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

/pdf/eular-recommendations-for-the-management-of-rheumatoid-4fujp4paik.pdf

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2016 update

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.

https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/art.39480

2015 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

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.

/pdf/expansion-of-intestinal-prevotella-copri-correlates-with-1q9uc6fis7.pdf

Expansion of intestinal Prevotella copri correlates with enhanced susceptibility to arthritis

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

/pdf/2012-american-college-of-rheumatology-guidelines-for-tsc7lrrarv.pdf

2012 American College of Rheumatology guidelines for management of gout. Part 1: Systematic nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapeutic approaches to hyperuricemia

In the United States, approximately 35% of adults with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) have clinical evidence of nephritis at the time of diagnosis; with an estimated total of 50–60% developing nephritis during the first 10 years of disease [1–4]. The prevalence of nephritis is significantly higher in African Americans and Hispanics than in Caucasians, and is higher in men than in women. Renal damage is more likely to develop in non-Caucasian groups [2–4]. Overall survival in patients with SLE is approximately 95% at 5 years after diagnosis and 92% at 10 years [5, 6]. The presence of lupus nephritis significantly reduces survival, to approximately 88% at 10 years, with even lower survival in African Americans [5, 6].

The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) last published guidelines for management of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in 1999 [7]. That publication was designed primarily for education of primary care physicians and recommended therapeutic and management approaches for many manifestations of SLE. Recommendations for management of lupus nephritis (LN) consisted of pulse glucocorticoids followed by high dose daily glucocorticoids in addition to an immunosuppressive medication, with cyclophosphamide viewed as the most effective immunosuppressive medication for diffuse proliferative glomerulonephritis. Mycophenolate mofetil was not yet in use for lupus nephritis and was not mentioned. Since that time, many clinical trials of glucocorticoids-plus-immunosuppressive interventions have been published, some of which are high quality prospective trials, and some not only prospective but also randomized. Thus, the ACR determined that a new set of management recommendations was in order. A combination of extensive literature review and the opinions of highly qualified experts, including rheumatologists, nephrologists and pathologists, has been used to reach the recommendations. The management strategies discussed here apply to lupus nephritis in adults, particularly to those receiving care in the United States of America, and include interventions that were available in the United States as of April 2011.

While these recommendations were developed using rigorous methodology, guidelines do have inherent limitations in informing individual patient care; hence the selection of the term “recommendations.” While they should not supplant clinical judgment or limit clinical judgment, they do provide expert advice to the practicing physician managing patients with lupus nephritis.

/pdf/american-college-of-rheumatology-guidelines-for-screening-4d97m7oefx.pdf

American College of Rheumatology guidelines for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis

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.

/pdf/2012-update-of-the-2008-american-college-of-rheumatology-2zsrcxy352.pdf

2012 Update of the 2008 American College of Rheumatology recommendations for the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Eileen Moynihan

Papers

2012 Update of the 2008 American College of Rheumatology recommendations for the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis