Living with foot and ankle disorders in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: A systematic review of qualitative studies to inform the work of the OMERACT Foot and Ankle Working Group

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine outcome domains of importance to patients living with foot and ankle disorders in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), by exploring the symptoms and impact of these disorders reported in existing qualitative studies.

METHODS

Six databases were searched from inception to March 2022. Studies were included if they used qualitative interview or focus group methods, were published in English, and involved participants living with RMDs (inflammatory arthritis, osteoarthritis, crystal arthropathies, connective tissue diseases, and musculoskeletal conditions in the absence of systemic disease) who had experienced foot and ankle problems. Quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative tool and confidence in the findings was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) approach. All data from the results section of included studies were extracted, coded and synthesised to develop themes.

RESULTS

Of 1,443 records screened, 34 studies were included, with a total of 503 participants. Studies included participants with rheumatoid arthritis (n = 18), osteoarthritis (n = 5), gout (n = 3), psoriatic arthritis (n = 1), lupus (n = 1), posterior tibial tendon dysfunction (n = 1), plantar heel pain (n = 1), Achilles tendonitis (n = 1), and a mixed population (n = 3), who live with foot and ankle disorders. Seven descriptive themes were generated from the thematic synthesis: pain, change in appearance, activity limitations, social isolation, work disruption, financial burden and emotional impact. Descriptive themes were inductively analysed further to construct analytical themes relating to potential outcome domains of importance to patients. Foot or ankle pain was the predominant symptom experienced by patients across all RMDs explored in this review. Based on grading of the evidence, we had moderate confidence that most of the review findings represented the experiences of patients with foot and ankle disorders in RMDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate that foot and ankle disorders impact on multiple areas of patients' lives, and patients' experiences are similar regardless of the RMD. This study will inform the development of a core domain set for future foot and ankle research and are also useful for clinicians, helping to focus clinical appointments and measurement of outcomes within clinical practice.

Characterisation of prodromal and very early psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature review informing a EULAR taskforce

BACKGROUND

Identifying subjects at risk of imminent psoriatic arthritis (PsA) would allow these subjects to participate in therapeutic interventions to delay or prevent PsA development.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in 2021 in Medline, Embase, PubMed, Central databases and international congress abstracts (PROSPERO CRD42022255102). All articles reporting the characteristics of patients transitioning from psoriasis (PsO) to PsA and from undifferentiated arthritis (UA) to PsA were included. Clinical and imaging characteristics were collated before PsA onset and at time of PsA diagnosis.

RESULTS

Eighteen of 23 576 references evaluated for PsO/PsA transition were analysed; 14 were cohort studies, 2 case-control studies. Two SLRs were used to enrich the project but were not analysed per se. Of 7873 references focusing on UA to PsA, 3 studies were included. Meta-analysis was not possible due to excessive data heterogeneity. Patients with PsO who developed PsA often reported joint pain, joint tenderness and functional limitations. Arthralgia (PsO, n=669; incident PsA, n=99) was associated with subsequent PsA development. On imaging, subclinical enthesopathy (PsO=325; Incident PsA=39) appeared linked to later PsA development. At the time of PsA onset (incident PsA, N=214), peripheral arthritis, mainly oligo-arthritis (ie, the mean number of swollen joints ranged from 1.5 to 3.2), was the most frequent pattern of clinical presentation.

CONCLUSIONS

Joint pain, arthralgia and entheseal involvement detected by imaging were frequent in individuals with PsO at risk for imminent PsA. Very early PsA was mainly oligoarticular. This review informed a EULAR taskforce on transition to PsA.

POS1079 CLINICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF PRODROMAL AND VERY EARLY PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW FOR THE DEFINITION OF CLINICAL AND IMAGING SUSPICIOUS FEATURES FOR PROGRESSION TO PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

Background

The transition from psoriasis (PsO) to psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a focus of considerable scientific interest: is it possible to target pre-PsA and very early PsA, in particular for physiopathology and drug studies? Recently, a EULAR taskforce has been set up in this area (1).

Objectives

To characterize the prodromal and the very early PsA through a systematic literature review (SLR).

