Search

Background: Fatigue is a common and potentially distressing symptom for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with no accepted evidence-based management guidelines. Evidence suggests that biologic interventions improve symptoms and signs in RA as well as reducing joint damage., Objectives: To evaluate the effect of biologic interventions on fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis., Search Methods: We searched the following electronic databases up to 1 April 2014: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Current Controlled Trials Register, the National Research Register Archive, The UKCRN Portfolio Database, AMED, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Science Citation Index, Web of Science, and Dissertation Abstracts International. In addition, we checked the reference lists of articles identified for inclusion for additional studies and contacted key authors., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials if they evaluated a biologic intervention in people with rheumatoid arthritis and had self reported fatigue as an outcome measure., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers selected relevant trials, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses using a random-effects model., Main Results: We identified 32 studies for inclusion in this current review. Twenty studies evaluated five anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) biologic agents (adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab and infliximab), and 12 studies focused on five non-anti-TNF biologic agents (abatacept, canakinumab, rituximab, tocilizumab and an anti-interferon gamma monoclonal antibody). All but two of the studies were double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trials. In some trials, patients could receive concomitant disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). These studies added either biologics or placebo to DMARDs. Investigators did not change the dose of the latter from baseline. In total, these studies included 9946 participants in the intervention groups and 4682 participants in the control groups. Overall, quality of randomised controlled trials was moderate with a low to unclear risk of bias in the reporting of the outcome of fatigue. We downgraded the quality of the studies from high to moderate because of potential reporting bias (studies included post hoc analyses favouring reporting of positive result and did not always include all randomised individuals). Some studies recruited only participants with early disease. The studies used five different instruments to assess fatigue in these studies: the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Domain (FACIT-F), Short Form-36 Vitality Domain (SF-36 VT), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (0 to 100 or 0 to 10) and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). We calculated standard mean differences for pooled data in meta-analyses. Overall treatment by biologic agents led to statistically significant reduction in fatigue with a standardised mean difference of -0.43 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.38 to -0.49). This equates to a difference of 6.45 units (95% CI 5.7 to 7.35) of FACIT-F score (range 0 to 52). Both types of biologic agents achieved a similar level of improvement: for anti-TNF agents, this stood at -0.42 (95% CI -0.35 to -0.49), equivalent to 6.3 units (95% CI 5.3 to 7.4) on the FACIT-F score; and for non-anti-TNF agents, it was -0.46 (95% CI -0.39 to -0.53), equivalent to 6.9 units (95% CI 5.85 to 7.95) on the FACIT-F score. In most studies, the double-blind period was 24 weeks or less. No study assessed long-term changes in fatigue., Authors' Conclusions: Treatment with biologic interventions in patients with active RA can lead to a small to moderate improvement in fatigue. The magnitude of improvement is similar for anti-TNF and non-anti-TNF biologics. However, it is unclear whether the improvement results from a direct action of the biologics on fatigue or indirectly through reduction in inflammation, disease activity or some other mechanism.

