Introduction: Digital diagnostic decision support tools promise to accelerate diagnosis and increase health care efficiency in rheumatology. Rheumatic? is an online tool developed by specialists in... Show moreIntroduction: Digital diagnostic decision support tools promise to accelerate diagnosis and increase health care efficiency in rheumatology. Rheumatic? is an online tool developed by specialists in rheumatology and general medicine together with patients and patient organizations. It calculates a risk score for several rheumatic diseases. We ran a pilot study retrospectively testing Rheumatic? for its ability to differentiate symptoms from existing or emerging immune-mediated rheumatic diseases from other rheumatic and musculoskeletal complaints and disorders in patients visiting rheumatology clinics.Materials and Methods: The performance of Rheumatic? was tested using in three university rheumatology centers: (A) patients at Risk for RA (Karolinska Institutet, n = 50 individuals with musculoskeletal complaints and anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity) (B) patients with early joint swelling [dataset B (Erlangen) n = 52]. (C) Patients with early arthritis where the clinician considered it likely to be of auto-immune origin [dataset C (Leiden) n = 73]. In dataset A we tested whether Rheumatic? could predict the development of arthritis. In dataset B and C we tested whether Rheumatic? could predict the development of an immune-mediated rheumatic diseases. We examined the discriminative power of the total score with the Wilcoxon rank test and the area-under-the-receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC-ROC). Next, we calculated the test characteristics for these patients passing the first or second expert-based Rheumatic? scoring threshold.Results: The total test scores differentiated between: (A) Individuals developing arthritis or not, median 245 vs. 163, P < 0.0001, AUC-ROC = 75.3; (B) patients with an immune-mediated arthritic disease or not median 191 vs. 107, P < 0.0001, AUC-ROC = 79.0; but less patients with an immune-mediated arthritic disease or not amongst those where the clinician already considered an immune mediated disease most likely (median 262 vs. 212, P < 0.0001, AUC-ROC = 53.6). Threshold-1 (advising to visit primary care doctor) was highly specific in dataset A and B (0.72, 0.87, and 0.23, respectively) and sensitive (0.67, 0.61, and 0.67). Threshold-2 (advising to visit rheumatologic care) was very specific in all three centers but not very sensitive: specificity of 1.0, 0.96, and 0.91, sensitivity 0.05, 0.07, 0.14 in dataset A, B, and C, respectively.Conclusion:Rheumatic? is a web-based patient-centered multilingual diagnostic tool capable of differentiating immune-mediated rheumatic conditions from other musculoskeletal problems. The current scoring system needs to be further optimized. Show less
Spierings, J.; Rhenen, A. van; Welsing, P.M.W.; Marijnissen, A.C.A.; Langhe, E. de; Papa, N. del; ... ; Laar, J.M. van 2021
Introduction Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a chronic, autoimmune connective tissue disease associated with high morbidity and mortality, especially in diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc). Currently, there... Show moreIntroduction Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a chronic, autoimmune connective tissue disease associated with high morbidity and mortality, especially in diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc). Currently, there are several treatments available in early dcSSc that aim to change the disease course, including immunosuppressive agents and autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). HSCT has been adopted in international guidelines and is offered in current clinical care. However, optimal timing and patient selection for HSCT are still unclear. In particular, it is unclear whether HSCT should be positioned as upfront therapy or rescue treatment for patients refractory to immunosuppressive therapy. We hypothesise that upfront HSCT is superior and results in lower toxicity and lower long-term medical costs. Therefore, we propose this randomised trial aiming to determine the optimal treatment strategy for early dcSSc by comparing two strategies used in standard care: (1) upfront autologous HSCT versus (2) immunosuppressive therapy (intravenous cyclophosphamide pulse therapy followed by mycophenolate mofetil) with rescue HSCT in case of treatment failure.Methods and analysis The UPSIDE (UPfront autologous hematopoietic Stem cell transplantation vs Immunosuppressive medication in early DiffusE cutaneous systemic sclerosis) study is a multicentre, randomised, open-label, controlled trial. In total, 120 patients with early dcSSc will be randomised. The primary outcome is event-free survival at 2 years after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include serious adverse events, functional status and health-related quality of life. We will also evaluate changes in nailfold capillaroscopy pattern, pulmonary function, cardiac MR and high-resolution CT of the chest. Follow-up visits will be scheduled 3-monthly for 2 years and annually in the following 3 years.Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by the Dutch Central Committee on Research Concerning Human Subjects (NL72607.041.20). The results will be disseminated through patient associations and conventional scientific channels. Show less
B cell targeting therapies are effective in various autoimmune diseases, among others rheumatoid arthritis, pemphigus vulgaris, and systemic lupus erythematosus. Given these successes, it is... Show moreB cell targeting therapies are effective in various autoimmune diseases, among others rheumatoid arthritis, pemphigus vulgaris, and systemic lupus erythematosus. Given these successes, it is evident that B cells are central orchestrators in the processes leading to the signs and symptoms hallmarking many human autoimmune diseases. The pathways provoking the generation of such autoreactive B cells or mechanisms preventing their induction in health are, however, poorly explored. Nevertheless, such information is crucial for the development of preventative/curative interventions aiming to permanently deplete- or prohibit the emergence of autoreactive B cells. Hence, this review will focus on how B cell tolerance might be breached, and which checkpoints are at play preventing the arousal of autoreactive B cells in human. Especially antigen presentation by follicular dendritic cells, somatic hypermutation, and cross-reactivity to the microbiome/environment could operate as actors playing pivotal roles in the induction of B cell-mediated humoral autoimmunity. Moreover, we highlight the human autoimmune disease rheumatoid arthritis as a prototype where autoreactive B cells combine several mechanisms to overcome peripheral B cell checkpoints. Show less
