H. Ralph Schumacher

To determine the prevalence of patient-reported joint pain among patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection, chronic HCV monoinfection, and HIV monoinfection followed in hepatology and infectious disease outpatient practices. Standardized interviews were performed among 79 HIV/HCV-coinfected, 93 HCV-monoinfected, and 30 HIV-monoinfected patients in a cross-sectional study within hepatology and infectious disease clinics at three centers. The Multi-Dimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire was used to ascertain joint pain and associated symptoms. Information on potential risk factors for joint pain was obtained during the interview and by chart review. Logistic regression was used to determine adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of joint pain associated with risk factors of interest among chronic HCV-infected and HIV-infected patients. Joint pain was more commonly reported in HCV-monoinfected than HIV/HCV-coinfected (71% versus 56%; p = 0.038) and HIV-monoinfected (71% versus 50%; p = 0.035) patients. A previous diagnosis of arthritis and current smoking were risk factors for joint pain among HCV-infected patients (arthritis: aOR, 4.25; 95% CI, 1.84-9.81; smoking: aOR, 5.02; 95% CI, 2.15-11.74) and HIV-infected (arthritis: aOR, 5.36; 95% CI, 2.01-14.25; smoking: aOR, 6.07; 95% CI, 2.30-16.00) patients. Patient-reported joint pain was prevalent among all three groups, but more common among chronic HCV-monoinfected than either HIV/HCV-coinfected or HIV-monoinfected patients. A prior diagnosis of arthritis and current smoking were risk factors for patient-reported joint pain among both HCV-infected and HIV-infected patients.

To investigate the risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with HBV carrier state during treatment of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and the use of antiviral prophylaxis in real-world clinical practice. Consecutive RA patients with HBV carrier state were included. Clinical data including liver evaluation, HBV infection evaluation and the use of antiviral prophylaxis were recorded. Fifty-three RA patients with HBV carrier state were screened and 36 patients were qualified for analysis. Thirty-six percentage of patients developed HBV reactivation and 17% developed HBV hepatitis together with reactivation, one of which developed decompensate cirrhosis. Only 50% of patients accepted lamivudine although all patients were recommended antiviral prophylaxis with entecavir or tenofovir and only 31% continued during DMARDs therapy. Seventy-one percentage of patients who discontinued antiviral prophylaxis developed HBV reactivation 3 ~ 21 months after discontinuation. Logistic regression analyses showed discontinuation of antiviral prophylaxis (OR: 66, p = 0.027), leflunomide (OR: 64, p = 0.011) and past history of hepatitis (OR: 56, p = 0.013) were risk factors of HBV reactivation. Past history of hepatitis (OR: 10, p = 0.021) was also risk factor of HBV hepatitis together with reactivation. Our results suggest poor patient acceptance and discontinuation of antiviral prophylaxis should not be ignored for Chinese RA patients with HBV carrier state in real-world clinical practice. Discontinuation of antiviral prophylaxis, past history of hepatitis and LEF might increase risk of HBV reactivation for RA patients with HBV carrier state during DMARDs therapy.

Objective.: To determine the extent to which participants at the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 11 meeting agree that instruments used in clinical trials to measure OMERACT core outcome domains in acute gout fulfill OMERACT filter requirements of truth, discrimination, and feasibility; and where future research efforts need to be directed.Methods.: Results of a systematic literature review and analysis of individual-level data from recent clinical studies of acute gout were presented to OMERACT participants. The information was discussed in breakout groups, and opinion was defined by subsequent voting in a plenary session. Endorsement was defined as at least 70% of participants voting in agreement with the proposition (where the denominator excluded those participants who did not vote or who voted “don’t know”).Results.: The following measures were endorsed for use in clinical trials of acute gout: (1) 5-point Likert scale and/or visual analog scale (0 to 100 mm) to measure pain; (2) 4-point Likert scale for joint swelling; (3) 4-point Likert scale for joint tenderness; and (4) 5-point Likert scale for patient global assessment of response to treatment. Measures for the activity limitations domain were not endorsed.Conclusion.: Measures of pain, joint swelling, joint tenderness, and patient global assessment in acute gout were endorsed at OMERACT 11. These measures should now be used in clinical trials of acute gout.