Methods

A SLR explored MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL, up to 22 October 2021. The objective was to identify the symptoms, objective signs, lab tests, imaging features and other characteristics of patients later diagnosed as “new onset” PsA in two key populations: 1) patients with PsO and 2) patients with early undifferentiated arthritis (UA). Studies of adult patients published in English were included, if they reported characteristics of pre-PsA or new onset PsA patients, and data were extracted by 2 readers. Meta-analysis was not done due to data heterogeneity (PsA classification criteria, outcome measures and length of observation). Results are reported semi-quantitatively.

Results

Of 31449 references, 22 studies were included of which 12 were prospective; 7 retrospective and 3 cross-sectional. Eighteen studies reported on patients with PsO (n=95828) later diagnosed as PsA (n=2136) with a mean duration of follow up of 5.2 (±3.9) years. Seven out of 18 (38.8%) studies were informative regarding the clinical features of the new onset PsA. Four studies on early UA patients (n=492) later diagnosed as PsA (n=49) were included. Progression to PsA was associated with the presence of musculoskeletal (MSK) complaints (mainly joint tenderness) and the presence of subclinical MSK inflammation detected by imaging. Peripheral oligo-arthritis was the prevalent clinical presentation of new onset PsA.

Conclusion

As expected, joint pain and imaging evidence of MSK inflammation were associated with PsA development in PsO patients. The SLR highlights the lack of robust evidence regarding data associated with the development of PsA. More prospective studies focusing on transition from PsO to PsA are needed.

Table 1.FeaturesTransition from PsO to PsA (n = 18 studies)Transition from UA to PsA (n = 4 studies)Clinical characterization of New Onset PsA (n = 5 studies)Patient reported symptomsVAS pain+++NAEntheseal pain+NAMorning stiffness+NAFatigue+NAHAQ more compromised++NAArthralgia+++NAClinical examinationJoint tenderness+++++++Swelling joints++++Entheseal tendernessMajor domain of pattern presentationPeripheral arthritis (more frequent)+++PolyarthritisMono-oligoarthritis++Inflammatory marker(s)CRP++ImagingMSK inflammation detected by imaging++++Radiographic evidence of specific damage++

Legend:

PsO = psoriasis (affecting skin); PsA = psoriatic arthritis; UA = undifferentiated inflammatory arthritis; VAS = visual-analogue scale; NA = not applicable; HAQ = health assessment questionnaire; CRP = C-reactive protein; MSK = musculoskeletal

+ = 1 study for positive association; ++ = 2 studies for positive association; +++ >= 3 studies for positive association

References

[1]https://www.eular.org/ongoing_initiatives.cfm

Disclosure of Interests

Alen Zabotti Speakers bureau: Amgen, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, UCB, Paid instructor for: Amgen, Janssen, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Gabriele De Marco: None declared, Laure Gossec Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz, Xenofon Baraliakos: None declared, Jenny Emmel: None declared, Daniel Aletaha Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, SoBi, Sanofi, Annamaria Iagnocco: None declared, Josef S. Smolen: None declared, Dennis McGonagle Speakers bureau: Janssen, Lilly, UCB, Abbvie, Pfizer, Celgene, Grant/research support from: Janssen

Immunomodulatory therapies for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection: an update of the systematic literature review to inform EULAR points to consider

Objective

To update the EULAR 2020 systematic literature review (SLR) on efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory agents in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Methods

As part of a EULAR taskforce, a systematic literature search update was conducted from 11 December 2020 to 14 July 2021. Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies and extracted data on efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory agents used therapeutically in SARS-CoV-2 infection at any stage of disease. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with validated tools.

Results

Of the 26 959 records, 520 articles were eligible for inclusion. Studies were mainly at high or unclear RoB. New randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on tocilizumab clarified its benefit in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, mainly if associated with glucocorticoids. There are emergent data on the usefulness of baricitinib and tofacitinib in severe COVID-19. Other therapeutic strategies such as the use of convalescent plasma and anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies showed efficacy in subjects not mounting normal anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses.