Outcomes of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases have significantly improved over the last three decades, mainly due to therapeutic innovations, more timely treatment, and a recognition of... Show moreOutcomes of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases have significantly improved over the last three decades, mainly due to therapeutic innovations, more timely treatment, and a recognition of the need to monitor response to treatment and to titrate treatments accordingly. Diagnostic delay remains a major challenge for all stakeholders. The combination of electronic health (eHealth) and serologic and genetic markers holds great promise to improve the current management of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases by speeding up access to appropriate care. The Joint Pain Assessment Scoring Tool (JPAST) project, funded by the European Union (EU) European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) Health program, is a unique European project aiming to enable and accelerate personalized precision medicine for early treatment in rheumatology, ultimately also enabling prevention. The aim of the project is to facilitate these goals while at the same time, reducing cost for society and patients. Show less
Helvoort, E.M. van; Spil, W.E. van; Jansen, M.P.; Welsing, P.M.J.; Kloppenburg, M.; Loef, M.; ... ; Lafeber, F.P.J.G. 2020
Purpose The Applied Public-Private Research enabling OsteoArthritis Clinical Headway (APPROACH) consortium intends to prospectively describe in detail, preselected patients with knee osteoarthritis... Show morePurpose The Applied Public-Private Research enabling OsteoArthritis Clinical Headway (APPROACH) consortium intends to prospectively describe in detail, preselected patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA), using conventional and novel clinical, imaging, and biochemical markers, to support OA drug development.Participants APPROACH is a prospective cohort study including 297 patients with tibiofemoral OA, according to the American College of Rheumatology classification criteria. Patients were (pre)selected from existing cohorts using machine learning models, developed on data from the CHECK cohort, to display a high likelihood of radiographic joint space width (JSW) loss and/or knee pain progression.Findings to date Selection appeared logistically feasible and baseline characteristics of the cohort demonstrated an OA population with more severe disease: age 66.5 (SD 7.1) vs 68.1 (7.7) years, min-JSW 2.5 (1.3) vs 2.1 (1.0) mm and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain 31.3 (19.7) vs 17.7 (14.6), except for age, all: p<0.001, for selected versus excluded patients, respectively. Based on the selection model, this cohort has a predicted higher chance of progression.Future plans Patients will visit the hospital again at 6, 12 and 24 months for physical examination, pain and general health questionnaires, collection of blood and urine, MRI scans, radiographs of knees and hands, CT scan of the knee, low radiation whole-body CT, HandScan, motion analysis and performance-based tests.After two years, data will show whether those patients with the highest probabilities for progression experienced disease progression as compared to those wit lower probabilities (model validation) and whether phenotypes/endotypes can be identified and predicted to facilitate targeted drug therapy. Show less
Dijk, B. van; Steenbergen, H.W. van; Niemantsverdriet, E.; Brouwer, E.; Helm-van Mil, A. van der 2020
Objectives Healthcare professionals other than rheumatologists experience difficulties in detecting early inflammatory arthritis (IA) by joint examination. Self-reported symptoms are increasingly... Show moreObjectives Healthcare professionals other than rheumatologists experience difficulties in detecting early inflammatory arthritis (IA) by joint examination. Self-reported symptoms are increasingly considered as helpful and could be incorporated in online tools to assist healthcare professionals, but first their discriminative ability must be assessed. As part of this effort, we evaluated whether inquiring about functional impairments could aid early IA identification. Design Cross-sectional derivation and validation study. Setting Data from two Early Arthritis Recognition Clinics (EARC) in the Netherlands were studied, which are easy access outpatient rheumatology clinics intermediary between primary and secondary care for patients in whom general practitioners suspect but are unsure about IA presence. Participants Between 2010 and 2014, 997 patients consecutively visited the Leiden-EARC (derivation cohort). Patients consecutively visiting the Groningen EARC (2010-2014, n=506) and Leiden-EARC (2015-2018, n=557) served as validation cohorts. Primary and secondary outcome measures Physical functioning was assessed with the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability-Index (HAQ); IA presence by physical joint examination by rheumatologists. HAQ questions were studied individually regarding discriminative ability for IA presence. For the best discriminating question, ORs and positive predictive values (PPVs) for IA presence were determined. Results IA was ascertained in 43% (derivation cohort), 53% and 35% (validation cohorts). In the derivation cohort, IA presence associated with higher mean HAQ scores (0.84 vs 0.73, p=0.003). One question on difficulties with dressing equalled discriminative ability of the total HAQ score. 'Difficulties with dressing' yielded ORs for IA presence of 1.8 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.4) in the derivation cohort; 2.0 (1.4 to 2.9) and 2.1 (1.5 to 3.1) in the validation cohorts. After adjustments for clinical characteristics these were 1.7 (1.3 to 2.3), 1.6 (1.1 to 2.5) and 1.9 (1.2 to 2.9). PPVs (probabilities of IA for positive answers) ranged 42%-60% and negative predictive values (probabilities of no IA for negative answers) ranged 57%-74%. Conclusions Patient-reported difficulties with dressing in patients with suspected IA associated with actual IA presence. Although further validation is required, for example, in primary care, this simple question could be of help in future early IA detection tools for healthcare professionals with limited experience in joint examination. Show less
