Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A European League Against Rheumatism-American College of Rheumatology working group consisting of practising 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 emphasised. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 at3 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 rheumatologysocieties 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Since initial approval for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), rituximab has been evaluated in clinical trials involving various populations with RA. Information has also been gathered from registries. This report therefore updates the 2007 consensus document on the use of rituximab in the treatment of RA. Methods Preparation of this new document involved many international experts experienced in the treatment of RA. Following a meeting to agree upon the core agenda, a systematic literature review was undertaken to identify all relevant data. Data were then interrogated by a drafting committee, with subsequent review and discussion by a wider expert committee leading to the formulation of an updated consensus statement. These committees also included patients with RA. Results The new statement covers wide-ranging issues including the use of rituximab in earlier RA and impact on structural progression, and aspects particularly pertinent to rituximab such as co-medication, optimal dosage regimens, repeat treatment cycles and how to manage non-response. Biological therapy following rituximab usage is also addressed, and safety concerns including appropriate screening for hepatitis, immunoglobulin levels and infection risk. This consensus statement will support clinicians and inform patients when using B-cell depletion in the management of RA, providing up-to-date information and highlighting areas for further research. Conclusion New therapeutic strategies and treatment options for RA, a chronic destructive and disabling disease, have expanded over recent years. These have been summarised in general strategic suggestions and specific management recommendations, emphasising the importance of expedient disease-modifying antirheumatic drug implementation and tight disease control. This consensus statement is in line with these fundamental principles of management. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This letter to the editor acknowledges Hirst's concern about the relation between medical charities and pharmaceutical companies, and addresses some inaccuracies in her letter regarding the 2002 Arthritis Care information campaign to promote the government's National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance on cyclooxygenase-2 (COX 2) inhibitors.

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.)