Author
Archana Jain
Other affiliations: Brigham and Women's Hospital
Bio: Archana Jain is an academic researcher from University of Alabama at Birmingham. The author has contributed to research in topics: Medicine & Retrospective cohort study. The author has an hindex of 5, co-authored 5 publications receiving 1670 citations. Previous affiliations of Archana Jain include Brigham and Women's Hospital.
Papers
More filters
University of Alabama at Birmingham1, University of California, Los Angeles2, University of California, San Diego3, Albany Medical College4, University of Pittsburgh5, University of Nebraska Omaha6, Oregon Health & Science University7, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center8, University of Toronto9, University of Paris10, University of Michigan11, Mayo Clinic12, University of Minnesota13
TL;DR: The 2012 ACR RA recommendations were developed by two expert panels: a non-voting working group and Core Expert Panel of clinicians and methodologists responsible for the selection of the relevant topic areas to be considered, the systematic literature review, and the evidence synthesis.
Abstract: The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) most recently published recommendations for use of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologics in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in 2008 (1). These recommendations covered indications for use, monitoring of side-effects, assessment of the clinical response to DMARDs and biologics, screening for tuberculosis (TB), and assessment of the roles of cost and patient preference in decision-making for biologic agents (1). Recognizing the rapidly evolving knowledge in RA management and the accumulation of new evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of existing and newer therapies, the ACR commissioned an update of the 2008 recommendations in select topic areas.
The 2012 revision updates the 2008 ACR recommendations in the following areas: (1) indications for DMARDs and biologics; (2) switching between DMARD and biologic therapies; (3) use of biologics in high-risk patients (those with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, and malignancy); (4) screening for TB in patients starting or currently receiving biologics; and (5) vaccination in patients starting or currently receiving DMARDs or biologics (Table 1).
Table 1
Overview Comparison of Topics and Medications Included in the 2008 and 2012 ACR RA Recommendations
METHODS
We utilized the same methodology as described in detail in the 2008 guidelines (1) to maintain consistency and to allow cumulative evidence to inform this 2012 recommendation update. These recommendations were developed by two expert panels: (1) a non-voting working group and Core Expert Panel (CEP) of clinicians and methodologists responsible for the selection of the relevant topic areas to be considered, the systematic literature review, and the evidence synthesis and creation of “clinical scenarios”; and (2) a Task Force Panel (TFP) of 11 internationally-recognized expert clinicians, patient representatives and methodologists with expertise in RA treatment, evidence-based medicine and patient preferences who were tasked with rating the scenarios created using an ordinal scale specified in the Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) Appropriateness method (2–4). This method solicited formal input from a multi-disciplinary TFP panel to make recommendations informed by the evidence. The methods used to develop the updated ACR recommendations are described briefly below.
Systematic Literature Review – Sources, Databases and Domains
Literature searches for both DMARDs and biologics relied predominantly on PubMed searches) with medical subject headings (MeSH) and relevant keywords similar to those used for the 2008 ACR RA recommendations (see Appendices 1 and 2). We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), quasi-experimental designs, cohort studies (prospective or retrospective), and case-control studies, with no restrictions on sample size. More details about inclusion criteria are listed below and in Appendix 3.
The 2008 recommendations were based on a literature search that ended on February 14, 2007. The literature search end date for the 2012 Update was February 26, 2010 for the efficacy and safety studies and September 22, 2010 for additional qualitative reviews related to TB screening, immunization and hepatitis (similar to the 2008 methodology). Studies published subsequent to that date were not included.
For biologics, we also reviewed the Cochrane systematic reviews and overviews (published and in press) in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify additional studies (5–8) and further supplemented by hand-checking the bibliographies of all included articles. Finally, the CEP and TFP confirmed that relevant literature was included for evidence synthesis. Unless they were identified by the literature search and met the article inclusion criteria (see Appendix 3), we did not review any unpublished data from product manufacturers, investigators, or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System.
We searched the literature for the eight DMARDs and nine biologics most commonly used for the treatment of RA. Literature was searched for eight DMARDS including azathioprine, cyclosporine, hydroxychloroquine, leflunomide, methotrexate, minocycline, organic gold compounds and sulfasalazine. As in 2008, azathioprine, cyclosporine and gold were not included in the recommendations based on infrequent use and lack of new data (Table 1). Literature was searched for nine biologics including abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab and tocilizumab; anakinra was not included in the recommendations due to infrequent use and lack of new data. Details of the bibliographic search strategy are listed in Appendix 1.
1,493 citations
TL;DR: A careful comparison of selected U.S. and European rheumatoid arthritis biologics registries can provide a basis for understanding the many similarities and differences inherent in their design, as well as societal context and content, all of which can significantly impact their results and comparisons across registers.
