Search

Purpose: Rheumatologists and orthopedic surgeons frequently collaborate on difficult decisions regarding perioperative management of immunosuppression in rheumatic disease patients, balancing risk of postoperative infection with risk of disease flares. Current evidence-based guidelines pertain specifically to arthroplasty, thus we sought to understand the trends and common practices regarding peri-arthroscopic use of immunosuppression., Methods: Rheumatologists and sports medicine surgeons, from a variety of New York hospitals and serving a broad range of demographics, were surveyed on immunosuppressive medication management in rheumatic disease patients undergoing arthroscopic surgeries. Physicians' preferences were elicited regarding the use of common anti-rheumatic medications with the lower risk meniscectomies and the higher risk anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions and allografts. Physicians were asked specifically about peri-arthroscopic use of conventional synthetic diseasemodifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), biologics, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors., Results: During the survey period, 25 rheumatologists and 19 sports medicine fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeons completed the questionnaire. For lower-risk arthroscopies, rheumatologists favored continuing various csDMARDs (72% to 100%), biologics (50% to 64%) and JAK inhibitors (57%), while a majority of surgeons concurred for all three drug classes (csDMARDs 63%; biologics 53%; and JAK inhibitors 58%). For higher-risk arthroscopies, most rheumatologists preferred that patients continue csDMARDs (63% to 100%) but fewer supported the use of biologics (28% to 39%) or JAK inhibitors (22%). Surgeons were more hesitant to endorse any class of immunosuppressive antirheumatic medications (22% to 27%) around these higher risk surgeries. The rheumatologists were most concerned about surgeries taking place too soon after the last dose of rituximab, recommending these higher risk surgeries not take place for 7.7 ± 8.8 weeks following the last infusion., Conclusion: For lower-risk arthroscopies, most rheumatologists but only about half of orthopedic surgeons preferred patients continuing csDMARDs. Approximately half of both groups preferred patients hold biologics and JAK inhibitors. In more involved arthroscopies, most rheumatologists but few orthopedists supported the continued use of csDMARDs, and the consensus was to hold all other immunosuppression when possible. While the duration medications were held perioperatively were somewhat reflective of the current guidelines for arthroplasty, there is a need for evidencebased guidelines specifically regarding peri-arthroscopy immunosuppression in rheumatic disease patients.

Objectives: The evidence base for treatment of the idiopathic inflammatory myopathies is extremely limited. The rarity and heterogeneity of these diseases has hampered the development of good quality clinical trials and while a range of immunomodulatory treatments are commonly used in clinical practice, as yet there are no clear guidelines directing their use. We aimed to establish current prescribing regimens used to treat adults with myositis internationally., Methods: An electronic survey based on different clinical scenarios was distributed internationally to clinicians involved in the treatment of patients with myositis. Participants were asked to select their first-line treatment preferences in each situation. A multinomial regression analysis was used to assess the influence of clinical scenario, respondent expertise and country of origin on first-line treatment choice., Results: 107 survey responses were received. 57% of respondents considered themselves an expert in myositis and the majority of respondents were rheumatologists although responses from other specialities were also received. Pharmacological treatment with steroids and additional immunotherapy was the preference in most scenarios. First-line immunosuppressant choice was significantly influenced by the clinical scenario, the expertise of the treating physician and country of practice. Azathioprine, methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil were the most commonly chosen agents., Conclusions: In the absence of available evidence, clinical experience and expert consensus often forms the basis of treatment guidelines. These results suggest that an international consensus approach would be possible in myositis and would overcome an urgent, yet unmet need for patients suffering with this difficult disease.