Introduction: In phase-3 clinical trials, the interleukin (IL-1) blocker, rilonacept (IL-1 Trap), demonstrated efficacy for gout flare prevention during initiation of urate-lowering therapy. This trial evaluated rilonacept added to a standard-of-care, indomethacin, for treatment of acute gout flares. Methods: Adults, aged 18-70 years, with gout presenting within 48 hours of flare onset and having at least moderate pain as well as swelling and tenderness in the index joint were randomized to subcutaneous (SC) rilonacept 320 mg at baseline plus oral indomethacin 50 mg TID for 3 days followed by 25 mg TID for up to 9 days (n = 74); SC placebo at baseline plus oral indomethacin as above (n = 76); or SC rilonacept 320 mg at baseline plus oral placebo (n = 75). The primary efficacy endpoint was change in pain in the index joint (patient-reported using a Likert scale (0 = none; 4 = extreme)) from baseline to the average of values at 24, 48 and 72 hours (composite time point) for rilonacept plus indomethacin versus indomethacin alone. Comparison of rilonacept monotherapy with indomethacin monotherapy was dependent on demonstration of significance for the primary endpoint. Safety evaluation included clinical laboratory and adverse event (AE) assessments. Results: Patient characteristics were comparable among the groups; the population was predominantly male (94.1%), white (75.7%), with mean ± SD age of 50.3 ± 10.6 years. All treatment groups reported within-group pain reductions from baseline (P < 0.0001). Although primary endpoint pain reduction was greater with rilonacept plus indomethacin (-1.55 ± 0.92) relative to indomethacin alone (-1.40 ± 0.96), the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.33), so formal comparison between monotherapy groups was not performed. Pain reduction over the 72-hour period with rilonacept alone (-0.69 ± 0.97) was less than that in the other groups, but pain reduction was similar among groups at 72 hours. Treatment with rilonacept was well-tolerated with no reported serious AEs related to rilonacept. Across all groups, the most frequent AEs were headache and dizziness. Conclusions: Although generally well-tolerated, rilonacept in combination with indomethacin and rilonacept alone did not provide additional pain relief over 72 hours relative to indomethacin alone in patients with acute gout flare. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT00855920.

Aim: To describe and compare expectations of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and their physicians with regard to what is most important to achieve during a rheumatology clinic visit.Methods: Subjects were RA patients enrolled in four centers from China, one from Japan and one from the USA, and rheumatologists at those centers. The questionnaires were provided at clinics and patients were asked to list their three top priorities for the rheumatology clinic visit. Physicians were contacted separately and asked to give three general expectations, not for specific visits. We classified clinical expectations into a series of 24 terms for patients and 17 for physicians. We compared physicians' to patients' responses, compared expectations among centers in China, Japan and the USA, and evaluated relationships between patients' responses and age, gender, nationality, disease duration and DAS‐28 (Disease Activity Score‐28).Results: Patients' clinical expectations for visits focused primarily on control of pain (63.7%), improvement of function (49.3%) and discussion of effects of medication (38.1%). Physicians also included control of pain (59.5%), but also emphasized inquiry about drug side‐effects (47.8%) and objective assessment of disease activity (41.4%). We found no differences related to patients' gender, disease duration and DAS‐28, but there were some differences related to age and nationality.Conclusion: We found some agreement and some discordance of clinical expectations between RA patients and physicians. There appear to be some different expectations in different countries. Findings from this pilot survey may help physicians consider patients' expectations in planning rheumatology clinic visits and may lead to further hypothesis‐driven studies.

Objective.: To evaluate the analgesic efficacy of high-dose celecoxib in the treatment of moderate to extreme pain and inflammation associated with acute gouty arthritis.Methods.: A multinational, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial was done with patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with acute gouty monoarthritis or oligoarthritis (onset of pain ≤ 48 h before enrollment). Patients were treated for 8 days with 1 week followup and were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive celecoxib 50 mg bid, celecoxib 400 mg (followed by 200 mg later on Day 1 and then 200 mg bid for 7 days), celecoxib 800 mg (followed by 400 mg later on Day 1 and then 400 mg bid for 7 days), or indomethacin 50 mg tid.Results.: Of 443 patients screened, 402 were randomized and 400 received treatment. Baseline demographics were comparable among treatments. Patients receiving high-dose celecoxib (800/400 mg) experienced a significantly greater reduction in pain intensity on Day 2 compared with low-dose celecoxib 50 mg bid [least squares (LS) mean difference −0.46; p = 0.0014]. For high-dose celecoxib 800/400 mg, the change in pain scores from baseline to Day 2 was comparable with indomethacin 50 mg tid (LS mean difference 0.11; p = 0.4331). There were significant differences in adverse events when the combined celecoxib groups (29.5%) were compared with patients taking indomethacin (43.1%; p = 0.0116). There was no change in median serum creatinine levels for any treatment. There were more discontinuations due to adverse events (8.8% vs 3%; p = 0.0147) with indomethacin than with the combined celecoxib groups.Conclusion.: High-dose celecoxib (800/400 mg) was significantly more effective than low-dose celecoxib (50 mg bid) and comparable to indomethacin in the treatment of moderate to extreme pain in patients with acute gouty arthritis. Further, celecoxib was well tolerated.