170 citations
TL;DR: Evidence suggests no increase in risk of cancer with anti-TNF biologics, but there is an increased risk of non-melanoma skin cancer.
Abstract: A focused review of the risk of harms of anti-TNF inhibitors in adult rheumatic diseases was performed. An increased risk of serious infections, tuberculosis and other opportunistic infections has been reported across various studies, with etanercept appearing to have a modestly better safety profile in terms of tuberculosis and opportunistic infections, and infliximab posing a higher risk of serious infections. Evidence suggests no increase in risk of cancer with anti-TNF biologics, but there is an increased risk of non-melanoma skin cancer. Elderly patients appear to be at increased risk of incident or worsening heart failure with anti-TNF biologic use.
65 citations
TL;DR: Claims-based algorithms combining hospital discharges with surgeon's diagnosis codes had high PPV to identify the site of subtrochanteric or diaphyseal femoral fractures vs typical hip fractures, however, claims-based data were not accurate in identifying atypical Femoral fractures.
35 citations
TL;DR: More than two-thirds of hospitalized infections reported by rheumatologists were confirmed or had evidence that the physician was treating an infection, indicating the possibility of an infection being misclassified.
Abstract: Objective. In safety studies, events reported as infections may be misclassified and, therefore, affect the validity of estimated risks associated with biologic agents. Using data from the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America (CORRONA), we evaluated hospitalized infection reports contributed by rheumatologists to establish their validity. Methods. All patients hospitalized with infections from 2002 to 2007 reported to CORRONA were examined and compared with information from hospital discharge summaries and other confirmatory data. Infectious episodes were classified by two physicians as confirmed, empirically treated, possible or unlikely. Results. Of 562 reported hospitalized infectious episodes, 9% were classified as unlikely and had minimal or no supporting evidence for infection, leaving 509 hospitalized infectious episodes. Of these, 53% of the infectious episodes were classified as confirmed, 15% empirically treated and 32% possible. The confirmation status of infectious episodes for younger or biologic-exposed participants was similar to older and biologic-unexposed participants. Conclusion. More than two-thirds of hospitalized infections reported by rheumatologists were confirmed or had evidence that the physician was treating an infection. In almost all cases, there was at least modest evidence for an infection. Future studies should consider case definitions for infections or sensitivity analyses, or both, regarding the certainty of an infection to account for possible misclassification and reduce bias.
8 citations
Cited by
More filters
Medical University of Vienna1, University of Amsterdam2, Leiden University Medical Center3, Chapel Allerton Hospital4, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust5, Humboldt State University6, Oregon Health & Science University7, Utrecht University8, VU University Medical Center9, University of Montpellier10, University of Belgrade11, Erasmus University Rotterdam12, University of Paris-Sud13, Charles University in Prague14, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre15, University of Cologne16, Weston Education Centre17, Tufts University18
TL;DR: These recommendations intend informing rheumatologists, patients, national rheumology societies, hospital officials, social security agencies and regulators about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA, aimed at attaining best outcomes with current therapies.
Abstract: In this article, the 2010 European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs and bDMARDs, respectively) have been updated. The 2013 update has been developed by an international task force, which based its decisions mostly on evidence from three systematic literature reviews (one each on sDMARDs, including glucocorticoids, bDMARDs and safety aspects of DMARD therapy); treatment strategies were also covered by the searches. The evidence presented was discussed and summarised by the experts in the course of a consensus finding and voting process. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were derived and levels of agreement (strengths of recommendations) were determined. Fourteen recommendations were developed (instead of 15 in 2010). Some of the 2010 recommendations were deleted, and others were amended or split. The recommendations cover general aspects, such as attainment of remission or low disease activity using a treat-to-target approach, and the need for shared decision-making between rheumatologists and patients. The more specific items relate to starting DMARD therapy using a conventional sDMARD (csDMARD) strategy in combination with glucocorticoids, followed by the addition of a bDMARD or another csDMARD strategy (after stratification by presence or absence of adverse risk factors) if the treatment target is not reached within 6 months (or improvement not seen at
4,730 citations
University of Alabama at Birmingham1, American University of Beirut2, Tufts Medical Center3, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center4, University of California, Los Angeles5, Washington University in St. Louis6, University of California, San Diego7, University of Nebraska Medical Center8, Mayo Clinic9, University of Minnesota10, NorthShore University HealthSystem11, Duke University12, American College of Rheumatology13
TL;DR: To develop a new evidence‐based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a large number of patients with RA are referred to a single clinic for treatment with these medications.
Abstract: 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.
2,083 citations
TL;DR: This newer evidence suggests that AFFs are stress or insufficiency fractures, and studies with radiographic review consistently report significant associations between A FFs and BP use, although the strength and magnitude of effect vary.
