SwePub
Sök i SwePub databas

  Utökad sökning

Träfflista för sökning "WFRF:(Huizinga T) "

Sökning: WFRF:(Huizinga T)

  • Resultat 1-10 av 56
Sortera/gruppera träfflistan
   
NumreringReferensOmslagsbildHitta
1.
  • Smolen, JS, et al. (författare)
  • EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2016 update
  • 2017
  • Ingår i: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 76:6, s. 960-977
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Recent insights in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) necessitated updating the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) RA management recommendations. A large international Task Force based decisions on evidence from 3 systematic literature reviews, developing 4 overarching principles and 12 recommendations (vs 3 and 14, respectively, in 2013). The recommendations address conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GC); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, clazakizumab, sarilumab and sirukumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (Janus kinase (Jak) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib). Monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and the targets of sustained clinical remission (as defined by the American College of Rheumatology-(ACR)-EULAR Boolean or index criteria) or low disease activity are discussed. Cost aspects were taken into consideration. As first strategy, the Task Force recommends MTX (rapid escalation to 25 mg/week) plus short-term GC, aiming at >50% improvement within 3 and target attainment within 6 months. If this fails stratification is recommended. Without unfavourable prognostic markers, switching to—or adding—another csDMARDs (plus short-term GC) is suggested. In the presence of unfavourable prognostic markers (autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions, failure of 2 csDMARDs), any bDMARD (current practice) or Jak-inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD or tsDMARD is recommended. If a patient is in sustained remission, bDMARDs can be tapered. For each recommendation, levels of evidence and Task Force agreement are provided, both mostly very high. These recommendations intend informing rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies, hospital officials, social security agencies and regulators about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA, aimed at attaining best outcomes with current therapies.
  •  
2.
  • Amkreutz, J. A. M. P., et al. (författare)
  • Association Between Bone Mineral Density and Autoantibodies in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis
  • 2021
  • Ingår i: Arthritis and Rheumatology. - : Wiley. - 2326-5191 .- 2326-5205. ; 73:6, s. 921-930
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Objective: Autoantibodies, such as anti–citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs), have been described as inducing bone loss in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), which can also be reflected by bone mineral density (BMD). We therefore examined the association between osteoporosis and autoantibodies in two independent RA cohorts. Methods: Dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) of the lumbar spine and left hip was performed in 408 Dutch patients with early RA during 5 years of follow-up and in 198 Swedish patients with early RA during 10 years of follow-up. The longitudinal effect of ACPAs and other autoantibodies on several BMD measures was assessed using generalized estimating equations. Results: In the Dutch cohort, significantly lower BMD at baseline was observed in ACPA-positive patients compared to ACPA-negative patients, with an estimated marginal mean BMD in the left hip of 0.92 g/cm2 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.91–0.93) versus 0.95 g/cm2 (95% CI 0.93–0.97) (P = 0.01). In line with this, significantly lower Z scores at baseline were noted in the ACPA-positive group compared to the ACPA-negative group (estimated marginal mean Z score in the left hip of 0.18 [95% CI 0.08–0.29] versus 0.48 [95% CI 0.33–0.63]) (P < 0.01). However, despite clear differences at baseline, ACPA positivity was not associated with greater decrease in absolute BMD or Z scores over time. Furthermore, there was no association between BMD and higher levels of ACPAs or other autoantibodies (rheumatoid factor and anti–carbamylated protein antibodies). In the Swedish cohort, ACPA-positive patients tended to have a higher prevalence of osteopenia at baseline (P = 0.04), but again, ACPA positivity was not associated with an increased prevalence of osteopenia or osteoporosis over time. Conclusion: The presence of ACPAs is associated with significantly lower BMD at baseline, but not with greater BMD loss over time in treated RA patients. These results suggest that ACPAs alone do not appear to contribute to bone loss after disease onset when disease activity is well-managed. © 2020 The Authors. Arthritis & Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.
  •  
3.
  •  
4.
  • Knevel, R, et al. (författare)
