Search

Peter C Taylor, 1 Neil Betteridge, 2 T Michelle Brown, 3 John Woolcott, 4 Alan J Kivitz, 5 Cristiano Zerbini, 6 Diane Whalley, 7 Oyebimpe Olayinka-Amao, 3 Connie Chen, 8 Palle Dahl, 9 Dario Ponce de Leon, 10 David Gruben, 11 Lara Fallon 12 1Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; 2Neil Betteridge Associates, London, UK; 3Patient-Centered Outcomes Assessment Group, RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA; 4Patient and Health Impact, Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Pfizer Inc, Collegeville, PA, USA; 5Altoona Center for Clinical Research, Duncansville, PA, USA; 6Department of Rheumatology, Centro Paulista De Investigação Clinica, São Paulo, Brazil; 7Patient-Centered Outcomes Assessment Group, RTI Health Solutions, Manchester, UK; 8Xeljanz, Rheumatology, Inflammation & Immunology Medical Affairs, Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA; 9Medical Affairs, International Developed Markets, Inflammation & Immunology, Pfizer Inc, Ballerup, Denmark; 10Medical Affairs Latin-America, Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA; 11Statistical Research and Data Science Center, Pfizer Inc, Groton, CT, USA; 12Global Medical Affairs, Pfizer Inc, Montreal, QC, CanadaCorrespondence: Peter C TaylorBotnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Windmill Road, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LD, UKTel +441865 227323Email peter.taylor@kennedy.ox.ac.ukPurpose: Current knowledge of the reasons for patients’ preference for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment modes is limited. This study was designed to identify preferences for four treatment modes, and to obtain in-depth information on the reasons for these preferences.Patients and Methods: In this multi-national, cross-sectional, qualitative study, in-depth interviews were conducted with adult patients with RA in the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Brazil. Patients’ strength of preference was evaluated using a 100-point allocation task (0– 100; 100=strongest) across four treatment modes: oral, self-injection, clinic-injection, and infusion. Qualitative descriptive analysis methods were used to identify, characterize, and summarize patterns found in the interview data relating to reasons for these preferences.Results: 100 patients were interviewed (female, 75.0%; mean age, 53.9 years; mean 11.6 years since diagnosis). Among the four treatment modes, oral administration was allocated the highest mean (standard deviation) preference points (47.3 [33.1]) and was ranked first choice by the greatest percentage of patients (57.0%), followed by self-injection (29.7 [27.7]; 29.0%), infusion (15.4 [24.6]; 16.0%), and clinic-injection (7.5 [14.1]; 2.0%). Overall, 56.0% of patients had a “strong” first-choice preference (ie, point allocation ≥ 70); most of these patients chose oral (62.5%) vs self-injection (23.2%), infusion (10.7%), or clinic-injection (3.6%). Speed and/or ease of administration were the most commonly reported reasons for patients choosing oral (52.6%) or self-injection (55.2%). The most common reasons for patients not choosing oral or self-injection were not wanting to take another pill (37.2%) and avoiding pain due to needles (46.5%), respectively.Conclusion: These data report factors important to patients regarding preferences for RA treatment modes. Patients may benefit from discussions with their healthcare professionals and/or patient support groups, regarding RA treatment modes, to facilitate shared decision-making.Keywords: drug administration, patient perspective, qualitative research, surveys

Background: Targeting interleukin (IL)-6 has become a major therapeutic strategy in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory disease. Interference with the IL-6 pathway can be directed at the specific receptor using anti-IL-6Rα antibodies or by directly inhibiting the IL-6 cytokine. This paper is an update of a previous consensus document, based on most recent evidence and expert opinion, that aims to inform on the medical use of interfering with the IL-6 pathway., Methods: A systematic literature research was performed that focused on IL-6-pathway inhibitors in inflammatory diseases. Evidence was put in context by a large group of international experts and patients in a subsequent consensus process. All were involved in formulating the consensus statements, and in the preparation of this document., Results: The consensus process covered relevant aspects of dosing and populations for different indications of IL-6 pathway inhibitors that are approved across the world, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular-course and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, giant cell arteritis, Takayasu arteritis, adult-onset Still's disease, Castleman's disease, chimeric antigen receptor-T-cell-induced cytokine release syndrome, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder and severe COVID-19. Also addressed were other clinical aspects of the use of IL-6 pathway inhibitors, including pretreatment screening, safety, contraindications and monitoring., Conclusions: The document provides a comprehensive consensus on the use of IL-6 inhibition to treat inflammatory disorders to inform healthcare professionals (including researchers), patients, administrators and payers., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DA: Grants or contracts from any entity: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, SoBi and Sanofi; Consulting fees: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Sandoz; Support for attending meetings and/or travel: AbbVie, Gilead, Sandoz, Pfizer, BMSAK: Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis and PfizerKK: Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Boehringer Ingelheim, UCB Pharma and AbbVie; Support for attending meetings and/or travel: AbbVie, Gilead, Sandoz, Pfizer and BMSJI: Grants or contracts from any entity: Pfizer, GSK and Janssen; Consulting fees: AbbVie, Gilead and BMS; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie, Gilead and Roche; Support for attending meetings and/or travel: Eli Lilly and Gilead; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: Eli Lilly; Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group: Versus Arthritis Board member (unpaid) NS: Grants or contracts from any entity: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis and Roche Diagnostics; Consulting fees: Afimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer and SanofiMV: Grants or contracts from any entity: PfizerBC: Grants or contracts from any entity: Pfizer, Roche, Chugai and Novartis; Consulting fees: AbbVie, Celltrion, Janssen, Gilead-Galapagos, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche-Chugai; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Gilead-Galapagos, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Pfizer and Roche-ChugaiNB: All support for the present manuscript: Vienna Medical Academy; Consulting fees: Amgen, EULAR, Galapagos, Global Alliance for Patient Access, Grunenthal, Eli Lilly, Pfizer and Sanofi; Support for attending meetings and/or travel: EULAR and Global Alliance for Patient Access; Receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services: GalapagosJB: Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Eli Lilly and Galapagos; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: SyneosGRB: All support for the present manuscript: Sanofi; Consulting fees: