Author
Gerd R Burmester
Other affiliations: Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Charité, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
Bio: Gerd R Burmester is an academic researcher from Humboldt State University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Evidence-based medicine & Rheumatoid arthritis. The author has an hindex of 7, co-authored 9 publications receiving 5456 citations. Previous affiliations of Gerd R Burmester include Catholic University of the Sacred Heart & Charité.
Papers
More filters
Medical University of Vienna1, University of Amsterdam2, Leiden University Medical Center3, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust4, Chapel Allerton Hospital5, 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
Medical University of Vienna1, Leiden University Medical Center2, Humboldt State University3, Cornell University4, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust5, Keio University6, Dresden University of Technology7, Drexel University8, VU University Medical Center9, Goethe University Frankfurt10, University of Montpellier11, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc12, University of Lisbon13, Hospital for Special Surgery14, University of Santiago, Chile15, Medical University of Graz16, University of Amsterdam17, University of Queensland18, University of Copenhagen19, University of Cambridge20, Southlake Regional Health Center21, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens22, Karolinska University Hospital23
TL;DR: The 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations are based on stronger evidence than before and are supposed to inform patients, rheumatologists and other stakeholders about strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA.
Abstract: Background Reaching the therapeutic target of remission or low-disease activity has improved outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) significantly. The treat-to-target recommendations, formulated in 2010, have provided a basis for implementation of a strategic approach towards this therapeutic goal in routine clinical practice, but these recommendations need to be re-evaluated for appropriateness and practicability in the light of new insights. Objective To update the 2010 treat-to-target recommendations based on systematic literature reviews (SLR) and expert opinion. Methods A task force of rheumatologists, patients and a nurse specialist assessed the SLR results and evaluated the individual items of the 2010 recommendations accordingly, reformulating many of the items. These were subsequently discussed, amended and voted upon by >40 experts, including 5 patients, from various regions of the world. Levels of evidence, strengths of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived. Results The update resulted in 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations. The previous recommendations were partly adapted and their order changed as deemed appropriate in terms of importance in the view of the experts. The SLR had now provided also data for the effectiveness of targeting low-disease activity or remission in established rather than only early disease. The role of comorbidities, including their potential to preclude treatment intensification, was highlighted more strongly than before. The treatment aim was again defined as remission with low-disease activity being an alternative goal especially in patients with long-standing disease. Regular follow-up (every 1-3 months during active disease) with according therapeutic adaptations to reach the desired state was recommended. Follow-up examinations ought to employ composite measures of disease activity that include joint counts. Additional items provide further details for particular aspects of the disease, especially comorbidity and shared decision-making with the patient. Levels of evidence had increased for many items compared with the 2010 recommendations, and levels of agreement were very high for most of the individual recommendations (=9/10). Conclusions The 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations are based on stronger evidence than before and are supposed to inform patients, rheumatologists and other stakeholders about strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA.
1,128 citations
TL;DR: For the first time it is demonstrated that mGCR are indeed physiologically present in healthy blood donors, but remained unidentified by conventional techniques due to their small number per cell and actively up‐regulated and transported through the cell after immunostimulation.
Abstract: Glucocorticoids mediate their therapeutic actions mostly by genomic effects via cytosolic receptors, but some effects are too rapid to be mediated by changes at the genomic level. The detailed mechanisms of these nongenomic actions are still unclear. Membrane-bound glucocorticoid receptors (mGCR) have been suggested to be involved, although their physiological existence in humans so far is hypothetical. For the first time we demonstrate the existence of mGCR on monocytes and B cells obtained from healthy blood donors using high-sensitivity immunofluorescent staining. Immunostimulation with lipopolysaccharide increases the percentage of mGCR-positive monocytes, which can be prevented by inhibiting the secretory pathway. Overexpression of the human glucocorticoid receptor alpha alone is not sufficient to enhance mGCR expression. These in vitro findings are consistent with our clinical observation that in patients with rheumatoid arthritis the frequency of mGCR positive monocytes is increased and positively correlated with disease activity. We conclude that mGCR are 1) indeed physiologically present in healthy blood donors, but remained unidentified by conventional techniques due to their small number per cell and 2) actively up-regulated and transported through the cell after immunostimulation. These receptors may reflect a feedback mechanism of the organism upon immunostimulation and/or play a role in pathogenesis.
225 citations
TL;DR: This article critically reviews the data on gastrointestinal toxic side effects for conventional NSAIDs without as well as with prevention therapy and compares these data with those for the CSIs, namely, celecoxib and rofecoxib.
116 citations
Medical University of Vienna1, Wakayama Medical University2, Leiden University3, Charité4, Humboldt State University5, University of Paris6, University of Leeds7, Sapienza University of Rome8, University of Geneva9, Cornell University10, University of Santiago de Compostela11, University of Tasmania12, Johns Hopkins University13, Cardiff University14, University of Montpellier15, University of Genoa16, Medical University of Graz17, University of Zaragoza18, Autonomous University of Madrid19, University of Pavia20, University of Copenhagen21, Charles University in Prague22, University of Cologne23, University of Glasgow24, University of Naples Federico II25, Oregon Health & Science University26, VU University Amsterdam27
TL;DR: The consensus statement identifies points to consider when using TCZ, regarding indications, contraindications, screening, dose, comedication, response evaluation and safety, aimed at supporting clinicians and informing patients, administrators and payers on opportunities and limitations of IL-6 pathway inhibition.
Abstract: Background: Since approval of tocilizumab (TCZ) for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), interleukin 6 (IL-6) pathway inhibition was evaluated in trials of TCZ and other agents targeting the IL-6 receptor and ligand in various RA populations and other inflammatory diseases. This consensus document informs on interference with the IL-6 pathway based on evidence and expert opinion. Methods: Preparation of this document involved international experts in RA treatment and RA patients. A systematic literature search was performed that focused on TCZ and other IL6-pathway inhibitors in RA and other diseases. Subsequently, incorporating available published evidence and expert opinion, the steering committee and a broader expert committee (both including RA patients) formulated the current consensus statement. Results: The consensus statement covers use of TCZ as combination- or monotherapy in various RA populations and includes clinical, functional and structural aspects. The statement also addresses the second approved indication in Europe JIA and non-approved indications. Also early phase trials involving additional agents that target the IL-6 receptor or IL-6 were evaluated. Safety concerns, including haematological, hepatic and metabolic issues as well as infections, are addressed likewise. Conclusions: The consensus statement identifies points to consider when using TCZ, regarding indications, contraindications, screening, dose, comedication, response evaluation and safety. The document is aimed at supporting clinicians and informing patients, administrators and payers on opportunities and limitations of IL-6 pathway inhibition.
115 citations
Cited by
More filters
Medical University of Vienna1, University of Amsterdam2, Leiden University Medical Center3, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust4, Chapel Allerton Hospital5, 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
Broad Institute1, Harvard University2, Monash University3, Kyoto University4, Genentech5, Vanderbilt University6, New York University7, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital8, Second Military Medical University9, University of Queensland10, University of Toronto11, University of Groningen12, University of Tartu13, Beijing Jiaotong University14, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai15, Radboud University Nijmegen16, Medisch Spectrum Twente17, Leiden University18, University of Paris19, French Institute of Health and Medical Research20, University of Alabama at Birmingham21, University of Amsterdam22, University of Cambridge23, GlaxoSmithKline24, Hanyang University25, Spanish National Research Council26, Complutense University of Madrid27, Umeå University28, Boston University29, Council on Education for Public Health30, McGill University31, University of Manchester32, National Health Service33, University of Pittsburgh34, University of California, San Francisco35, Karolinska Institutet36, North Shore-LIJ Health System37, University of Chicago38, University of Tokyo39
TL;DR: A genome-wide association study meta-analysis in a total of >100,000 subjects of European and Asian ancestries provides empirical evidence that the genetics of RA can provide important information for drug discovery, and sheds light on fundamental genes, pathways and cell types that contribute to RA pathogenesis.
Abstract: A major challenge in human genetics is to devise a systematic strategy to integrate disease-associated variants with diverse genomic and biological data sets to provide insight into disease pathogenesis and guide drug discovery for complex traits such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA)1. Here we performed a genome-wide association study meta-analysis in a total of >100,000 subjects of European and Asian ancestries (29,880 RA cases and 73,758 controls), by evaluating ~10 million single-nucleotide polymorphisms. We discovered 42 novel RA risk loci at a genome-wide level of significance, bringing the total to 101 (refs 2, 3, 4). We devised an in silico pipeline using established bioinformatics methods based on functional annotation5, cis-acting expression quantitative trait loci6 and pathway analyses7, 8, 9—as well as novel methods based on genetic overlap with human primary immunodeficiency, haematological cancer somatic mutations and knockout mouse phenotypes—to identify 98 biological candidate genes at these 101 risk loci. We demonstrate that these genes are the targets of approved therapies for RA, and further suggest that drugs approved for other indications may be repurposed for the treatment of RA. Together, this comprehensive genetic study sheds light on fundamental genes, pathways and cell types that contribute to RA pathogenesis, and provides empirical evidence that the genetics of RA can provide important information for drug discovery.
1,910 citations
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
Leiden University Medical Center1, Ruhr University Bochum2, Ghent University Hospital3, Universidade Nova de Lisboa4, University of Zurich5, Paris Descartes University6, Sorbonne7, Semmelweis University8, VU University Medical Center9, University of Toronto10, University College London11, University of Leeds12, Erciyes University13, University of Lisbon14, University of Texas at Austin15, Ghent University16, Charité17, University of São Paulo18
TL;DR: The 2016 Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society-EULAR recommendations provide up-to-date guidance on the management of patients with axSpA and three overarching principles and 13 recommendations deal with surgery and spinal fractures.
Abstract: To update and integrate the recommendations for ankylosing spondylitis and the recommendations for the use of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) into one set applicable to the full spectrum of patients with axSpA. Following the latest version of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Standardised Operating Procedures, two systematic literature reviews first collected the evidence regarding all treatment options (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) that were published since 2009. After a discussion of the results in the steering group and presentation to the task force, overarching principles and recommendations were formulated, and consensus was obtained by informal voting. A total of 5 overarching principles and 13 recommendations were agreed on. The first three recommendations deal with personalised medicine including treatment target and monitoring. Recommendation 4 covers non-pharmacological management. Recommendation 5 describes the central role of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as first-choice drug treatment. Recommendations 6-8 define the rather modest role of analgesics, and disprove glucocorticoids and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for axSpA patents with predominant axial involvement. Recommendation 9 refers to biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) including TNFi and IL-17 inhibitors (IL-17i) for patients with high disease activity despite the use (or intolerance/contraindication) of at least two NSAIDs. In addition, they should either have an elevated C reactive protein and/or definite inflammation on MRI and/or radiographic evidence of sacroiliitis. Current practice is to start with a TNFi. Switching to another TNFi or an IL-17i is recommended in case TNFi fails (recommendation 10). Tapering, but not stopping a bDMARD, can be considered in patients in sustained remission (recommendation 11). The final two recommendations (12, 13) deal with surgery and spinal fractures. The 2016 Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society-EULAR recommendations provide up-to-date guidance on the management of patients with axSpA.
1,147 citations