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

Tumor necrosis factor antagonist mechanisms of action: A comprehensive review

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may differ among rheumatologists and currently, clear and consensual international recommendations on RA treatment are not available. In this paper recommendations for the treatment of RA with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs) that also account for strategic algorithms and deal with economic aspects, are described. The recommendations are based on evidence from five systematic literature reviews (SLRs) performed for synthetic DMARDs, biological DMARDs, GCs, treatment strategies and economic issues. The SLR-derived evidence was discussed and summarised as an expert opinion in the course of a Delphi-like process. Levels of evidence, strength of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived. Fifteen recommendations were developed covering an area from general aspects such as remission/low disease activity as treatment aim via the preference for methotrexate monotherapy with or without GCs vis-a-vis combination of synthetic DMARDs to the use of biological agents mainly in patients for whom synthetic DMARDs and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors had failed. Cost effectiveness of the treatments was additionally examined. These recommendations are intended to inform rheumatologists, patients and other stakeholders about a European consensus on the management of RA with DMARDs and GCs as well as strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA, based on evidence and expert opinion.

https://ard.bmj.com/content/annrheumdis/69/6/964.full.pdf

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

New therapies for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

This fi rst up date of the ASAS/EULAR recommendations on the management of anky lo sing spondylitis (AS) is based on the original paper, a systematic review of existing recommendations and the literature since 2005 and the discussion and agreement among 21 international experts, 2 patients and 2 physiotherapists in a meeting in February 2010. Each original bullet point was discussed in de tail and rewor ded if necessary. Decisions on new re com men da tions were made — if necessary after voting. The strength of the recommen dations (SOR) was scored on an 11-point nume rical rating scale after the meeting by email. These recommendations apply to patients of all ages that fulfi ll the modifi ed NY criteria for AS, independent of extra-ar ticu lar manifestations, and they take into ac count all drug and non-drug interventions related to AS. Four overarching principles were introduced, implying that one bullet has been moved to this section. There are now 11 bullet points in clu ding 2 new ones, one related to extra-articular manife sta tions and one to changes in the disease course. With a mean score of 9.1 (range 8-10) the SOR was generally very good.

/pdf/2010-update-of-the-asas-eular-recommendations-for-the-3t8xq4bpzg.pdf

2010 update of the ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of ankylosing spondylitis

As in previous years, the consensus group to consider the use of biological agents in the treatment of rheumatic diseases met during the 13th Annual Workshop on Advances in Targeted Therapies in April, 2011. The group consisted of rheumatologists from a number of universities among the continents of Europe, North America, South America, Australia and Asia.

Pharmaceutical industry support was obtained from a number of companies for the annual workshop itself, but these companies had no part in the decisions about the specific programme or about the academic participants at this conference. Representatives of the supporting sponsors participated in the initial working groups to supply factual information. The sponsors did not participate in the drafting of the consensus statement.

This consensus was prepared from the perspective of the treating physician.

In view of the new data for abatacept, B cell-specific agents, interleukin 1 (IL-1) antagonists, tocilizumab (TCZ) and tumour necrosis factor α blocking agents (TNF inhibitors), an update of the previous consensus statement is appropriate. To allow ease of updating, the 2010 (data from March 2009 to January 2010) updates are incorporated into the body of the article, while 2011 updates (February 2010–January 2011) are separated and highlighted. The consensus statement is annotated to document the credibility of the data supporting it as much as possible. This annotation is that of Shekelle et al and is described in appendix 1.1 We have modified the Shekelle annotation by designating all abstracts as ‘category D evidence’, whether they describe well-controlled trials or not, as details of the study were often not available in the abstracts. Further, the number of possible references has become so large that reviews are sometimes included; if they contain category A references, they will be referred to as category A evidence.

The rheumatologists and bioscientists who attended …

https://ard.bmj.com/content/annrheumdis/72/suppl_2/ii2.full.pdf

J. Sieper

Papers

Updated consensus statement on biological agents for the treatment of rheumatic diseases, 2010