Conclusion

This new SLR confirms that some immunomodulators (tocilizumab and JAK inhibitors) have a role for treating severe and critical COVID-19. Although better evidence is available compared with the previous SLR, the need of RCT with combination therapy (glucocorticoids+anti-cytokines) versus monotherapy with glucocorticoids still remains alongside the need for standardisation of inclusion criteria and outcomes to ultimately improve the care and prognosis of affected people. This SLR informed the 2021 update of the EULAR points to consider on the use of immunomodulatory therapies in COVID-19.

OP0287 IMMUNOMODULATORY THERAPIES FOR SEVERE FORMS OF COVID-19: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW TO INFORM EULAR POINTS TO CONSIDER

Background:

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) pandemic is a global health problem. Beside the specific pathogenic effect of SARS-CoV-2, a deleterious aberrant non-effective host immune response plays an important role especially in severe forms of COVID-19. There is intense investigation to explore the utility of immunomodulatory drugs commonly used in the Rheumatology arena as agents that may mitigate against COVID-19 to improve disease prognosis. Rheumatologists are used to the utilization of these immune targeted therapies.

Objectives:

To summarize the available information on the use of immunomodulatory agents in severe COVID-19.

Methods:

As part of a EULAR taskforce, a systematic literature search was conducted from January 2019 up to December 11, 2020. Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies according to the PICO framework P (population): patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection; I (intervention): any immunomodulator agent/strategy; C (comparator): any comparator; O (outcome) any clinical outcome including but not limited to mortality, admission to intensive care unit and clinical improvement. Data on efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory agents utilized therapeutically in SARS-CoV-2 infection at any stage were extracted. The risk of bias was assessed using validated tools.

Results:

Of 60372 records, 401 articles were eligible for inclusion. Studies were at variable risk of bias. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were available for the following drugs: hydroxychloroquine (N=12), glucocorticoids (N=6), tocilizumab (N= 4), convalescent plasma (N=4), interferon beta (N=2), IVIg (N=2) and N=1 each for anakinra, baricitinib, colchicine, leflunomide, ruxolitinib, interferon kappa, and vilobelimab. For glucocorticoids, dexamethasone reduced mortality only in patients requiring respiratory support; while methylprednisolone reduced mortality in patients aged 60 years or over. Data from RCTs on tocilizumab are conflicting and definite conclusions cannot be drawn at this point in time, but recent studies suggest possible benefit in patients requiring respiratory support. Hydroxychloroquine was not beneficial at any disease stage, one RCT with anakinra was negative, one RCT with baricitinib+remdesivir was positive, and individual trials testing some other compounds provided interesting, albeit preliminary, results.

Conclusion:

Although there is emerging evidence about immunomodulatory therapies for the management of COVID-19, conclusive data is scarce with some conflicting data. Since glucocorticoids seem to improve survival in some subsets of patients, RCTs comparing glucocorticoids alone versus glucocorticoids plus anti-cytokine/immunomodulatory treatment are warranted. This SLR informed the initiative to formulate EULAR points to consider on pathophysiology and use of immunomodulatory therapies in COVID-19.

Figure 1.

Forest plots showing the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval for mortality in randomized controlled trials divided by intervention. The latest follow-up available is reported in the timing column.

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared

Immunomodulatory therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic literature review to inform EULAR points to consider

OBJECTIVE

To summarise the available information on efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory agents in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

As part of a European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) taskforce, a systematic literature search was conducted from January 2019 to 11 December 2020. Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies according to the Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome framework and extracted data on efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory agents used therapeutically in SARS-CoV-2 infection at any stage. The risk of bias was assessed with validated tools.

RESULTS

Of the 60 372 records, 401 articles were eligible for inclusion. Studies were at variable risk of bias. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were available for the following drugs: hydroxychloroquine (n=12), glucocorticoids (n=6), tocilizumab (n=4), convalescent plasma (n=4), interferon beta (n=2), intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg) (n=2) and n=1 each for anakinra, baricitinib, colchicine, leflunomide, ruxolitinib, interferon kappa and vilobelimab. Glucocorticoids were able to reduce mortality in specific subsets of patients, while conflicting data were available about tocilizumab. Hydroxychloroquine was not beneficial at any disease stage, one RCT with anakinra was negative, one RCT with baricitinib+remdesivir was positive, and individual trials on some other compounds provided interesting, although preliminary, results.

