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.

Background/Aims Research is needed to identify promising recruitment strategies to reach and engage diverse young adults in diabetes clinical research. The aim of this study was to examine the relative strengths and weaknesses of three recruitment strategies used in a diabetes self-management clinical trial: social media advertising (Facebook), targeted mailing, and in-person solicitation of clinic patients. Methods Strategies were compared in terms of (1) cost-effectiveness (i.e. cost of recruitment/number of enrolled participants), (2) ability to yield participants who would not otherwise be reached by alternative strategies, and (3) likelihood of participants recruited through each strategy to adhere to study procedures. We further explored the appeal (overall and among age and gender subgroups) of social media advertisement features. Results In-person recruitment of clinic patients was overall the most cost-effective strategy. However, differences in demographic, clinical, and psychosocial characteristics of participants recruited via different strategies suggest that the combination of these approaches yielded a more diverse sample than would any one strategy alone. Once successfully enrolled, there was no difference in study completion and intervention adherence between individuals recruited by the three recruitment strategies. Conclusions Ultimately, the utility of a recruitment strategy is defined by its ability to effectively attract people representative of the target population who are willing to enroll in and complete the study. Leveraging a variety of recruitment strategies appears to produce a more representative sample of young adults, including those who are less engaged in diabetes care.

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.