AbbVie, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche and SanofiVPB: Grants or contracts from any entity: NIH (NIAID/NIAMS), The Cedar Hill Foundation, Amgen and BMS; Consulting fees: Amgen, BMS, Genzyme, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer and Sanofi-Aventis; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: KAI for NIHRC: noneEC: Grants or contracts from any entity: Bio-Cancer, Biogen, Novartis, Pfizer and Sanofi; Consulting fees: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Biocon, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Chugai Pharma, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi and RPharm; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Chugai Pharma, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, RPharm and Sanofi; Support for attending meetings and/or travel: Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie and Eli LillyMT: Grants or contracts from any entity: Albireo, Cymabay, Falk, Gilead, Intercept, MSD, Takeda, Alnylam and Ultragenyx; Consulting fees: Albireo, BioMX, Boehringer Ingelheim, Falk, Genfit, Intercept, Janssen, MSD, Gilead, Novartis, Shire, Phenex and Regulus; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Falk Foundation, Gilead, Intercept and MSD; Support for attending meetings and/or travel: AbbVie, Falk, Gilead and Intercept; Patents planned, issued or pending: Co-Inventor patent on medical use of nor-UDCATS: Grants or contracts from any entity: AbbVie and Roche; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda and NovartisCC: Grants or contracts from any entity: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ewopharma, Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer; Consulting fees: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ewopharma, Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ewopharma, Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ewopharma and Pfizer; Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group: Romanian Society of Rheumatology, Romanian Registry of Rheumatic Diseases and Romanian League against RheumatismMKC: Grants or contracts from any entity: Gilead; Consulting fees: AstraZeneca, BMS, GSK and Shannon Pharmaceuticals; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AstraZeneca and Gilead; Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group: Arthritis Foundation, New York Chapter; Stock or stock options: Johnson and Johnson, Regeneron and AmgenMD: All support for the present manuscript: Medical academy of Vienna; Grants or contracts from any entity: Roche, Sanofi, Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, BMS, Merck, Galapagos and UCB; Consulting fees: Roche, Sanofi, Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, BMS, Merck, Galapagos and UCB; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Roche, Sanofi, Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, BMS, Merck, Galapagos and UCBGP: none. DvdH: Consulting fees: AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; Other financial or non-financial interests: Director of Imaging Rheumatology bv.PE: Grants or contracts from any entity: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Samsung; Consulting fees: Abbvie, Astra-Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Galapagos, Gilead, Eli Lilly and Novartis; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Abbvie, BMS, GSK, Eli Lilly and NovartisEM: All support for the present manuscript: University of Vienna funding; Grants or contracts from any entity: Roche, Jansen, Pfizer, AbbVie and Novartis; Consulting fees: GSK, Roche, Novartis, AbbVie, Pfizer, Janssen, Eli Lilly and AstraZeneca; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: GSK, Pfizer, AbbVie, Lilly, Amgen, Janssen and AstraZeneca; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: GSKRF: Consulting fees: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Gilead, Pfizer, Novartis and Eli Lilly; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie and Pfizer; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: AbbVie, Pfizer, Eli Lilly and GSKCG: noneKH: Grants or contracts from any entity: Pfizer and BMS; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbViePAM: Grants or contracts from any entity: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boeringher-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, ChemoCentryx, Eicos, Forbius, Genentech/Roche, Genzyme/Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, InflaRx, Sanofi and Takeda; Royalties or licenses: UpToDate; Consulting fees: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boeringher-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, ChemoCentryx, CSL Behring, Dynacure, EMDSerono, Forbius, Genentech/Roche, Genzyme/Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Immagene, InflaRx, Jannsen, Kiniksa, Kyverna, Magenta, MiroBio, Mitsubishi, Neutrolis, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sparrow, Takeda and TalarisTT: Grants or contracts from any entity: Chugai Pharmaceutical; Consulting fees: Chugai, Janssen and Rpharma; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Chugai, BMS, Janssen and SanofiXM: Consulting fees: BMS, Novartis, Galapagos, Sanofi, GSK, Pfizer, Janssen and UCBKW: Grants or contracts from any entity: BMS and Pfizer; Consulting fees: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lily, Galapagos, Gilead, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, GSK, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Regeneron and SanofiMdW: Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Pfizer, Celgene, Eli Lilly and UCBKP: Payments for lectures: Roche, AbbVie, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Amgen, SOBI, UCB and MSD; Advisory Board: Roche, AbbVie, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Amgen, SOBI, UCB and MSDPN: Grants or contracts from any entity: Roche, Abbvie, Pfizer, Janssen, Gilead/Galapagos, BMS, Novartis and Eli Lilly; Consulting fees: Abbvie, Pfizer, janssen, BMS, Novartis, Lilly, Roche and Gilead/Galapagos; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Abbvie, Pfizer, janssen, BMS, Novartis, Lilly, Roche and Gilead/GalapagosYT: Grants or contracts from any entity: Asahi-Kasei, Abbvie, Chugai, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Eisai, Takeda, Corrona, Daiichi-Sankyo, Kowa and Behringer-Ingelheim; Consulting fees: Eli Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo, Taisho, Ayumi, Sanofi, GSK and Abbvie; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Gilead, AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Amgen, YL Biologics, Eisai, Astellas, Bristol-Myers and AstraZenecaCD: Grants or contracts from any entity: FWF Austria and Celgene; Consulting fees: AbbVie, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Janssen, Novartis, Eli Lilly and Galapagos; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Janssen, Novartis, Eli Lilly and Galapagos; Support for attending meetings and/or travel: AbbVie, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Janssen, Novartis, Eli Lilly and Galapagos; Receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services: MSDMLH: Grants or contracts from any entity: Novartis, Roche and Sandoz; Consulting fees: BMS and Samsung Bioepis; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: MSD, AbbVie, Novartis, Merck, Eli Lilly, Medac and Sandoz; Support for attending meetings and/or travel: The DANBIO registry; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: CellTrion and Eli