CONCLUSION

Although there is emerging evidence about immunomodulatory therapies for the management of COVID-19, conclusive data are scarce with some conflicting data. Since glucocorticoids seem to improve survival in some subsets of patients, RCTs comparing glucocorticoids alone versus glucocorticoids plus anticytokine/immunomodulatory treatment are warranted. This systematic literature review informed the initiative to formulate EULAR 'points to consider' on COVID-19 pathophysiology and immunomodulatory treatment from the rheumatology perspective.

POS0052 PATHOPHYSIOLOGY OF ACUTE RESPIRATORY SYNDROME CORONAVIRUS 2 INFECTION: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW TO INFORM EULAR POINTS TO CONSIDER

Background:

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic is a global health problem. Beside the specific pathogenic effect of SARS-CoV-2, incompletely understood deleterious and aberrant host immune responses play critical roles in severe disease. Rheumatologists have the best experience of studying and treating these complicated hyperinflammatory processes.

Objectives:

To summarize the available information on pathophysiology of COVID-19.

Methods:

As part of a EULAR taskforce, two systematic literature reviews were performed one on pathophysiology and one on immunomodulatory therapies. Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies according to the following PICO framework: P (population): patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection; I (intervention): any intervention/no intervention; C (comparator): any comparator; O (outcome) any clinical or serological outcome including but not limited to immune cell phenotype and function and serum cytokine concentration. The results pertaining to pathophysiology of COVID-19 are presented here.

Results:

Of the 55496 records yielded, 85 articles were eligible for inclusion. Included studies were at variable risk of bias and exploring various aspects of disease pathogenesis from immune to non-immune cells (Table 1). Pro-inflammatory cytokines’ expression including IL-6, was increased, especially in severe COVID-19, although not as high as other states with severe systemic inflammation. Innate and adaptative immune cell compartments were differentially affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection: neutrophils displayed an immature differentiation state and also increased neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) formation. Dendritic cell number was reduced and classical monocytes was increased although displaying a reduced expression of HLA-DR. The lymphoid compartment was also affected: lymphopenia was present with a reduced number of CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes and more frequent PD1+CD8+ T cells corresponding to an exhausted phenotype. Antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection showed a high variability across individuals and disease spectrum. Multiparametric algorithms showed variable diagnostic performances in predicting survival, hospitalization, disease progression or severity, and mortality. Differences in SARS-CoV-2 manifestations in adults and children were highlighted.

Conclusion:

Overall, SARS-CoV-2 infection affects both innate and adaptative immune responses in a variable way, according to both disease severity and individual parameters. This SLR informs the EULAR points to consider on pathophysiology and use of immunomodulatory therapies in COVID-19.

Table 1.

Studies on SARS-CoV-2 infection pathogenesis

Research questionNCytokines profile7Immune profile18Algorithm17Children3Comorbidities1Endothelial dysfunction and platelets8Gut and microbiota3Genetics and variants8Histology7Antibodies profiles8Viral load and immune response4Interferon3Immunosenecsnce3Total90*

*Some manuscripts were including in several research questions. Total number of studies included n=85.

Disclosure of Interests:

Aurelie Najm Speakers bureau: BMS, Consultant of: BMS, Alessia Alunno: None declared, Xavier Mariette Speakers bureau: BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Servier and UCB, Consultant of: BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Servier and UCB, Benjamin Terrier Speakers bureau: Roche, Chugai, Vifor Pharma, GSK, AstraZeneca, Terumo BCT, LFB and Grifols, Consultant of: Roche, Chugai, Vifor Pharma, GSK, AstraZeneca, Terumo BCT, LFB and Grifols, Gabriele De Marco: None declared, Laura Mason: None declared, Jenny Emmel: None declared, Dennis McGonagle Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Pedro M Machado Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche and UCB.

Systematic literature review of non-topical treatments for early, untreated (systemic therapy naïve) psoriatic disease: a GRAPPA initiative

Background

Psoriatic disease (PsD) is a complex systemic disorder with cutaneous and musculoskeletal manifestations. Current evidence on pharmacological interventions, effective across the spectrum of clinical manifestations of early, systemic treatment-naïve PsD, is limited. This review aims to appraise such evidence.