Background: Fatigue is a common and potentially distressing symptom for people with rheumatoid arthritis with no accepted evidence based management guidelines. Non-pharmacological interventions, such as physical activity and psychosocial interventions, have been shown to help people with a range of other long-term conditions to manage subjective fatigue., Objectives: To evaluate the benefit and harm of non-pharmacological interventions for the management of fatigue in people with rheumatoid arthritis. This included any intervention that was not classified as pharmacological in accordance with European Union (EU) Directive 2001/83/EEC., Search Methods: The following electronic databases were searched up to October 2012, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; AMED; CINAHL; PsycINFO; Social Science Citation Index; Web of Science; Dissertation Abstracts International; Current Controlled Trials Register; The National Research Register Archive; The UKCRN Portfolio Database. In addition, reference lists of articles identified for inclusion were checked for additional studies and key authors were contacted., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials were included if they evaluated a non-pharmacological intervention in people with rheumatoid arthritis with self-reported fatigue as an outcome measure., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors selected relevant trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Where appropriate, data were pooled using meta-analysis with a random-effects model., Main Results: Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 2882 participants with rheumatoid arthritis. Included studies investigated physical activity interventions (n = 6 studies; 388 participants), psychosocial interventions (n = 13 studies; 1579 participants), herbal medicine (n = 1 study; 58 participants), omega-3 fatty acid supplementation (n = 1 study; 81 participants), Mediterranean diet (n = 1 study; 51 participants), reflexology (n = 1 study; 11 participants) and the provision of Health Tracker information (n = 1 study; 714 participants). Physical activity was statistically significantly more effective than the control at the end of the intervention period (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.62 to -0.10; back translated to mean difference of 14.4 points lower, 95% CI -4.0 to -24.8 on a 100 point scale where a lower score means less fatigue; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 7, 95% CI 4 to 26) demonstrating a small beneficial effect upon fatigue. Psychosocial intervention was statistically significantly more effective than the control at the end of the intervention period (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.07; back translated to mean difference of 9.6 points lower, 95% CI -2.8 to -16.0 on a 100 point scale, lower score means less fatigue; NNTB 10, 95% CI 6 to 33) demonstrating a small beneficial effect upon fatigue. For the remaining interventions meta-analysis was not possible and there was either no statistically significant difference between trial arms or findings were not reported. Only three studies reported any adverse events and none of these were serious, however, it is possible that the low incidence was in part due to poor reporting. The quality of the evidence ranged from moderate quality for physical activity interventions and Mediterranean diet to low quality for psychosocial interventions and all other interventions., Authors' Conclusions: This review provides some evidence that physical activity and psychosocial interventions provide benefit in relation to self-reported fatigue in adults with rheumatoid arthritis. There is currently insufficient evidence of the effectiveness of other non-pharmacological interventions.

In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), nocturnal release of proinflammatory cytokines is not adequately counteracted by endogenous glucocorticoid and is associated with symptoms of morning stiffness and pain. Taking exogenous glucocorticoid during the night reduces morning stiffness significantly more than treatment at the conventional time in the morning, although waking to take tablets is unacceptable for patients. Modified-release prednisone tablets were developed to allow administration at bedtime for programmed delivery of glucocorticoid during the night. Single-center crossover studies were conducted, each in ≤24 healthy subjects, to compare the pharmacokinetics of a single 5-mg oral dose of modified-release prednisone and conventional prednisone, as well as the effect of food on bioavailability. There was no substantial difference in pharmacokinetic parameters of the formulations apart from the programmed delay in release of glucocorticoid from the modified-release tablets (C(max) 97%, AUC(0-∞) 101%, 90% confidence intervals within the requisite range for bioequivalence). Administration after a full or light meal did not affect pharmacokinetic characteristics, but bioavailability was reduced under fasted conditions. Pharmacokinetic evaluation in 9 patients with RA confirmed that modified-release prednisone tablets taken at bedtime (around 22:00 h) with or after an evening meal result in programmed release of glucocorticoid 4 to 6 hours after intake., (© The Author(s) 2013.)