Lilly; Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group: Chair of the DANBIO steering committee, Member of the Danish Rheumatism Association’s Board, Member of the Danish Rheumatism Association’s research council, Member of EULAR Quality of Care Committee, Co-chair of the EuroSpA collaboration; Receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services: Study drug for the NORD-STAR study/ Abatacept and Certolizumab pegolHSK: Consulting fees: Roche, Chugai and Sanofi-Aventis; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Roche, Chugai and Sanofi-Aventis; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: Roche, Chugai and Sanofi-AventisMN: Grants or contracts from any entity: Pfizer, Amgen, Galapagos and AbbVie; Consulting fees: AbbVie; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Celgene and AbbVie; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: AbbVieAS: Grants or contracts from any entity: oint, unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Viatris, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis and UCB; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCBAL: Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie, MSD, Alfasigma, Celltrion, BMS, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Sanofi Genzyme, Pfizer, Galapagos, Gilead, Novartis and SOBIAR: Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie, Angelini, Pfizer, Novartis, Reckitt Benckiser and SOBI; Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group: President, Pediatric Rheumatology European Society (PReS)ARR: Consulting fees: Sanofi, Roche, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, BMS and Novartis; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, BMS, Gilead, Roche, Novartis and Janssen; Payment for expert testimony: AbbVie, Novartis and Gilead; Support for attending meetings and/or travel: AbbVie and Sanofi; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: RPharmIM: Grants or contracts from any entity: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB, Amgen and Novartis; Consulting fees: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Novartis, Gilead, Amgen, UCB, GSK and Moonlake; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AbbVie; Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group: Vice Principal & Head of MVLS College/University of Glasgow, Board Member/ NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde and Evelo; Stock or stock options: Causeway Therapeutics, Compugen, Cabaletta and EveloBio; JS: grants to his institution from Abbvie, Astro, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Pfizer, and Roche; Expert advice for, or had symposia speaking engagements with, AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astro, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Gilead, ILTOO Pharma, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, R-Pharm, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi and UCB., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To summarise the evidence on effectiveness of non-pharmacological (ie, non-drug, non-surgical) interventions on work participation (sick leave, work status and presenteeism) in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs)., Methods: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal observational studies (LOS) was performed. Qualitative (RCTs/LOS) and quantitative (RCTs) evidence syntheses were conducted. Mixed-effects restricted maximum likelihood models were used to combine effect estimates, using standardised mean differences (SMDs) as the summary measure for each outcome domain separately, with a negative SMD favouring the intervention over comparator. Subgroup analyses were performed for type of RMD, risk status at baseline regarding adverse work outcomes and intervention characteristics., Results: Of 10 153 records, 64 studies (37 RCTs and 27 LOS; corresponding to k =71 treatment comparisons) were included. Interventions were mostly conducted in clinical settings (44 of 71, 62%). Qualitative synthesis suggested clear beneficial effects of 7 of 64 (11%) interventions for sick leave, 1 of 18 (6%) for work status and 1 of 17 (6%) for presenteeism. Quantitative synthesis (37 RCTs; k= 43 treatment comparisons) suggested statistically significant but only small clinical effects on each outcome (SMD sick leave (95% CI)=-0.23 (-0.33 to -0.13; k =42); SMD work status =-0.38 (-0.63 to -0.12; k =9); SMD presenteeism =-0.25 (-0.39 to -0.12; k =13))., Conclusion: In people with RMDs, empirical evidence shows that non-pharmacological interventions have small effects on work participation. Effectiveness depends on contextual factors such as disease, population risk status, intervention characteristics and outcome of interest, highlighting the importance of tailoring interventions., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SMMV is supported by Versus Arthritis (grant number 21755) and the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, UK (outside this submitted work). NB has received consulting fees from Axial Spondyloarthritis International Federation, Eli Lilly, EULAR, Global Alliance for Patient Access, Galapagos, Grünenthal, Heart Valve Voice, Pfizer and Sanofi (outside this submitted work). ADW is co-chair at the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health and Director of MSK Aware CIC (outside this submitted work). TAS is Editorial Board Member of RMD Open; has received grant/research support from AbbVie and Roche; has been a consultant for AbbVie and Sanofi Genzyme; and has been paid speaker for AbbVie, Roche and Sanofi (outside this submitted work). GRB is Editor-in-Chief of RMD Open; has received consulting fees from Amgen, AbbVie, BMS, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi; and payment or honoraria by Amgen, AbbVie, BMS, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCB (outside this submitted work). JWJB is Ethical and Strategic advisor to RMD Open. AB has received support from EULAR for this work and from AbbVie (outside this submitted work)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Aim: As part of its strategic objectives for 2023, EULAR aims to improve the work participation of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). One strategic initiative focused on the development of overarching points to consider (PtC) to support people with RMDs in healthy and sustainable paid work participation., Methods: EULAR's standardised operating procedures were followed. A steering group identified six research areas on paid work participation. Three systematic literature reviews, several non-systematic reviews and two surveys were conducted. A multidisciplinary taskforce of 25 experts from 10 European countries and Canada formulated overarching principles and PtC after discussion of the results of literature reviews and surveys. Consensus was obtained through voting, with levels of agreement obtained anonymously., Results: Three overarching principles and 11 PtC were formulated. The PtC recognise various stakeholders are important to improving work participation. Five PtC emphasise shared responsibilities (eg, obligation to provide active support) (PtC 1, 2, 3, 5, 6). One encourages people with RMDs to discuss work limitations when necessary at each phase of their working life (PtC 4) and two focus on the role of interventions by healthcare providers or employers (PtC 7, 8). Employers are encouraged to create inclusive and flexible workplaces (PtC 10) and policymakers to make