Methods

This systematic review examined seven patient-intervention-comparator-outcome research questions to address the efficacy of the interventions on the following: across the spectrum of clinical manifestations PsD activity; peripheral arthritis; dactylitis; spondylitis; enthesitis; skin; and nails. Early PsD was defined as a disease duration of ≤2 years, except for studies investigating outcomes restricted to the skin. Eligible references were clinical trials or well-designed prospective studies/series reporting on adult humans, untreated, with cutaneous and/or musculoskeletal features of PsD.

Results

Nine references (out of 160 319, publication range 1946-2019) fulfilled the eligibility criteria. No study adopted comprehensive (that is, simultaneous assessment of different PsD manifestations) composite indices as primary outcome measures. Individual studies reported that apremilast and biologics successfully improved outcomes (disease activity index for PsA, minimal disease activity, PsA DAS, psoriasis area and severity index, PsA response criteria) when efficacy analyses were restricted to single manifestations of untreated PsD. Only qualitative synthesis of evidence was possible, owing to the following factors: data heterogeneity (disease classification criteria, outcome measures); unavailable data subsets (focused on early, untreated PsD) at the single study level; and insufficient data on the exposure of participants to previous treatment.

Conclusion

Effective interventions, albeit limited in scope, were found for early, treatment-naïve PsD. No study provided evidence about the management of co-occurring cutaneous and musculoskeletal manifestations in early, treatment-naïve PsD. This review highlights an unmet need in research on early PsD.

Pathophysiology of acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection: a systematic literature review to inform EULAR points to consider

BACKGROUND

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is a global health problem. Beside the specific pathogenic effect of SARS-CoV-2, incompletely understood deleterious and aberrant host immune responses play critical roles in severe disease. Our objective was to summarise the available information on the pathophysiology of COVID-19.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies according to the following PICO framework: P (population): patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection; I (intervention): any intervention/no intervention; C (comparator): any comparator; O (outcome) any clinical or serological outcome including but not limited to immune cell phenotype and function and serum cytokine concentration.

RESULTS

Of the 55 496 records yielded, 84 articles were eligible for inclusion according to question-specific research criteria. Proinflammatory cytokine expression, including interleukin-6 (IL-6), was increased, especially in severe COVID-19, although not as high as other states with severe systemic inflammation. The myeloid and lymphoid compartments were differentially affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection depending on disease phenotype. Failure to maintain high interferon (IFN) levels was characteristic of severe forms of COVID-19 and could be related to loss-of-function mutations in the IFN pathway and/or the presence of anti-IFN antibodies. Antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection showed a high variability across individuals and disease spectrum. Multiparametric algorithms showed variable diagnostic performances in predicting survival, hospitalisation, disease progression or severity, and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

SARS-CoV-2 infection affects both humoral and cellular immunity depending on both disease severity and individual parameters. This systematic literature review informed the EULAR 'points to consider' on COVID-19 pathophysiology and immunomodulatory therapies.

[The motor activity study segment as pilot study of The Child and Adolescent Health Survey]

In the Health Survey for Children and Adolescents the examination of motor activity is one aspect of physical health covered by the study. This underlines the importance of physical activity for physical development in early years. This first representative child and adolescent study for Germany intends to obtain data on motor activity and to allow for the implementation of specific intervention programmes encouraging physical activity. The specific general conditions under which the survey is conducted restrict the selection and scope of possible instruments to a minimal programme, including fitness tests, strength in combination with endurance and coordinative skills as well as flexibility. In a pilot study the suitability, feasibility and the obtained evidence of selected single motor tests were tested. This article explains the choice of instruments and methods used in the examination of physical fitness. It also discusses methodological difficulties which affect the standardisation of tests and the requirements regarding personnel. A major concern of the pilot study was the evaluation of tested instruments with regard to gender and age differences. For the main survey the following tests are recommended: coordination (balancing backwards, one-leg-footing, sideway jumping), perseverance (sit-ups, push-ups), and flexibility (trunk bending).