ObjectiveTo update the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA).MethodsAccording to the EULAR standardised operating procedures, a systematic literature review was followed by a consensus meeting to develop this update involving 28 international taskforce members in May 2019. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendations were determined.ResultsThe updated recommendations comprise 6 overarching principles and 12 recommendations. The overarching principles address the nature of PsA and diversity of both musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal manifestations; the need for collaborative management and shared decision-making is highlighted. The recommendations provide a treatment strategy for pharmacological therapies. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and local glucocorticoid injections are proposed as initial therapy; for patients with arthritis and poor prognostic factors, such as polyarthritis or monoarthritis/oligoarthritis accompanied by factors such as dactylitis or joint damage, rapid initiation of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs is recommended. If the treatment target is not achieved with this strategy, a biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) targeting tumour necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin (IL)-17A or IL-12/23 should be initiated, taking into account skin involvement if relevant. If axial disease predominates, a TNF inhibitor or IL-17A inhibitor should be started as first-line disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. Use of Janus kinase inhibitors is addressed primarily after bDMARD failure. Phosphodiesterase-4 inhibition is proposed for patients in whom these other drugs are inappropriate, generally in the context of mild disease. Drug switches and tapering in sustained remission are addressed.ConclusionThese recommendations provide stakeholders with an updated consensus on the pharmacological management of PsA, based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion.

BackgroundPatients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at increased risk of developing comorbid conditions.ObjectivesTo evaluate the prevalence of comorbidities and compare their management in RA patients from different countries worldwide.MethodsStudy design: international, cross-sectional. Patients: consecutive RA patients. Data collected: demographics, disease characteristics (activity, severity, treatment), comorbidities (cardiovascular, infections, cancer, gastrointestinal, pulmonary, osteoporosis and psychiatric disorders).ResultsOf 4586 patients recruited in 17 participating countries, 3920 were analysed (age, 56±13 years; disease duration, 10±9 years (mean±SD); female gender, 82%; DAS28 (Disease Activity Score using 28 joints)–erythrocyte sedimentation rate, 3.7±1.6 (mean±SD); Health Assessment Questionnaire, 1.0±0.7 (mean±SD); past or current methotrexate use, 89%; past or current use of biological agents, 39%. The most frequently associated diseases (past or current) were: depression, 15%; asthma, 6.6%; cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke), 6%; solid malignancies (excluding basal cell carcinoma), 4.5%; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 3.5%. High intercountry variability was observed for both the prevalence of comorbidities and the proportion of subjects complying with recommendations for preventing and managing comorbidities. The systematic evaluation of comorbidities in this study detected abnormalities in vital signs, such as elevated blood pressure in 11.2%, and identified conditions that manifest as laboratory test abnormalities, such as hyperglycaemia in 3.3% and hyperlipidaemia in 8.3%.ConclusionsAmong RA patients, there is a high prevalence of comorbidities and their risk factors. In this multinational sample, variability among countries was wide, not only in prevalence but also in compliance with recommendations for preventing and managing these comorbidities. Systematic measurement of vital signs and laboratory testing detects otherwise unrecognised comorbid conditions.

Objective To develop evidence-based recommendations on the use of imaging of the joints in the clinical management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods The task force comprised an expert group of rheumatologists, radiologists, methodologists and experienced rheumatology practitioners from 13 countries. Thirteen key questions on the role of imaging in RA were generated using a process of discussion and consensus. Imaging modalities included were conventional radiography, ultrasound, MRI, CT, dualemission x-ray absorptiometry, digital x-ray radiogrammetry, scintigraphy and positron emission tomography. Research evidence was searched systematically for each question using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL. The experts used the evidence obtained from the relevant studies to develop a set of 10 recommendations. The strength of recommendation was assessed using a visual analogue scale. Results A total of 6888 references was identified from the search process, from which 199 studies were included in the systematic review. Ten recommendations were produced encompassing the role of imaging in making a diagnosis of RA, detecting inflammation and damage, predicting outcome and response to treatment, monitoring disease activity, progression and remission. The strength of recommendation for each proposition varied according to both the research evidence and expert opinion. Conclusions Ten key recommendations for the role of imaging in the management of RA were developed using research-based evidence and expert opinion.

Objective: To compare ultrasonography (US) with clinical examination in the detection of entheseal abnormality of the lower limb in patients with spondyloarthropathy (SpA). Methods: 35 patients with SpA (ankylosing spondylitis 27; psoriatic arthritis 7; reactive arthritis 1) underwent independent clinical and ultrasonographic examination of both lower limbs at five entheseal sites-superior pole and inferior pole of patella, tibial tuberosity, Achilles tendon, and plantar aponeurosis. US was performed using an ATL (Advanced Technology Laboratories, Bothell, Washington, USA) high definition imaging 3000 machine with linear 7-4 MHz and compact linear 10-5 MHz probes to detect bursitis, structure thickness, bony erosion, and enthesophyte (bony spur). An enthesitis score was formulated from these US findings giving a possible maximum total score of 36. Results: On clinical examination 75/348 (22%) entheseal sites were abnormal and on US examination 195/348 (56%) sites were abnormal. In 19 entheseal sites with bursitis on US, only five were detected by clinical examination. Compared with US, clinical examination had a low sensitivity (22.6%) and moderate specificity (79.7%) for the detection of enthesitis of the lower limbs. There was no significant correlation between the US score of enthesitis and acute phase parameters such as erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) or C reactive protein (CRP). The intraobserver κ value for analysis of all sites was 0.9. Conclusions: Most entheseal abnormality in SpA is not detected at clinical examination. US is better than clinical examination in the detection of entheseal abnormality of the lower limbs in SpA. A quantitative US score of lower limb enthesitis is proposed but further studies are required to validate it in SpA.

The objective of this study was to develop EULAR/ACR classification criteria for polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR). Candidate criteria were evaluated in a 6-month prospective cohort study of 125 patients with new onset PMR and 169 non-PMR comparison subjects with conditions mimicking PMR. A scoring algorithm was developed based on morning stiffness >45 minutes (2 points), hip pain/limited range of motion (1 point), absence of RF and/or ACPA (2 points), and absence of peripheral joint pain (1 point). A score ≥4 had 68% sensitivity and 78% specificity for discriminating all comparison subjects from PMR. The specificity was higher (88%) for discriminating shoulder conditions from PMR and lower (65%) for discriminating RA from PMR. Adding ultrasound, a score ≥5 had increased sensitivity to 66% and specificity to 81%. According to these provisional classification criteria, patients ≥50 years old presenting with bilateral shoulder pain, not better explained by an alternative pathology, can be classified as having PMR in the presence of morning stiffness>45 minutes, elevated CRP and/or ESR and new hip pain. These criteria are not meant for diagnostic purposes.