necessary changes in social and labour policies (PtC 9, 11). A research agenda highlights the necessity for stronger evidence aimed at personalising work-related support to the diverse needs of people with RMDs., Conclusion: Implementation of these EULAR PtC will improve healthy and sustainable work participation of people with RMDs., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SMMV is supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre and Versus Arthritis., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Clinical studies with work participation (WP) as an outcome domain pose particular methodological challenges that hamper interpretation, comparison between studies and meta-analyses., Objectives: To develop Points to Consider (PtC) for design, analysis and reporting of studies of patients with inflammatory arthritis that include WP as a primary or secondary outcome domain., Methods: The EULAR Standardised Operating Procedures were followed. A multidisciplinary taskforce with 22 experts including patients with rheumatic diseases, from 10 EULAR countries and Canada, identified methodologic areas of concern. Two systematic literature reviews (SLR) appraised the methodology across these areas. In parallel, two surveys among professional societies and experts outside the taskforce sought for additional methodological areas or existing conducting/reporting recommendations. The taskforce formulated the PtC after presentation of the SLRs and survey results, and discussion. Consensus was obtained through informal voting, with levels of agreement obtained anonymously., Results: Two overarching principles and nine PtC were formulated. The taskforce recommends to align the work-related study objective to the design, duration, and outcome domains/measurement instruments of the study (PtC: 1-3); to identify contextual factors upfront and account for them in analyses (PtC: 4); to account for interdependence of different work outcome domains and for changes in work status over time (PtC: 5-7); to present results as means as well as proportions of patients reaching predefined meaningful categories (PtC: 8) and to explicitly report volumes of productivity loss when costs are an outcome (PtC:9)., Conclusion: Adherence to these EULAR PtC will improve the methodological quality of studies evaluating WP., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AB: research grants from Abbvie and Celgene and honoraria for consultancy or speakers honoraria from UCB, Biogen, Sandoz, Eli Lilly and Galapagos (all to her department); EN has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, AbbVie and Lilly; FPS: research grant from AbbVie, Novartis; consultancy or speaking fees: AbbVie, Angelini, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Laboratórios Vitória, MSD, Novartis, Tecnimed, UCB; SR: research grant from MSD; consultancy or speaking fees: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB; JKW: consultancy fees from Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis; RW: consultancy and speakers bureau Celltrion and Galapagos/Gilead., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Despite the profound burden of disease, a strategic global response to optimise musculoskeletal (MSK) health and guide national-level health systems strengthening priorities remains absent. Auspiced by the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health (G-MUSC), we aimed to empirically derive requisite priorities and components of a strategic response to guide global and national-level action on MSK health., Methods: Design: mixed-methods, three-phase design.Phase 1: qualitative study with international key informants (KIs), including patient representatives and people with lived experience. KIs characterised the contemporary landscape for MSK health and priorities for a global strategic response.Phase 2: scoping review of national health policies to identify contemporary MSK policy trends and foci.Phase 3: informed by phases 1-2, was a global eDelphi where multisectoral panellists rated and iterated a framework of priorities and detailed components/actions., Results: Phase 1: 31 KIs representing 25 organisations were sampled from 20 countries (40% low and middle income (LMIC)). Inductively derived themes were used to construct a logic model to underpin latter phases, consisting of five guiding principles, eight strategic priority areas and seven accelerators for action.Phase 2: of the 165 documents identified, 41 (24.8%) from 22 countries (88% high-income countries) and 2 regions met the inclusion criteria. Eight overarching policy themes, supported by 47 subthemes, were derived, aligning closely with the logic model.Phase 3: 674 panellists from 72 countries (46% LMICs) participated in round 1 and 439 (65%) in round 2 of the eDelphi. Fifty-nine components were retained with 10 (17%) identified as essential for health systems. 97.6% and 94.8% agreed or strongly agreed the framework was valuable and credible, respectively, for health systems strengthening., Conclusion: An empirically derived framework, co-designed and strongly supported by multisectoral stakeholders, can now be used as a blueprint for global and country-level responses to improve MSK health and prioritise system strengthening initiatives., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AMB reports grants from the Bone and Joint Decade Foundation during the conduct of the study. CHS reports grants from Curtin University during the conduct of the study. HS reports grants from the Bone and Joint Decade Foundation during the conduct of the study; personal fees from AbbVie outside the submitted work. JEJ reports personal fees from Curtin University during the conduct of the study. SP has nothing to disclose. JJY reports grants from the Danish Foundation for Chiropractic Research and Post-graduate Education, grants from Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, grants from Ontario Chiropractic Association, grants from National Chiropractic Mutual Insurance Company Foundation, grants from the University of Southern Denmark Faculty Scholarship outside the submitted work. SS has nothing to disclose. DK-G has nothing to disclose. SMishrra reports grants from Curtin University during the conduct of the study. KEA reports personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from UCB, personal fees from FAN, personal fees from Astellas pharma, personal fees from Chugai pharma outside the submitted work. NA has nothing to disclose. JB has nothing to disclose. NB reports personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Grunenthal, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from Global Alliance for Patient Access outside the submitted work. FMB has nothing to disclose. RB reports personal fees from World Federation of Chiropractic outside the submitted work. DD has nothing to disclose. KED has nothing to disclose. LF has nothing to disclose. HEF has nothing to disclose. FG has nothing to disclose. SH has nothing to disclose. SAH has nothing to disclose. BH has nothing to disclose. AJ has nothing to disclose. MJ has nothing to disclose. AAK has nothing to disclose. JL has nothing to disclose. SMatsuda has nothing to disclose. AM reports grants, non-financial support and other from Merck KGaA; grants, non-financial support and other from Kolon TissueGene; grants, non-financial support and other from Merck KGaA; grants from Pfizer; grants from European Commission-Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI); grants