Abstract: Reports linking long-term use of bisphosphonates (BPs) with atypical fractures of the femur led the leadership of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) to appoint a task force to address key questions related to this problem. A multidisciplinary expert group reviewed pertinent published reports concerning atypical femur fractures, as well as preclinical studies that could provide insight into their pathogenesis. A case definition was developed so that subsequent studies report on the same condition. The task force defined major and minor features of complete and incomplete atypical femoral fractures and recommends that all major features, including their location in the subtrochanteric region and femoral shaft, transverse or short oblique orientation, minimal or no associated trauma, a medial spike when the fracture is complete, and absence of comminution, be present to designate a femoral fracture as atypical. Minor features include their association with cortical thickening, a periosteal reaction of the lateral cortex, prodromal pain, bilaterality, delayed healing, comorbid conditions, and concomitant drug exposures, including BPs, other antiresorptive agents, glucocorticoids, and proton pump inhibitors. Preclinical data evaluating the effects of BPs on collagen cross-linking and maturation, accumulation of microdamage and advanced glycation end products, mineralization, remodeling, vascularity, and angiogenesis lend biologic plausibility to a potential association with long-term BP use. Based on published and unpublished data and the widespread use of BPs, the incidence of atypical femoral fractures associated with BP therapy for osteoporosis appears to be very low, particularly compared with the number of vertebral, hip, and other fractures that are prevented by BPs. Moreover, a causal association between BPs and atypical fractures has not been established. However, recent observations suggest that the risk rises with increasing duration of exposure, and there is concern that lack of awareness and underreporting may mask the true incidence of the problem. Given the relative rarity of atypical femoral fractures, the task force recommends that specific diagnostic and procedural codes be created and that an international registry be established to facilitate studies of the clinical and genetic risk factors and optimal surgical and medical management of these fractures. Physicians and patients should be made aware of the possibility of atypical femoral fractures and of the potential for bilaterality through a change in labeling of BPs. Research directions should include development of animal models, increased surveillance, and additional epidemiologic and clinical data to establish the true incidence of and risk factors for this condition and to inform orthopedic and medical management. © 2010 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
1,820 citations
TL;DR: The presence of Prevotella copri is identified as strongly correlated with disease in new-onset untreated rheumatoid arthritis (NORA) patients and uniquePrevotella genes that correlate with disease are identified.
Abstract: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a prevalent systemic autoimmune disease, caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. Animal models suggest a role for intestinal bacteria in supporting the systemic immune response required for joint inflammation. Here we performed 16S sequencing on 114 stool samples from rheumatoid arthritis patients and controls, and shotgun sequencing on a subset of 44 such samples. We identified the presence of Prevotella copri as strongly correlated with disease in new-onset untreated rheumatoid arthritis (NORA) patients. Increases in Prevotella abundance correlated with a reduction in Bacteroides and a loss of reportedly beneficial microbes in NORA subjects. We also identified unique Prevotella genes that correlated with disease. Further, colonization of mice revealed the ability of P. copri to dominate the intestinal microbiota and resulted in an increased sensitivity to chemically induced colitis. This work identifies a potential role for P. copri in the pathogenesis of RA.
1,427 citations
University of Michigan1, University of California, Los Angeles2, University of Rochester3, Boston Medical Center4, New York University5, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation6, University of California, San Diego7, University of Otago8, Paris Diderot University9, University of Alabama at Birmingham10, University of Auckland11, Emory University12, Veterans Health Administration13, University of California, Irvine14, University of Florida15, Cleveland Clinic16, University of Pennsylvania17, Harvard University18
TL;DR: DINESH KHanNA, JOHN D. FITZGERALD, PUJA P. KHANNA, SANGMEE BAE, MANJIT K. SINGH, TUHINA NEOGI, MICHAEL H. PILLINGER, JOAN MERILL, SUSAN LEE, SHRADDHA PRAKASH, MARIAN KALDAS, MANEESH GOGIA, FERNANDO PEREZ-RUI
Abstract: DINESH KHANNA, JOHN D. FITZGERALD, PUJA P. KHANNA, SANGMEE BAE, MANJIT K. SINGH, TUHINA NEOGI, MICHAEL H. PILLINGER, JOAN MERILL, SUSAN LEE, SHRADDHA PRAKASH, MARIAN KALDAS, MANEESH GOGIA, FERNANDO PEREZ-RUIZ, WILL TAYLOR, FREDERIC LIOTE, HYON CHOI, JASVINDER A. SINGH, NICOLA DALBETH, SANFORD KAPLAN, VANDANA NIYYAR, DANIELLE JONES, STEVEN A. YAROWS, BLAKE ROESSLER, GAIL KERR, CHARLES KING, GERALD LEVY, DANIEL E. FURST, N. LAWRENCE EDWARDS, BRIAN MANDELL, H. RALPH SCHUMACHER, MARK ROBBINS, NEIL WENGER, AND ROBERT TERKELTAUB
1,335 citations