Background: Glucocorticoid use in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is widespread. Two Cochrane Reviews have been published examining the short term clinical benefit of low dose glucocorticoids compared to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and demonstrate good short term and medium term clinical benefits. The possibility that glucocorticoids may have a fundamental 'disease modifying' effect in RA, which would be seen by a reduction in the rate of radiological progression, has been raised by several authors., Objectives: To perform a systematic review of studies evaluating glucocorticoid efficacy in inhibiting the progression of radiological damage in rheumatoid arthritis., Search Strategy: A search of MEDLINE (from 1966 to 22 February 2005) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register was undertaken, using the terms 'corticosteroids' and 'rheumatoid arthritis' expanded according to the Cochrane Collaboration recommendations. Identified abstracts were reviewed and appropriate reports obtained in full. Additional reports were identified from the reference lists and from expert knowledge., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled or cross-over trials in adults with a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis in which prednisone or a similar glucocorticoid preparation was compared to either placebo controls or active controls (i.e. comparative studies) and where there was evaluation of radiographs of hands, or hands and feet, or feet by any standardised technique. Eligible studies had at least one treatment arm with glucocorticoids and one without glucocorticoids., Data Collection and Analysis: Standardised data extraction obtain the mean and standard deviation (SD) of change in erosion scores over 1 year or 2 years. (Where SD for change was not given a conservative estimate was taken from baseline data.) At least two authors selected the studies and extracted the data. Radiographic erosion scores were expressed as a percentage of the maximum possible score for the method used. The results were pooled after weighting in a random effects model to provide a standardised mean difference (SMD)., Main Results: The initial search produced 217 citations, and 15 were added from experts, abstracts and review of reference lists. Authors of 4 trials being prepared for publication (and subsequently published) kindly shared their data. After application of eligibility criteria 15 studies and 1,414 patients were included. The majority of trials studied early RA (disease duration up to 2 yrs), and the mean cumulative dose of glucocorticoid was 2,300 mg prednisone equivalent (range 270 mg - 5,800 mg) over the first year. Glucocorticoids were mostly added to other disease modifying anti-rheumatoid drug (DMARD) treatment. The standardised mean difference in progression was 0.40 in favour of glucocorticoids (95% CI 0.27, 0.54). In studies lasting 2 years (806 patients included), the standardised mean difference in progression in favour of glucocorticoids at 1 year was 0.45 (0.24, 0.66) and at 2 years was 0.42 (0.30, 0.55). All studies except one showed a numerical treatment effect in favour of glucocorticoids. The beneficial effects of glucocorticoids were generally achieved when used in conjunction with other DMARD treatment., Authors' Conclusions: Even in the most conservative estimate, the evidence that glucocorticoids given in addition to standard therapy can substantially reduce the rate of erosion progression in rheumatoid arthritis is convincing. There remains concern about potential long-term adverse reactions to glucocorticoid therapy, such as increased cardiovascular risk, and this issue requires further research.

Background: Because of the unpredictability people with arthritis face on a daily basis, patient education programmes have become an effective complement to traditional medical treatment giving people with arthritis the strategies and the tools necessary to make daily decisions to cope with the disease., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of patient education interventions on health status in patients with rheumatoid arthritis., Search Strategy: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. A selection of review articles (see references) were examined to identify further relevant publications. There was no language restriction., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCT's) evaluating patient education interventions that included an instructional component and a non-intervention control group; pre- and post-test results available separately for RA, either in the publication or from the studies' authors; and study results presented in full, end-of-study report., Main Results: Thirty-one studies with relevant data were included. We found significant effects of patient education at first follow-up for scores on disability, joint counts, patient global assessment, psychological status, and depression. A trend favouring patient education was found for scores on pain. Physician global assessment was not assessed in any of the included studies. The dimensions of anxiety and disease activity showed no significant effects. At final follow up no significant effects of patient education were found, although there was a trend favouring patient education for scores on disability., Reviewer's Conclusions: Patient education as provided in the studies reviewed here had small short-term effects on disability, joint counts, patient global assessment, psychological status and depression. There was no evidence of long-term benefits in adults with rheumatoid arthritis.

Background: Because of the unpredictability people with arthritis face on a daily basis, patient education programmes have become an effective complement to traditional medical treatment giving people with arthritis the strategies and the tools necessary to make daily decisions to cope with the disease., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of patient education interventions on health status in patients with rheumatoid arthritis., Search Strategy: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. A selection of review articles (see references) were examined to identify further relevant publications. There was no language restriction., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCT's) evaluating patient education interventions that included an instructional component and a non-intervention control group; pre- and post-test results available separately for RA, either in the publication or from the studies' authors; and study results presented in full, end-of-study report., Main Results: Twenty-four studies with relevant data were included. We found significant effects of patient education at first follow-up for scores on disability, joint counts, patient global assessment and psychological status. Physician global assessment was not assessed in any of the included studies. The two separate dimensions of psychological status: anxiety and depression showed no significant effects, nor did the dimensions of pain and disease activity. At final follow up no significant effects of patient education were found., Reviewer's Conclusions: Patient education as provided in the studies reviewed here had moderate short-term effects on patient global assessment, and small short-term effects on disability, joint counts and psychological status. There were no long-term benefits.