  • Rheumatic?-A Digital Diagnostic Decision Support Tool for Individuals Suspecting Rheumatic Diseases: A Multicenter Pilot Validation Study
  • 2022
  • Ingår i: Frontiers in medicine. - : Frontiers Media SA. - 2296-858X. ; 9, s. 774945-
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Digital diagnostic decision support tools promise to accelerate diagnosis and increase health care efficiency in rheumatology. Rheumatic? is an online tool developed by specialists in rheumatology and general medicine together with patients and patient organizations. It calculates a risk score for several rheumatic diseases. We ran a pilot study retrospectively testing Rheumatic? for its ability to differentiate symptoms from existing or emerging immune-mediated rheumatic diseases from other rheumatic and musculoskeletal complaints and disorders in patients visiting rheumatology clinics.Materials and MethodsThe performance of Rheumatic? was tested using in three university rheumatology centers: (A) patients at Risk for RA (Karolinska Institutet, n = 50 individuals with musculoskeletal complaints and anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity) (B) patients with early joint swelling [dataset B (Erlangen) n = 52]. (C) Patients with early arthritis where the clinician considered it likely to be of auto-immune origin [dataset C (Leiden) n = 73]. In dataset A we tested whether Rheumatic? could predict the development of arthritis. In dataset B and C we tested whether Rheumatic? could predict the development of an immune-mediated rheumatic diseases. We examined the discriminative power of the total score with the Wilcoxon rank test and the area-under-the-receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC-ROC). Next, we calculated the test characteristics for these patients passing the first or second expert-based Rheumatic? scoring threshold.ResultsThe total test scores differentiated between: (A) Individuals developing arthritis or not, median 245 vs. 163, P &lt; 0.0001, AUC-ROC = 75.3; (B) patients with an immune-mediated arthritic disease or not median 191 vs. 107, P &lt; 0.0001, AUC-ROC = 79.0; but less patients with an immune-mediated arthritic disease or not amongst those where the clinician already considered an immune mediated disease most likely (median 262 vs. 212, P &lt; 0.0001, AUC-ROC = 53.6). Threshold-1 (advising to visit primary care doctor) was highly specific in dataset A and B (0.72, 0.87, and 0.23, respectively) and sensitive (0.67, 0.61, and 0.67). Threshold-2 (advising to visit rheumatologic care) was very specific in all three centers but not very sensitive: specificity of 1.0, 0.96, and 0.91, sensitivity 0.05, 0.07, 0.14 in dataset A, B, and C, respectively.ConclusionRheumatic? is a web-based patient-centered multilingual diagnostic tool capable of differentiating immune-mediated rheumatic conditions from other musculoskeletal problems. The current scoring system needs to be further optimized.
  •  
5.
  • Knevel, R, et al. (författare)
  • Rheumatic?-A Digital Diagnostic Decision Support Tool for Individuals Suspecting Rheumatic Diseases: A Multicenter Pilot Validation Study
  • 2022
  • Ingår i: Frontiers in medicine. - : Frontiers Media SA. - 2296-858X. ; 9, s. 774945-
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Digital diagnostic decision support tools promise to accelerate diagnosis and increase health care efficiency in rheumatology. Rheumatic? is an online tool developed by specialists in rheumatology and general medicine together with patients and patient organizations. It calculates a risk score for several rheumatic diseases. We ran a pilot study retrospectively testing Rheumatic? for its ability to differentiate symptoms from existing or emerging immune-mediated rheumatic diseases from other rheumatic and musculoskeletal complaints and disorders in patients visiting rheumatology clinics.Materials and MethodsThe performance of Rheumatic? was tested using in three university rheumatology centers: (A) patients at Risk for RA (Karolinska Institutet, n = 50 individuals with musculoskeletal complaints and anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity) (B) patients with early joint swelling [dataset B (Erlangen) n = 52]. (C) Patients with early arthritis where the clinician considered it likely to be of auto-immune origin [dataset C (Leiden) n = 73]. In dataset A we tested whether Rheumatic? could predict the development of arthritis. In dataset B and C we tested whether Rheumatic? could predict the development of an immune-mediated rheumatic diseases. We examined the discriminative power of the total score with the Wilcoxon rank test and the area-under-the-receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC-ROC). Next, we calculated the test characteristics for these patients passing the first or second expert-based Rheumatic? scoring threshold.ResultsThe total test scores differentiated between: (A) Individuals developing arthritis or not, median 245 vs. 163, P &lt; 0.0001, AUC-ROC = 75.3; (B) patients with an immune-mediated arthritic disease or not median 191 vs. 107, P &lt; 0.0001, AUC-ROC = 79.0; but less patients with an