from European Union Structural Funds administered by the Research Council of Lithuania (Lietuvos mokslo taryba); grants from European Union Structural Funds administered by the Research Council of Lithuania (Lietuvos mokslo taryba); grants from European Commission-Framework 7 (FP7-HEALTH); grants from European Commission-Framework 7 (FP7-PEOPLE) Marie Skłodowska-Curie Program; personal fees from Galapagos-Servier; personal fees from Image Analysis Group (IAG); personal fees, non-financial support and other from Artialis SA; personal fees and other from Aché (Aché Laboratórios Farmacêuticos); personal fees and other from Abbvie; personal fees from Guidepoint Global,; personal fees from Alphasights; personal fees from Science Branding Communications; personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer Consumer Healthcare; non-financial support from GSK Consumer Healthcare; personal fees and other from Flexion Therapeutics; personal fees from Pacira Biosciences; other from Genacol; personal fees, non-financial support and other from Sterifarma; other from Henry Stewart Talks; non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK); grants from Versus Arthritis (Arthritis Research UK); personal fees and other from Korean Society for Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Repair; personal fees from American College of Rheumatology; personal fees and other from Spanish Society of Rheumatology; personal fees and other from Heilongjiang Rheumatology Association; personal fees and other from Zhujiang Hospital of Southern Medical University; non-financial support and other from International Cartilage Regeneration and Joint Preservation Society (ICRS); non-financial support and other from Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI); non-financial support from AxDev International; other from Gordian Biotechnology; other from UNITY Biotechnology; personal fees and other from Bioiberica; other from The Dutch Arthritis Society (ReumaNederland); other from Kolon Life Science; personal fees from SANOFI; personal fees from European Commission; other from BRASIT/BRASOS, Brazil; other from GEOS, Brazil; other from European Orthopaedic Research Society (EORS); other from Brazilian Society of Rheumatology (SBR); other from Society for Osteoarthritis Research (SOAR), India; other from MCI Group, Geneva outside the submitted work. LMwaniki has nothing to disclose. MCN has nothing to disclose. MP has nothing to disclose. FJJR has nothing to disclose. ERS reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Abbvie; personal fees from Amgen; personal fees from BMS; grants from Glaxo; grants and personal fees from Janssen; personal fees from Lilly; grants and personal fees from Novartis; grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer; grants and personal fees from Roche; grants, personal fees and non-financial support from UCB outside the submitted work. HT reports having authored two books: Life Beyond the Carpal Tunnel (2007) and Holistic Pain Relief (2014). JW has nothing to disclose. DW has nothing to disclose. ADW has nothing to disclose. LMarch reports personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Abbvie, grants from Janssen outside the submitted work. LMarch is an executive member of OMERACT which receives funding from 30 different companies., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Despite availability of efficacious treatments, unmet needs still exist, preventing optimal and comprehensive management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Evolving the management of RA (eRA) is a European-wide educational initiative aiming to support improved patient care through practical and educational tools addressing specific unmet needs., Methods: A multidisciplinary Steering Committee (17 members, 12 countries) identified unmet needs within the management of RA and prioritised those with the greatest impact on patient outcomes. Practical educational tools addressing priority needs were then developed for dissemination and implementation by the rheumatology community across Europe., Results: Five areas of priority need were identified: increasing early recognition of RA and treatment initiation; treating RA to target; optimal, holistic approach to selection of treatment strategy, including shared decision-making; improving identification and management of comorbidities; and non-pharmacological patient management. A suite of 14 eRA tools included educational slides, best-practice guidance, self‑assessment questionnaires, clinical checklists, a multidisciplinary team training exercise, an interactive patient infographic, and case scenarios. By April 2020, rheumatology professionals in 17 countries had been actively engaged in the eRA programme; in 11 countries, eRA tools were selected by national leaders in rheumatology and translated for local dissemination. A web platform, with country-specific pages, was developed to support access to the translated tools (https://www.evolvingthemanagementofra.com/)., Conclusions: The eRA programme supports comprehensive management of RA across Europe through development and dissemination of practical educational tools. The eRA tools address priority needs and are available free of charge to the rheumatology community.

The key question addressed in this Chapter is "What do people need?", with "people" here meaning those who live with a rheumatic or musculoskeletal disease. The word "patient" is avoided at this point as not all of the problems or solutions identified are medical in nature. Many are personal, societal and/or environmental. The lead authors are all people who not only live with a rheumatic or musculoskeletal disease, but who are experienced "patient representatives". Therefore, their insights here stem from a combination of personal and collective experiences and views. Although from different continents, the authors identify a range of common barriers to social participation and optimum management of these conditions, such as late diagnosis, stigma and access to care. However, several solutions are common across these regions too, such as the need for supported self-management and greater public awareness of the impact of these diseases., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objective: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune inflammatory disorder with a global prevalence of approximately 0.5-1%. Patients with RA are at an increased risk of developing comorbidities (eg, cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, diabetes and depression). Despite this, there are limited recommendations for the management and implementation of associated comorbidities. This study aimed to identify good practice interventions in the care of RA and associated comorbidities., Methods: A combination of primary research (180+ interviews with specialists across 12 European rheumatology centres) and secondary research (literature review of existing publications and guidelines/recommendations) were used to identify challenges in management and corresponding good practice interventions. Findings were prioritised and reviewed by a group of 18 rheumatology experts including rheumatologists, comorbidity experts, a patient representative and a highly specialised nurse., Results: Challenges throughout the patient pathway (including delays in diagnosis and referral, shortage of rheumatologists, limited awareness of primary care professionals) and 18 good practice interventions were identified