final checklist of 23 items, including a glossary of terminology. Twenty-one of these were considered 'mandatory' items to be reported in every study (such as blinding, development of scoring systems, definition of target pathologies) and 2 'optional' to be reported only if applicable, such as possible confounding factors (ie, ambient conditions) or experience of the sonographers. Conclusion An EULAR taskforce developed a checklist to ensure transparent and comprehensive reporting of aspects concerning research and procedures that need to be presented in studies using ultrasound in RMDs. This checklist, if widely adopted by authors and editors, will greatly improve the interpretability of study development and results, including the assessment of validity, generalisability and applicability. Show less
Runhaar, J.; Kloppenburg, M.; Boers, M.; Bijlsma, J.W.J.; Bierma-Zeinstra, S.M.A.; CREDO Expert Grp 2021
Objectives. There is a general consensus that a shift in focus towards early diagnosis and treatment of knee OA is warranted. However, there are no validated and widely accepted diagnostic criteria... Show moreObjectives. There is a general consensus that a shift in focus towards early diagnosis and treatment of knee OA is warranted. However, there are no validated and widely accepted diagnostic criteria for early knee OA available. The current study aimed to take the first steps towards developing diagnostic criteria for early knee OA.Methods. Data of 761 individuals with 1185 symptomatic knees at baseline were selected from the CHECK study. For CHECK, individuals with pain/stiffness of the knee, aged 45-65 years, who had no prior consultation or a first consultation with the general practitioner for these symptoms in the past 6 months were recruited and followed for 10 years. A group of 36 experts (17 general practitioners and 19 secondary care physicians) evaluated the medical records in pairs to diagnose the presence of clinically relevant knee OA 5-10 years after enrolment. A backward selection methods was used to create predictive models based on pre-defined baseline factors from history taking, physical examination, radiography and blood testing, using the experts' diagnoses as gold standard outcome.Results. Prevalence of clinically relevant knee OA during follow-up was 37%. Created models contained 7-11 baseline factors and obtained an area under the curve between 0.746(0.002) and 0.764(0.002).Conclusion. The obtained diagnostic models for early knee OA had 'fair' predictive ability in individuals presenting with knee pain in primary care. Further modelling and validation of the identified predictive factors is required to obtain clinically feasible and relevant diagnostic criteria for early knee OA. Show less
Wang, Q.K.; Runhaar, J.; Kloppenburg, M.; Boers, M.; Bijlsma, J.W.J.; Bierma-Zeinstra, S.M.A.; CREDO Expert Grp 2020
Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the added value of radiographs for diagnosing knee osteoarthritis (KOA) by general practitioners (GPs) and secondary care physicians (SPs).... Show moreObjective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the added value of radiographs for diagnosing knee osteoarthritis (KOA) by general practitioners (GPs) and secondary care physicians (SPs). Methods: Seventeen GPs and nineteen SPs were recruited to evaluate 1185 knees from the CHECK cohort (presenters with knee pain in primary care) for the presence of clinically relevant osteoarthritis (OA) during follow-up. Experts were required to make diagnoses independently, first based on clinical data only and then on clinical plus radiographic data, and to provide certainty scores (ranging from 1 to 100, where 1 was "certainly no OA" and 100 was "certainly OA"). Next, experts held consensus meetings to agree on the final diagnosis. With the final diagnosis as gold standard, diagnostic indicators were calculated (sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive value, accuracy and positive/negative likelihood ratio) for all knees, as well as for clinically "certain" and "uncertain" knees, respectively. Student paired t-tests compared certainty scores. Results: Most diagnoses of GPs (86%) and SPs (82%) were "consistent" after assessment of radiographic data. Diagnostic indicators improved similarly for GPs and SPs after evaluating the radiographic data, but only improved relevantly in clinically "uncertain" knees. Radiographs added some certainty to "consistent" OA knees (GP 69 vs. 72, p < 0.001; SP 70 vs. 77, p < 0.001), but not to the consistent no OA knees (GP 21 vs. 22, p = 0.16; SP 20 vs. 21, p = 0.04). Conclusions: The added value of radiographs is similar for GP and SP, in terms of diagnostic accuracy and certainty. Radiographs appear to be redundant when clinicians are certain of their clinical diagnosis. Show less
Nielsen, S.M.; Tugwell, P.; Wit, M.P.T. de; Boers, M.; Beaton, D.E.; Woodworth, T.G.; ... ; Contextual Factors Working Grp 2019
Objective. To update the 1997 OMERACT-OARSI (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International) core domain set for clinical trials in hip and/or knee osteoarthritis ... Show moreObjective. To update the 1997 OMERACT-OARSI (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International) core domain set for clinical trials in hip and/or knee osteoarthritis (OA).Methods. An initial review of the COMET database of core outcome sets (COS) was undertaken to identify all domains reported in previous COS including individuals with hip and/or knee OA. These were presented during 5 patient and health professionals/researcher meetings in 3 continents (Europe, Australasia, North America). A 3-round international Delphi survey was then undertaken among patients, healthcare professionals, researchers, and industry representatives to gain consensus on key domains to be included in a core domain set for hip and/or knee OA. Findings were presented and discussed in small groups at OMERACT 2018, where consensus was obtained in the final plenary.Results. Four previous COS were identified. Using these, and the patient and health professionals/researcher meetings, 50 potential domains formed the Delphi survey. There were 426 individuals from 25 different countries who contributed to the Delphi exercise. OMERACT 2018 delegates (n = 129) voted on candidate domains. Six domains gained agreement as mandatory to be measured and reported in all hip and/or knee OA clinical trials: pain, physical function, quality of life, and patient's global assessment of the target joint, in addition to the mandated core domain of adverse events including mortality. Joint structure was agreed as mandatory in specific circumstances, i.e., depending on the intervention.Conclusion. The updated core domain set for hip and/or knee OA has been agreed upon. Work will commence to determine which outcome measurement instrument should be recommended to cover each core domain. Show less