immune-mediated arthritic disease or not amongst those where the clinician already considered an immune mediated disease most likely (median 262 vs. 212, P &lt; 0.0001, AUC-ROC = 53.6). Threshold-1 (advising to visit primary care doctor) was highly specific in dataset A and B (0.72, 0.87, and 0.23, respectively) and sensitive (0.67, 0.61, and 0.67). Threshold-2 (advising to visit rheumatologic care) was very specific in all three centers but not very sensitive: specificity of 1.0, 0.96, and 0.91, sensitivity 0.05, 0.07, 0.14 in dataset A, B, and C, respectively.ConclusionRheumatic? is a web-based patient-centered multilingual diagnostic tool capable of differentiating immune-mediated rheumatic conditions from other musculoskeletal problems. The current scoring system needs to be further optimized.
  •  
6.
  • Knevel, R, et al. (författare)
  • RHEUMATIC? - A DIGITAL DIAGNOSTIC DECISION SUPPORT TOOL FOR INDIVIDUALS SUSPECTING RHEUMATIC DISEASES: A MULTICENTER VALIDATION STUDY
  • 2021
  • Ingår i: ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 80, s. 87-88
  • Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
    • Digital diagnostic decision support tools promise to accelerate diagnosis and increase health care efficiency in rheumatology. Rheumatic? is an online tool developed by specialists in rheumatology and general medicine together with patients and patient organizations for individuals suspecting a rheumatic disease.1,2 The tool can be used by people suspicious for rheumatic diseases resulting in individual advise on eventually seeking further health care.Objectives:We tested Rheumatic? for its ability to differentiate symptoms from immune-mediated diseases from other rheumatic and musculoskeletal complaints and disorders in patients visiting rheumatology clinics.Methods:The performance of Rheumatic? was tested using data from 175 patients from three university rheumatology centers covering two different settings:A.Risk-RA phase setting. Here, we tested whether Rheumatic? could predict the development of arthritis in 50 at risk-individuals with musculoskeletal complaints and anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity from the KI (Karolinska Institutet)B.Early arthritis setting. Here, we tested whether Rheumatic? could predict the development of an immune-mediated rheumatic disease in i) EUMC (Erlangen) n=52 patients and ii) LUMC (Leiden) n=73 patients.In each setting, we examined the discriminative power of the total score with the Wilcoxon rank test and the area-under-the-receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC-ROC).Results:In setting A, the total test score clearly differentiated between individuals developing arthritis or not, median 245 versus 163, P < 0.0001, AUC-ROC = 75.3 (Figure 1). Also within patients with arthritis the Rheumatic? total score was significantly higher in patients developing an immune-mediated arthritic disease versus those who did not: median score EUMC 191 versus 107, P < 0.0001, AUC-ROC = 79.0, and LUMC 262 versus 212, P < 0.0001, AUC-ROC = 53.6.Figure 1.(Area under) the receiver operating curve for the total Rheumatic? scoreConclusion:Rheumatic? is a web-based patient-centered multilingual diagnostic tool capable of differentiating immune-mediated rheumatic conditions from other musculoskeletal problems. A following subject of research is how the tool performs in a population-wide setting.References:[1]Knitza J. et al. Mobile Health in Rheumatology: A Patient Survey Study Exploring Usage, Preferences, Barriers and eHealth Literacy. JMIR mHealth and uHealth. 2020.[2]https://rheumatic.elsa.science/en/Acknowledgements:This project has received funding from EIT Health. EIT Health is supported by the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), a body of the European Union that receives support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation program.This project has received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement No 777357, RTCure.Disclosure of Interests:Rachel Knevel: None declared, Johannes Knitza: None declared, Aase Hensvold: None declared, Alexandra Circiumaru: None declared, Tor Bruce Employee of: Ocean Observations, Sebastian Evans Employee of: Elsa Science, Tjardo Maarseveen: None declared, Marc Maurits: None declared, Liesbeth Beaart- van de Voorde: None declared, David Simon: None declared, Arnd Kleyer: None declared, Martina Johannesson: None declared, Georg Schett: None declared, Thomas Huizinga: None declared, Sofia Svanteson Employee of: Elsa Science, Alexandra Lindfors Employee of: Ocean Observations, Lars Klareskog: None declared, Anca Catrina: None declared
  •  
7.
  • Sieberts, SK, et al. (författare)
  • Crowdsourced assessment of common genetic contribution to predicting anti-TNF treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis
  • 2016
  • Ingår i: Nature communications. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2041-1723. ; 7, s. 12460-