in the study. The expert group segmented and prioritised interventions according to three distinct stages of the disease: (1) suspected RA, (2) recent diagnosis of RA and (3) established RA. Examples of good practice interventions included enabling self-management (self-monitoring and disease management support, for example, lifestyle adaptations); early arthritis clinic; rapid access to care (online referral, triage, ultrasound-guided diagnosis); dedicated comorbidity specialists; enhanced communication with primary care (hotline, education sessions); and integrating patient registries into daily clinical practice., Conclusion: Learning from implementation of good practice interventions in centres across Europe provides an opportunity to more widely improved care for patients with RA and associated comorbidities., Competing Interests: Competing interests: TKK has received fees for speaking and/or consulting from AbbVie, Biogen, Celltrion, Egis, Eli Lilly, Hikma, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Oktal, Orion Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi and UCB and received research funding to Diakonhjemmet Hospital from AbbVie, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. AB has received Grant/research support, fees for consultancies or as a speaker for Abbvie, Pfizer, Novartis, BMS, Nordic, Sanofi-Genzyme, Sandoz, Lilly, UCB and Roche. NB has received fees for speaking and/or consulting from Amgen, Eli Lilly, Grunenthal, GSK, Heart Vlavle Voice, Janssen, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme and Sanofi Regeron. MHB has received fees for speaking and/or consulting from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Merck-Serono, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz and Sanofi, and research funding to University of Leeds from Pfizer, Roche and UCB. PD has received fees for speaking and/or consulting from Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Celltrion, Lilly and Sanofi Genzyme. EGF has received fees for speaking and/or consulting from AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and UCB. CG has received fees for consulting from Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Regeneron, Pfizer, Lilly and Ab2 Bio Ltd. RG has received fees for speaking from Sanofi Genzyme. IG-B has received fees for consulting from Amgen, Akcea, Sanofi Genzyme and Regeneron. FvdH has received fees for consulting from AbbVie, Biogen, Celltron, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Pfizer and Munidpharma. AK has received fees for speaking and/or consulting from UCB, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, MSD, Amgen, Abbvie, Pfizer, Novartis and Sanofi. LK has received research grants to Karolinska Institutet from Janssen, Pfizer, BMS, GSK and UCB. MØ has received fees for speaking and/or consulting from Abbvie, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merk, Novartis, Novo, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi and UCB. KP has received fees for speaking and/or consulting for AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Egis, MSD and UCB. JP-P has received fees for speaking and/or consulting from AbbVie, MSD, Pfizer, Roche and Tecnimede. AGS has received fees for speaking and/or consulting from AbbVie, Novartis, Sanofi and Bayer and have an unrestricted research collaboration with Eli Lilly which includes transfer of funds to Diakonhjemmet Hospital from Eli Lilly. MS has received research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche, speakers fee/consultancy from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Mundipharma, Sandoz and Roche. MD has received fees for speaking and/or consulting from AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi and UCB and his department has received research grants from AbbVie, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis and UCB., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Although commonly diagnosed, gout often remains a poorly managed disease. This is partially due to a lack of awareness of the long-term effect of gout among patients and healthcare professionals., Aim: To understand unmet needs for patients and provide insight into achieving better treatment., Design & Setting: A quantitative online questionnaire collected from 1100 people with gout from 14 countries within Europe., Method: Patients were recruited to complete an online survey via healthcare professional (HCP) referral, patient associations, or market research panels. Patients were included if they had been diagnosed with gout by a physician. Prior to commencement, patients were made aware that this study was sponsored by Grünenthal. The responses collected were collated and analyses were performed., Results: Patients had an average of 2.9 gout flares within a 12-month period. Although 79% of patients were satisfied with treatment, inadequate gout control was also reported by 71% of patients. Furthermore, 84% experienced moderate-to-severe pain with their most recent flare. Of those who acknowledged treatment dissatisfaction, only 24% discussed other options with their GP. Most patients reported irregular follow-up and serum uric acid (sUA) monitoring. In addition, loss of belief that more can be done was a key barrier for patients., Conclusion: Patients reported severe pain and social burden, coupled with low treatment expectation and lack of awareness of target sUA. Education around knowing and reaching sUA target is needed so that patients can receive and GPs can deliver higher quality management., (Copyright © 2020, The Authors.)

Objective: Acute postoperative pain is experienced by the majority of hospitalized patients undergoing surgical procedures, with many reporting inadequate pain relief and/or high levels of dissatisfaction with their pain management. Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) ensures patient involvement in acute pain control, a key component for implementing a quality management system. This narrative article overviews the clinical evidence for conventional PCA and briefly discusses new, non-invasive PCA systems, namely the sufentanil sublingual tablet system (SSTS) and the fentanyl iontophoretic transdermal system (FITS)., Methods: A Medline literature search ("patient-controlled analgesia" and "acute postoperative pain") was conducted to 1 April 2017; results from the main clinical trials are discussed. Additional literature was identified from the reference lists of cited publications., Results: Moderate to low quality evidence supports opioid-based intravenous PCA as an efficacious alternative to non-patient-controlled systemic analgesia for postoperative pain. However, despite the benefits of PCA, conventional intravenous PCA is limited by system-, drug- and human-related issues. The non-invasive SSTS and FITS have demonstrated good efficacy and safety in placebo- and intravenous morphine PCA-controlled trials, and are associated with high patient/healthcare practitioner satisfaction/ease of care ratings and offer early patient mobilization., Conclusions: Evidence-based guidelines for acute postoperative pain management support the use of multimodal regimens in many situations. As effective and safe alternatives to conventional PCA, and with the added benefits of being non-invasive, easy to use and allowing early patient mobilization, the newer PCA systems may complement multimodal approaches, or potentially replace certain regimens, in hospitalized patients with acute postoperative pain.

