Pain is the predominant symptom for people with inflammatory arthritis (IA) and osteoarthritis (OA) mandating the development of evidence-based recommendations for the health professional's approach to pain management. A multidisciplinary task force including professionals and patient representatives conducted a systematic literature review of systematic reviews to evaluate evidence regarding effects on pain of multiple treatment modalities. Overarching principles and recommendations regarding assessment and pain treatment were specified on the basis of reviewed evidence and expert opinion. From 2914 review studies initially identified, 186 met inclusion criteria. The task force emphasised the importance for the health professional to adopt a patient-centred framework within a biopsychosocial perspective, to have sufficient knowledge of IA and OA pathogenesis, and to be able to differentiate localised and generalised pain. Treatment is guided by scientific evidence and the assessment of patient needs, preferences and priorities; pain characteristics; previous and ongoing pain treatments; inflammation and joint damage; and psychological and other pain-related factors. Pain treatment options typically include education complemented by physical activity and exercise, orthotics, psychological and social interventions, sleep hygiene education, weight management, pharmacological and joint-specific treatment options, or interdisciplinary pain management. Effects on pain were most uniformly positive for physical activity and exercise interventions, and for psychological interventions. Effects on pain for educational interventions, orthotics, weight management and multidisciplinary treatment were shown for particular disease groups. Underpinned by available systematic reviews and meta-analyses, these recommendations enable health professionals to provide knowledgeable pain-management support for people with IA and OA.

BackgroundDespite treatment according to the current management recommendations, a significant proportion of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) remain symptomatic. These patients can be considered to have ‘difficult-to-treat RA’. However, uniform terminology and an appropriate definition are lacking.ObjectiveThe Task Force in charge of the “Development of EULAR recommendations for the comprehensive management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis” aims to create recommendations for this underserved patient group. Herein, we present the definition of difficult-to-treat RA, as the first step.MethodsThe Steering Committee drafted a definition with suggested terminology based on an international survey among rheumatologists. This was discussed and amended by the Task Force, including rheumatologists, nurses, health professionals and patients, at a face-to-face meeting until sufficient agreement was reached (assessed through voting).ResultsThe following three criteria were agreed by all Task Force members as mandatory elements of the definition of difficult-to-treat RA: (1) Treatment according to European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendation and failure of ≥2 biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs)/targeted synthetic DMARDs (with different mechanisms of action) after failing conventional synthetic DMARD therapy (unless contraindicated); (2) presence of at least one of the following: at least moderate disease activity; signs and/or symptoms suggestive of active disease; inability to taper glucocorticoid treatment; rapid radiographic progression; RA symptoms that are causing a reduction in quality of life; and (3) the management of signs and/or symptoms is perceived as problematic by the rheumatologist and/or the patient.ConclusionsThe proposed EULAR definition for difficult-to-treat RA can be used in clinical practice, clinical trials and can form a basis for future research.

No abstract

No abstract

Fatigue is a common, disabling, and difficult-to-manage problem in rheumatic diseases. Prevalence estimates of fatigue within rheumatic diseases vary considerably. Data on the prevalence of severe fatigue across multiple rheumatic diseases using a similar instrument is missing. Our aim was to provide an overview of the prevalence of severe fatigue across a broad range of rheumatic diseases and to examine its association with clinical and demographic variables. Online questionnaires were filled out by an international sample of 6120 patients (88 % female, mean age 47) encompassing 30 different rheumatic diseases. Fatigue was measured with the RAND(SF)-36 Vitality scale. A score of ≤35 was taken as representing severe fatigue (90 % sensitivity and 81 % specificity for chronic fatigue syndrome). Severe fatigue was present in 41 to 57 % of patients with a single inflammatory rheumatic disease such as rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, ankylosing spondylitis, Sjögren’s syndrome, psoriatic arthritis, and scleroderma. Severe fatigue was least prevalent in patients with osteoarthritis (35 %) and most prevalent in patients with fibromyalgia (82 %). In logistic regression analysis, severe fatigue was associated with having fibromyalgia, having multiple rheumatic diseases without fibromyalgia, younger age, lower education, and language (French: highest prevalence; Dutch: lowest prevalence). In conclusion, one out of every two patients with a rheumatic disease is severely fatigued. As severe fatigue is detrimental to the patient, the near environment, and society at large, unraveling the underlying mechanisms of fatigue and developing optimal treatment should be top priorities in rheumatologic research and practice.