BACKGROUND: People with hand-related rheumatoid arthritis (RA) experience problems performing activities of daily living (ADL). Compensatory strategies to improve ADL ability have shown effective. Similarly, hand exercise has shown effect on pain, grip strength, and self-reported ability. A combination has shown positive effects based on self-report, but self-report and observation provide distinct information about ADL. The purpose of this study was to examine whether hand exercise as add on to compensatory intervention (CIP) will improve observed ADL ability in RA.

METHODS: Women (n = 55) with hand-related RA were randomized to CIPEXERCISE (intervention) or CIP only (control). CIP is focused on joint protection, assistive devices, and alternative ways of performing AD. The hand-exercise program addressed range of motion and muscle strength. Primary outcome was change in observed ADL motor ability measured by the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS). Baseline measures were repeated after 8 weeks.

RESULTS: Improvements in ADL motor ability in CIPEXERCISE (mean change = 0.24 logits; 95% CI = 0.09 to 0.39) and CIPCONTROL (mean change =0.20 logits; 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.35) were statistically significant, with no differences between groups (mean difference = 0.04 logits; 95% CI = - 0.16 to 0.25). Thirteen (46.4%) participants in the CIPEXERCISE and 12 (44.4%) in the CIPCONTROL obtained clinically relevant improvements (≥ 0.30 logits) in ADL motor ability; this group difference was not significant (z = 0.15; p = 0.88).

CONCLUSION: Adding hand exercise to a compensatory intervention did not yield additional benefits in women with hand-related RA. The study was approved by the ethics committee 14th of April 2014 (H-3-2014-025) and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov 16th of May 2014 (NCT02140866).

OBJECTIVE: The Contextual Factors Working Group aims to provide guidance on addressing contextual factors in rheumatology trials within OMERACT.

METHODS: During the Special Interest Group session at OMERACT 2018, preliminary results were presented from a case scenario survey and semistructured interviews, including contextual factors mentioned in these. A group-based exercise sought to identify and rank important generic contextual factors.

RESULTS: A total of 79 candidate factors were listed. Across the 3 groups, gender/sex, comorbidities, and the healthcare system were ranked as most important.

CONCLUSION: The identified important contextual factor domains may be considered a provisional list pending further research.

In suspected and diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis (RA), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allows detection of all relevant pathologies, such as synovitis, tenosynovitis, bone marrow edema (osteitis), bone erosion and cartilage damage. MRI is more sensitive than clinical examination for monitoring disease activity (i.e., inflammation) and more sensitive than conventional radiography and ultrasonography for monitoring joint destruction. In suspected RA, MRI bone marrow edema predicts development of RA, and in early RA patients, it predicts subsequent structural damage progression. CT is the standard reference imaging modality for visualizing bone damage, including bone erosions in RA, but lacks sensitivity for soft-tissue changes, including synovitis and tenosynovitis. CT has a minimal role in RA clinical trials and practice, except in selected patients where MRI is contraindicated or not available or if crystal arthritis such as gout or pseudo-gout is suspected. MRI has documented utility in diagnosis, monitoring and prognostication of patients with RA and is increasingly used for these purposes in clinical practice and particularly clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: Previous ecological data suggest a decline in the need for joint replacements in RA patients following the introduction of TNF inhibitor (TNFi) therapy, although patient-level data are lacking. Our primary aim was to estimate the association between TNFi use and subsequent incidence of total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement.

METHODS: A propensity score matched cohort was analysed using the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Registry (2001-2016) for RA data. Propensity score estimates were used to match TNFi users to similar conventional synthetic DMARD users (with replacement) using a 1:1 ratio. Weighted multivariable Cox regression was used to estimate the impact of TNFi on study outcomes. Effect modification by baseline age and disease severity were investigated. Joint replacement at other sites was also analysed. An instrumental variable sensitivity analysis was also performed.

RESULTS: The matched analysis contained a total of 19 116 patient records. Overall, there was no significant association between TNFi use vs conventional synthetic DMARD on rates of THR (hazard ratios = 0.86 [95% CI: 0.60, 1.22]) although there was significant effect modification by age (P < 0.001). TNFi was associated with a reduction in THR among those >60 years old (hazard ratio = 0.60 [CI: 0.41, 0.87]) but not in younger patients. No significant associations were found for total knee replacement or other joint replacement.

CONCLUSION: Overall, no association was found between the use of TNFi and subsequent incidence of joint replacement. However, TNFi was associated with a 40% relative reduction in THR rates among older patients.

OBJECTIVE: Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) convened a premeeting in 2018 to bring together patients, regulators, researchers, clinicians, and consumers to build upon previous OMERACT drug safety work, with patients fully engaged throughout all phases.

METHODS: Day 1 included a brief introduction to the history of OMERACT and methodology, and an overview of current efforts within and outside OMERACT to identify patient-reported medication safety concerns. On Day 2, two working groups presented results; after each, breakout groups were assembled to discuss findings.

RESULTS: Five themes pertaining to drug safety measurement emerged.

CONCLUSION: Current approaches have failed to include data from the patient's perspective. A better understanding of how individuals with rheumatic diseases view potential benefits and harms of therapies is essential.