A European League Against Rheumatism-American College of Rheumatology working group consisting of practicing and academic rheumatologists, a rheumatology researcher, and a patient representative created a succinct general statement describing rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) in adults and children in language that can be used in conversations with the lay public, media, healthcare providers, and other stakeholders. Based on the literature review, several elements were deemed important for inclusion in the description of RMDs. First, RMDs encompass many different diseases that can affect individuals at any age, including children. Second, there are various pathophysiological pathways underlying different RMDs. Third, the impact of RMDs on individuals and society should be emphasized. The working group agreed that the language should be comprehensible to the lay public. Thus, the following description of RMDs has been developed: "Rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) are a diverse group of diseases that commonly affect the joints, but can affect any organ of the body. There are more than 200 different RMDs, affecting both children and adults. They are usually caused by problems of the immune system, inflammation, infections, or gradual deterioration of joints, muscles, and bones. Many of these diseases are long term and worsen over time. They are typically painful and limit function. In severe cases, RMDs can result in significant disability, having a major impact on both quality of life and life expectancy." This description can be used by rheumatology groups, researchers, and those who work in advocacy and education related to RMDs., (© 2018, American College of Rheumatology.)

Therapeutic targets have been defined for axial and peripheral spondyloarthritis (SpA) in 2012, but the evidence for these recommendations was only of indirect nature. These recommendations were re-evaluated in light of new insights. Based on the results of a systematic literature review and expert opinion, a task force of rheumatologists, dermatologists, patients and a health professional developed an update of the 2012 recommendations. These underwent intensive discussions, on site voting and subsequent anonymous electronic voting on levels of agreement with each item. A set of 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations were developed and voted on. Some items were present in the previous recommendations, while others were significantly changed or newly formulated. The 2017 task force arrived at a single set of recommendations for axial and peripheral SpA, including psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The most exhaustive discussions related to whether PsA should be assessed using unidimensional composite scores for its different domains or multidimensional scores that comprise multiple domains. This question was not resolved and constitutes an important research agenda. There was broad agreement, now better supported by data than in 2012, that remission/inactive disease and, alternatively, low/minimal disease activity are the principal targets for the treatment of PsA. As instruments to assess the patients on the path to the target, the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) for axial SpA and the Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) and Minimal Disease Activity (MDA) for PsA were recommended, although not supported by all. Shared decision-making between the clinician and the patient was seen as pivotal to the process. The task force defined the treatment target for SpA as remission or low disease activity and developed a large research agenda to further advance the field., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DA served as a consultant and/or speaker for Abbvie, Astra-Zeneca, BMS, Janssen, Medac, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, UCB and received grant support from BMS. XB has served as consultant and/or speaker for Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB. NB has received consultancy fees for work commissioned by Grünenthal, Lilly, Janssen, PfizerLaura Coates has received research funding from Abbvie and Janssen and honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, UCBMaxime Dougados has participated as a speaker in symposia or as an advisor in boards organized by Pfizer, Abbvie, Ucb, Merck, Amgen, Novartis, Lilly, Bms, Roche and his department has received research grants from Pfizer, Abbvie, Ucb, Merck, Amgen, Novartis, Lilly, Bms, Roche. Laure Gossec has received honoraria or research funding from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Janseen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. PE has undertaken clinical trials and provided expert advice to Pfizer, MSD, Abbvie, BMS, UCB, Roche, Novartis, Samsung, Sandoz and Lilly. OF reports grants and personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Cellgene, grants and personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from UCB, outside the submitted work. AK has served as consultant and/or performed clinical research for Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, UCB. PMM has received consultancy/speaker’s fees from AbbVie, Centocor, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. AM has received honoraria from Abbvie, MSD and UCBDP has received Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, has honoraria/speaker fees from AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB. MR has received honoraria/ consultancies from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai/Roche, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB. JS has received grant support from and/or provided expert advice to Abbvie, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Gilead, Glaxo, Iltoo, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Roche, Samsung, Novartis-Sandoz, UCB. TS has received honoraria from Abbvie, Janssen, MSD, Novartis and Roche and grant support from Abbvie. FVB has received speaker and/or consultancy fees from AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen,Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. DH has received consulting fees Afrom bbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB, and is Director of Imaging Rheumatology bv. MW has received consulting fees for lectures or advisory board meetings from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis and Roche., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Despite the introduction of evidence-based recommendations for postoperative pain management (POPM), the consensus is that pain control remains suboptimal. Barriers to achieving patient-satisfactory analgesia include deficient knowledge regarding POPM among staff, lack of instructions, insufficient pain assessments and sub-optimal treatment. Effective monitoring of POPM is essential to enable policy makers and healthcare providers to improve the quality of care. Quality indicators (QIs) are quantitative measures of clinical practice that can monitor, evaluate and guide the quality of care provided to patients. QIs can be used to assess various aspects relating to the care process and they have proven useful in improving health outcomes in diseases such as myocardial infarction. In this commentary we critically analyze the evidence regarding the use of QIs in acute POPM based upon the experience of pain specialists from Europe and the USA who are members of the Change Pain Advisory Board. We also undertook a literature review to see what has been published on QIs in acute pain with the goal of assessing which QIs have been developed and used, and which ones have been successful/unsuccessful. In the hospital sector the development and implementation of QIs is complex. The nature of POPM requires a highly trained, multidisciplinary team and it is at this level that major improvements can be made. Greater involvement of patients regarding pain management is also seen as a priority area for improving clinical outcomes. Changes in structure and processes to deliver high-level quality care need to be regularly audited to ensure translation into better outcomes. QIs can help drive this process by providing an indicator of current levels of performance. In addition, outcomes QIs can be used to benchmark levels of performance between different healthcare providers.