Objectives: To determine whether there is a difference in the relative efficacy of individual non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) when used in the management of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee., Search Strategy: We searched Medline (1966-1995) and Bids Embase (Jan-Dec, 1980-1995). The searches were limited to publications in the English language, and were last perfomed in November 1996. We used modified Cochrane Collaboration search strategy to identify all randomised controlled trials. The MeSH heading osteoarthritis was combined with the generic names of the 17 non-aspirin NSAIDs licensed in the UK for the management of OA in general practice. The search of Embase used the term "osteoarthritis" if present in the abstract, title or keywords, and was combined with the generic names of the 17 non-aspirin NSAIDs, only if they were mentioned in the title, abstract or keywords., Selection Criteria: All double blind, randomised controlled trials, in the English language, comparing the efficacy of two non-aspirin NSAIDs in the management of osteoarthritis of the knee, were selected. Only trials with subjects aged 16 years and over, with clinical and/or radiological confirmation of the diagnosis of OA knee were included. Studies which compared one "trial" NSAID with one "reference" NSAID were included provided they were non-aspirin NSAIDs available in the UK and were licensed for the treatment of OA by general practitioners. Trials which were placebo-controlled and which also involved the comparison of two NSAIDs were also included., Data Collection and Analysis: The methodological design of each study was scored according to a pre-determined system. The three main outcome measures of pain, physical function and patient global assessment were chosen based on the core set agreed upon by OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials). These were used to determine the power of each trial. The equivalency of NSAID doses was calculated using the percentage of the recommended maximum daily dose. Sample size estimates for the detection of clinically relevant changes in outcome measures used in the assessment of OA knee were used for power calculations. These calculations were performed to determine whether the trials were of a sufficient size to detect clinically relevant differences which were statistically significant. The calculations incorporate estimates of standard deviation, and minimum, median and maximum differences (delta) between drugs which are deemed to be clinically important. The number of "withdrawals due to lack of efficacy" was also selected as an outcome measure for this review. The Peto odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were calculated where possible. The results of studies which compared the same trial and reference NSAIDs were combined where possible., Main Results: Of the 1151 trials identified by the search strategy, 22 involved knee osteoarthritis only. Sixteen of these trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were entered in the review. Eight NSAIDs were represented in these trials. Etodolac was represented in 11 trials. The reference NSAID in these trials was piroxicam (n=3), naproxen(n=3), diclofenac (n=3), indomethacin (n=1), and, nabumetone (n=1). The reported methodological design of the trials was poor, with a median score of 3 (out of a maximum of 8). The results of the trials comparing the same trial and reference NSAIDs were pooled for the outcome "withdrawal due to lack of efficacy". For the comparison, etodolac vesus piroxicam, the odds ratio favoured etodolac i.e. patients receiving etodolac were less likely to withdraw due to lack of efficacy. The dose of etodolac used in each of these three studies, however, was greater than the corresponding dose of piroxicam (based on percentage maximum daily dose). The significance of these results is therefore questionable. For the comparisons etodolac versus diclofenac, and etodolac versus naproxen, there were no clear differences betw

In many long-term chronic diseases, patients pass through an observable sequence of ordered clinical states as their condition progressively worsens. Often the information on which disease state the patient is in is incompletely recorded, usually with information only available on the occasion of a clinic visit. This article describes a novel analysis of data from a clinical trial, in which several such outcome measures of disease state have been recorded simultaneously. The article is motivated by the analysis of a multi-centre double-blind placebo-controlled clinical study into the effect of continual low dose corticosteroid treatment on the progression of X-ray scores for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Previous methods of analysis of such data have been based on an independence analysis, thus ignoring any correlation that may exist between the outcomes. This article shows that such an approach can lead to biased underestimates of the covariate effects if an independence model is used. Biased estimates of the covariate effects were found when the model was fitted to the trial data. The bivariate model was also shown to provide a significantly better fit to the data. However, the bivariate model did prove more difficult to fit, and both models demonstrated a highly significant treatment effect with comparable clinical effect., (Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)