Objective To develop a new evidence‐based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods We conducted systematic reviews to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatment options. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence. We employed a group consensus process to grade the strength of recommendations (either strong or conditional). A strong recommendation indicates that clinicians are certain that the benefits of an intervention far outweigh the harms (or vice versa). A conditional recommendation denotes uncertainty over the balance of benefits and harms and/or more significant variability in patient values and preferences. Results The guideline covers the use of traditional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in early (<6 months) and established (≥6 months) RA. In addition, it provides recommendations on using a treat‐to‐target approach, tapering and discontinuing medications, and the use of biologic agents and DMARDs in patients with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, malignancy, and serious infections. The guideline addresses the use of vaccines in patients starting/receiving DMARDs or biologic agents, screening for tuberculosis in patients starting/receiving biologic agents or tofacitinib, and laboratory monitoring for traditional DMARDs. The guideline includes 74 recommendations: 23% are strong and 77% are conditional. Conclusion This RA guideline should serve as a tool for clinicians and patients (our two target audiences) for pharmacologic treatment decisions in commonly encountered clinical situations. These recommendations are not prescriptive, and the treatment decisions should be made by physicians and patients through a shared decision‐making process taking into account patients’ values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

Objective To develop a new evidence‐based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods We conducted systematic reviews to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatment options. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence. We employed a group consensus process to grade the strength of recommendations (either strong or conditional). A strong recommendation indicates that clinicians are certain that the benefits of an intervention far outweigh the harms (or vice versa). A conditional recommendation denotes uncertainty over the balance of benefits and harms and/or more significant variability in patient values and preferences. Results The guideline covers the use of traditional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in early (<6 months) and established (≥6 months) RA. In addition, it provides recommendations on using a treat‐to‐target approach, tapering and discontinuing medications, and the use of biologic agents and DMARDs in patients with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, malignancy, and serious infections. The guideline addresses the use of vaccines in patients starting/receiving DMARDs or biologic agents, screening for tuberculosis in patients starting/receiving biologic agents or tofacitinib, and laboratory monitoring for traditional DMARDs. The guideline includes 74 recommendations: 23% are strong and 77% are conditional. Conclusion This RA guideline should serve as a tool for clinicians and patients (our two target audiences) for pharmacologic treatment decisions in commonly encountered clinical situations. These recommendations are not prescriptive, and the treatment decisions should be made by physicians and patients through a shared decision‐making process taking into account patients’ values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

No abstract

Guidelines and recommendations developed and/or endorsed by the American

TitleGlucosamine, chondroitin sulfate, and the two in combination for painful knee osteoarthritis Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7zw280cw Journal

Objective Although the systematic measurement of disease activity facilitates clinical decision making in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), no recommendations currently exist on which measures should be applied in clinical practice in the US. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) convened a Working Group (WG) to comprehensively evaluate the validity, feasibility, and acceptability of available RA disease activity measures and derive recommendations for their use in clinical practice. Methods The Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Disease Activity Measures Working Group conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify RA disease activity measures. Using exclusion criteria, input from an Expert Advisory Panel (EAP), and psychometric analysis, a list of potential measures was created. A survey was administered to rheumatologists soliciting input. The WG used these survey results in conjunction with the psychometric analyses to derive final recommendations. Results Systematic review of the literature resulted in identification of 63 RA disease activity measures. Application of exclusion criteria and ratings by the EAP narrowed the list to 14 measures for further evaluation. Practicing rheumatologists rated 9 of these 14 measures as most useful and feasible. From these 9 measures, the WG selected 6 with the best psychometric properties for inclusion in the final set of ACR-recommended RA disease activity measures. Conclusion We recommend the Clinical Disease Activity Index, Disease Activity Score with 28-joint counts (erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein), Patient Activity Scale (PAS), PAS-II, Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data with 3 measures, and Simplified Disease Activity Index because they are accurate reflections of disease activity; are sensitive to change; discriminate well between low, moderate, and high disease activity states; have remission criteria; and are feasible to perform in clinical settings.

Objective To assess if it is better to intensively treat all early RA patients with drug combinations or reserve this for those who do not appropriately respond to methotrexate monotherapy and assess if the combination therapy of methotrexate plus etanercept is superior to the combination of methotrexate plus sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine. Methods The TEAR study is a 2-year, randomized, double-blind trial. Using a 2×2 factorial design, participants were randomized to one of four treatment arms: immediate combination therapy of methotrexate plus etanercept; or oral triple therapy (methotrexate plus sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine); or initial methotrexate monotherapy with a step-up to one of the combination therapies (all arms included matching placebos). The primary outcome was an observed-group analysis of DAS28-ESR scores from weeks 48 to 102. Results At the week 24 step-up period, those receiving immediate combination therapy (etanercept plus methotrexate; or triple therapy) demonstrated greater reduction in DAS28-ESR compared to those on initial methotrexate monotherapy (DAS28-ESR: 3.6 vs. 4.6, p<0.0001), with no differences between regimens of combination therapy. For weeks 48 through 102, participants randomized to step-up arms had a DAS28-ESR clinical response that was not different than those who received initial combination therapy, regardless of the treatment arm (3.2 vs. 3.2, p=0.75). There was no significant difference in DAS28-ESR between participants receiving oral triple therapy versus combination methotrexate plus etanercept (3.1 vs. 3.2, p=0.42). By week 102, there was a small, statistically significant difference in change in radiographic measurements from baseline between methotrexate plus etanercept compared to oral triple therapy (0.64 vs. 1.69, p= 0.047). The absolute difference at week 102 was small. Conclusions There were no differences in the mean DAS28-ESR during weeks 48-102 between participants randomized to methotrexate plus etanercept or triple therapy, regardless of whether they received immediate combination treatment or step-up from methotrexate monotherapy. At 24 months, immediate combination treatment with either strategy was more effective than methotrexate monotherapy prior to step-up. Initial use of methotrexate monotherapy with the addition of sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine; or etanercept, if necessary after 6 months, is a reasonable therapeutic strategy for early RA. The combination of etanercept plus methotrexate resulted in a statistically significant, but clinically small, radiographic benefit over oral triple therapy.

Purpose To examine the degree to which shared risk factors explain the relationship of periodontitis (PD) with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to examine associations of PD and Porphyomonas gingivalis (Pg) with disease features. Methods RA cases (N=287) and controls (N=330) underwent a standardized periodontal examination. HLA-DRB1 status was imputed using SNPs from the extended MHC. Circulating anti-Pg antibody was measured using ELISA and subgingival plaque was assessed for the presence of Pg using PCR. Associations of PD with RA were examined using multivariable regression. Results PD was more common in RA (35%, p = 0.022) and aCCP positive RA (n=240; 37%; p = 0.006) vs. controls (26%). There were no RA-control differences in anti-Pg or the frequency of Pg positivity by PCR. Anti-Pg antibody showed weak but statistically significant associations with both anti-CCP (r=0.14, p=0.022) and RF (r=0.19, p=0.001). PD was associated with increased swollen joint counts (p=0.004), DAS-28-CRP (p=0.045), total Sharp scores (p=0.015), aCCP (p=0.011), and RF (p<0.001). Select anti-citrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA; including antibody to citrullinated filaggrin) were higher in patients with subgingival Pg and higher anti-Pg antibody levels irrespective of smoking. Associations of PD with established seropositive RA were independent of all covariates examined including evidence of Pg infection. Conclusions Both PD and Pg appear to shape RA-related autoreactivity in RA. In addition, PD demonstrates an independent relationship with established seropositive RA.