Background: Reaching the therapeutic target of remission or low-disease activity has improved outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) significantly. The treat-to-target recommendations, formulated in 2010, have provided a basis for implementation of a strategic approach towards this therapeutic goal in routine clinical practice, but these recommendations need to be re-evaluated for appropriateness and practicability in the light of new insights., Objective: To update the 2010 treat-to-target recommendations based on systematic literature reviews (SLR) and expert opinion., Methods: A task force of rheumatologists, patients and a nurse specialist assessed the SLR results and evaluated the individual items of the 2010 recommendations accordingly, reformulating many of the items. These were subsequently discussed, amended and voted upon by >40 experts, including 5 patients, from various regions of the world. Levels of evidence, strengths of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived., Results: The update resulted in 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations. The previous recommendations were partly adapted and their order changed as deemed appropriate in terms of importance in the view of the experts. The SLR had now provided also data for the effectiveness of targeting low-disease activity or remission in established rather than only early disease. The role of comorbidities, including their potential to preclude treatment intensification, was highlighted more strongly than before. The treatment aim was again defined as remission with low-disease activity being an alternative goal especially in patients with long-standing disease. Regular follow-up (every 1-3 months during active disease) with according therapeutic adaptations to reach the desired state was recommended. Follow-up examinations ought to employ composite measures of disease activity that include joint counts. Additional items provide further details for particular aspects of the disease, especially comorbidity and shared decision-making with the patient. Levels of evidence had increased for many items compared with the 2010 recommendations, and levels of agreement were very high for most of the individual recommendations (≥9/10)., Conclusions: The 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations are based on stronger evidence than before and are supposed to inform patients, rheumatologists and other stakeholders about strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

In this article, the 2010 European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs and bDMARDs, respectively) have been updated. The 2013 update has been developed by an international task force, which based its decisions mostly on evidence from three systematic literature reviews (one each on sDMARDs, including glucocorticoids, bDMARDs and safety aspects of DMARD therapy); treatment strategies were also covered by the searches. The evidence presented was discussed and summarised by the experts in the course of a consensus finding and voting process. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were derived and levels of agreement (strengths of recommendations) were determined. Fourteen recommendations were developed (instead of 15 in 2010). Some of the 2010 recommendations were deleted, and others were amended or split. The recommendations cover general aspects, such as attainment of remission or low disease activity using a treat-to-target approach, and the need for shared decision-making between rheumatologists and patients. The more specific items relate to starting DMARD therapy using a conventional sDMARD (csDMARD) strategy in combination with glucocorticoids, followed by the addition of a bDMARD or another csDMARD strategy (after stratification by presence or absence of adverse risk factors) if the treatment target is not reached within 6 months (or improvement not seen at 3 months). Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, biosimilars), abatacept, tocilizumab and, under certain circumstances, rituximab are essentially considered to have similar efficacy and safety. If the first bDMARD strategy fails, any other bDMARD may be used. The recommendations also address tofacitinib as a targeted sDMARD (tsDMARD), which is recommended, where licensed, after use of at least one bDMARD. Biosimilars are also addressed. These recommendations are intended to inform rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies and other stakeholders about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA with sDMARDs, glucocorticoids and bDMARDs. They are based on evidence and expert opinion and intended to improve outcome in patients with RA.

Background: Therapeutic targets have been defined for diseases like diabetes, hypertension or rheumatoid arthritis and adhering to them has improved outcomes. Such targets are just emerging for spondyloarthritis (SpA)., Objective: To define the treatment target for SpA including ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and develop recommendations for achieving the target, including a treat-to-target management strategy., Methods: Based on results of a systematic literature review and expert opinion, a task force of expert physicians and patients developed recommendations which were broadly discussed and voted upon in a Delphi-like process. Level of evidence, grade and strength of the recommendations were derived by respective means. The commonalities between axial SpA, peripheral SpA and PsA were discussed in detail., Results: Although the literature review did not reveal trials comparing a treat-to-target approach with another or no strategy, it provided indirect evidence regarding an optimised approach to therapy that facilitated the development of recommendations. The group agreed on 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations; 9 of these recommendations related commonly to the whole spectrum of SpA and PsA, and only 2 were designed separately for axial SpA, peripheral SpA and PsA. The main treatment target, which should be based on a shared decision with the patient, was defined as remission, with the alternative target of low disease activity. Follow-up examinations at regular intervals that depend on the patient's status should safeguard the evolution of disease activity towards the targeted goal. Additional recommendations relate to extra-articular and extramusculoskeletal aspects and other important factors, such as comorbidity. While the level of evidence was generally quite low, the mean strength of recommendation was 9-10 (10: maximum agreement) for all recommendations. A research agenda was formulated., Conclusions: The task force defined the treatment target as remission or, alternatively, low disease activity, being aware that the evidence base is not strong and needs to be expanded by future research. These recommendations can inform the various stakeholders about expert opinion that aims for reaching optimal outcomes of SpA.

Background: Since approval of tocilizumab (TCZ) for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), interleukin 6 (IL-6) pathway inhibition was evaluated in trials of TCZ and other agents targeting the IL-6 receptor and ligand in various RA populations and other inflammatory diseases. This consensus document informs on interference with the IL-6 pathway based on evidence and expert opinion., Methods: Preparation of this document involved international experts in RA treatment and RA patients. A systematic literature search was performed that focused on TCZ and other IL6-pathway inhibitors in RA and other diseases. Subsequently, incorporating available published evidence and expert opinion, the steering committee and a broader expert committee (both including RA patients) formulated the current consensus statement., Results: The consensus statement covers use of TCZ as combination- or monotherapy in various RA populations and includes clinical, functional and structural aspects. The statement also addresses the second approved indication in Europe JIA and non-approved indications. Also early phase trials involving additional agents that target the IL-6 receptor or IL-6 were evaluated. Safety concerns, including haematological, hepatic and metabolic issues as well as infections, are addressed likewise., Conclusions: The consensus statement identifies points to consider when using TCZ, regarding indications, contraindications, screening, dose, comedication, response evaluation and safety. The document is aimed at supporting clinicians and informing patients, administrators and payers on opportunities and limitations of IL-6 pathway inhibition.

Self-management interventions are patient-centred and designed to foster active participation of patients in order to promote well-being and to manage symptoms. Over the past two decades, the role of self-management in chronic diseases has gained momentum. Self-management programmes are now acknowledged as a key element of quality care. New modes of delivery allow greater access to information and are tailored to address patient needs. This systematic review presents data from clinical studies of self-management over the past decade, summarises the evidence for programme effectiveness, and suggests future research directions.