Objective To develop updated guidelines for the pharmacologic management of rheumatoid arthritis. Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A voting panel comprising clinicians and patients achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. Results The guideline addresses treatment with disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic DMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, use of glucocorticoids, and use of DMARDs in certain high‐risk populations (i.e., those with liver disease, heart failure, lymphoproliferative disorders, previous serious infections, and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease). The guideline includes 44 recommendations (7 strong and 37 conditional). Conclusion This clinical practice guideline is intended to serve as a tool to support clinician and patient decision‐making. Recommendations are not prescriptive, and individual treatment decisions should be made through a shared decision‐making process based on patients’ values, goals, preferences, and comorbidities.
Objective To develop updated guidelines for the pharmacologic management of rheumatoid arthritis. Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A voting panel comprising clinicians and patients achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. Results The guideline addresses treatment with disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic DMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, use of glucocorticoids, and use of DMARDs in certain high‐risk populations (i.e., those with liver disease, heart failure, lymphoproliferative disorders, previous serious infections, and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease). The guideline includes 44 recommendations (7 strong and 37 conditional). Conclusion This clinical practice guideline is intended to serve as a tool to support clinician and patient decision‐making. Recommendations are not prescriptive, and individual treatment decisions should be made through a shared decision‐making process based on patients’ values, goals, preferences, and comorbidities.
The REAL Diabetes intervention improved blood glucose control and diabetes-related QOL among a typically hard-to-reach population, thus providing evidence that a structured OT intervention may be beneficial in improving both clinical and psychosocial outcomes among individuals with diabetes.
Purpose Fatigue is an overlooked symptom for musculoskeletal diseases, including rare conditions like systemic sclerosis (SSc). The purpose of this study were the following: (1) to adapt the content and delivery method of an existing fatigue intervention, and (2) to determine the feasibility of Fatigue and Activity Management Education in Systemic Sclerosis (FAME‐iSS). Methods In Phase 1 adaptations were recorded using the Framework for Modification and Adaptations. In Phase 2, participants completed the 6‐week FAME‐iSS intervention and baseline, post‐intervention, and 3‐month follow‐up assessments measuring fatigue levels, fatigue impact, mental health, self‐efficacy, and use of energy conservation strategies. Qualitative data included a post‐intervention focus group and 3‐month follow‐up interviews. Results Three main changes were made to the original intervention: (1) the content was adapted from management of Lupus‐related fatigue to management of SSc‐related fatigue, (2) context for delivery from Ireland to United States, and (3) in‐person to online format. Participants (n = 4) were 51.8 ± 12.1 years old, had been diagnosed with SSc for 12.0 ± 8.0 years, were receiving disability support, and had college degrees. All participants had 100% attendance and completed all study activities. Participants had positive comments about the programme format, content, and implementation. Post‐intervention, improvements were observed in most measures. Moderate effect sizes were noted in fatigue and self‐efficacy scores. Conclusion Participants' positive responses supported the need for FAME‐iSS for people with SSc. Even with the small sample, FAME‐iSS led to improvements in fatigue and use of energy conservation strategies. The online format allowed for participation and sharing of ideas, especially during the global pandemic.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.