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) affects millions world-wide. While anti-TNF treatment is widely used to reduce disease progression, treatment fails in ∼one-third of patients. No biomarker currently exists that identifies non-responders before treatment. A rigorous community-based assessment of the utility of SNP data for predicting anti-TNF treatment efficacy in RA patients was performed in the context of a DREAM Challenge (http://www.synapse.org/RA_Challenge). An open challenge framework enabled the comparative evaluation of predictions developed by 73 research groups using the most comprehensive available data and covering a wide range of state-of-the-art modelling methodologies. Despite a significant genetic heritability estimate of treatment non-response trait (h2=0.18, P value=0.02), no significant genetic contribution to prediction accuracy is observed. Results formally confirm the expectations of the rheumatology community that SNP information does not significantly improve predictive performance relative to standard clinical traits, thereby justifying a refocusing of future efforts on collection of other data.
  •  
8.
  • Bertsias, G., et al. (författare)
  • EULAR recommendations for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus. Report of a task force of the EULAR standing committee for international clinical studies including therapeutics
  • 2008
  • Ingår i: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 67:2, s. 195-205
  • Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Objective: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a complex disease with variable presentations, course and prognosis. We sought to develop evidence-based recommendations addressing the major issues in the management of SLE. Methods: The EULAR Task Force on SLE comprised 19 specialists and a clinical epidemiologist. Key questions for the management of SLE were compiled using the Delphi technique. A systematic search of PubMed and Cochrane Library Reports was performed using McMaster/Hedges clinical queries' strategies for questions related to the diagnosis, prognosis, monitoring and treatment of SLE. For neuropsychiatric, pregnancy and antiphospholipid syndrome questions, the search was conducted using an array of relevant terms. Evidence was categorised based on sample size and type of design, and the categories of available evidence were identified for each recommendation. The strength of recommendation was assessed based on the category of available evidence, and agreement on the statements was measured across the 19 specialists. Results: Twelve questions were generated regarding the prognosis, diagnosis, monitoring and treatment of SLE, including neuropsychiatric SLE, pregnancy, the antiphospholipid syndrome and lupus nephritis. The evidence to support each proposition was evaluated and scored. After discussion and votes, the final recommendations were presented using brief statements. The average agreement among experts was 8.8 out of 10. Conclusion: Recommendations for the management of SLE were developed using an evidence-based approach followed by expert consensus with high level of agreement among the experts.
  •  
9.
  • Bertsias, G. K., et al. (författare)
  • EULAR points to consider for conducting clinical trials in systemic lupus erythematosus: literature based evidence for the selection of endpoints
  • 2009
  • Ingår i: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 68:4, s. 477-483
  • Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Objective: To assess available evidence on the use of end-points ( outcome measures) in clinical trials in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), as a part of the development of evidence-based recommendations for points to consider in clinical trials in SLE. Methods: The European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Task Force on SLE comprised 19 specialists, a clinical epidemiologist and a research fellow. Key questions addressing the evidence for clinical trial end-points in SLE were compiled using the Delphi technique. A systematic search of the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases was performed using McMaster/Hedges clinical query strategies and an array of relevant terms. Evidence was categorised based on sample size and type of design, and the categories of available evidence were identified for each recommendation. The strength of recommendation was assessed based on the category of available evidence and agreement on the statements was measured across the 19 specialists. Results: Eight questions were generated regarding end-points for clinical trials. The evidence to support each proposition was evaluated. The literature review revealed that most outcome measures used in phase 2/3 trials in SLE have not been formally validated in clinical trials, although some indirect validation has been undertaken. Conclusion: This systematic literature review forms the evidence base considered in the development of the EULAR recommendations for end-points in clinical trials in SLE.
  •  
10.
  •  
Skapa referenser, mejla, bekava och länka
  • Resultat 1-10 av 56

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Stäng

Kopiera och spara länken för att återkomma till aktuell vy