Objective To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). Methods A task force was assembled that included 9 rheumatologists/immunologists, 2 infectious disease specialists, and 2 public health physicians. After agreeing on scoping questions, an evidence report was created that summarized the published literature and publicly available data regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, as well as literature for other vaccines in RMD patients. Task force members rated their agreement with draft consensus statements on a 9-point numerical scoring system, using a modified Delphi process and the RAND/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, with refinement and iteration over 2 sessions. Consensus was determined based on the distribution of ratings. Results Despite a paucity of direct evidence, 74 draft guidance statements were developed by the task force and agreed upon with consensus to provide guidance for use of the COVID-19 vaccines in RMD patients and to offer recommendations regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies around the time of vaccination. Conclusion These guidance statements, made in the context of limited clinical data, are intended to provide direction to rheumatology health care providers on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines and to facilitate implementation of vaccination strategies for RMD patients.

American College of Rheumatology Guidance for COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases: Version 3.

Objectives To provide an update of the EULAR rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations addressing the most recent developments in the field. Methods An international task force was formed and solicited three systematic literature research activities on safety and efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs). The new evidence was discussed in light of the last update from 2019. A predefined voting process was applied to each overarching principle and recommendation. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned to and participants finally voted on the level of agreement with each item. Results The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); GCs; biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab including biosimilars), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs, namely the Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib. Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering in sustained clinical remission is provided. Safety aspects, including risk of major cardiovascular events (MACEs) and malignancies, costs and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs were all considered. Initially, MTX plus GCs is recommended and on insufficient response to this therapy within 3–6 months, treatment should be based on stratification according to risk factors; With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD should be added to the csDMARD; after careful consideration of risks of MACEs, malignancies and/or thromboembolic events tsDMARDs may also be considered in this phase. If the first bDMARD (or tsDMARD) fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD (considering risks) is recommended. With sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered but should not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were high for most recommendations. Conclusions These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on RA management including safety, effectiveness and cost.

/pdf/eular-recommendations-for-the-management-of-rheumatoid-2yxe7spm.pdf

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2022 update

Objective The relative risk of SARS–CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease severity among people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) compared to those without RMDs is unclear. This study was undertaken to quantify the risk of SARS–CoV-2 infection in those with RMDs and describe clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in these patients. Methods We conducted a systematic literature review using 14 databases from January 1, 2019 to February 13, 2021. We included observational studies and experimental trials in RMD patients that described comparative rates of SARS–CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, oxygen supplementation/intensive care unit (ICU) admission/mechanical ventilation, or death attributed to COVID-19. Methodologic quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated, as applicable for each outcome, using the Mantel-Haenszel formula with random effects models. Results Of the 5,799 abstracts screened, 100 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the systematic review, and 54 of 100 had a low risk of bias. Among the studies included in the meta-analyses, we identified an increased prevalence of SARS–CoV-2 infection in patients with an RMD (RR 1.53 [95% CI 1.16–2.01]) compared to the general population. The odds of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation were similar in patients with and those without an RMD, whereas the mortality rate was increased in patients with RMDs (OR 1.74 [95% CI 1.08–2.80]). In a smaller number of studies, the adjusted risk of outcomes related to COVID-19 was assessed, and the results varied; some studies demonstrated an increased risk while other studies showed no difference in risk in patients with an RMD compared to those without an RMD. Conclusion Patients with RMDs have higher rates of SARS–CoV-2 infection and an increased mortality rate. 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/art.42030

<scp>SARS</scp>–<scp>CoV</scp>‐2 Infection and<scp>COVID</scp>‐19 Outcomes in Rheumatic Diseases: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta‐Analysis

To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the use of COVID‐19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

American College of Rheumatology Guidance for COVID‐19 Vaccination in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases: Version 4

Objectives Recent results from ‘ORAL Surveillance’ trial have raised concerns regarding the cardiovascular safety of tofacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We further examined this safety concern in the real-world setting. Methods We created two cohorts of patients with RA initiating treatment with tofacitinib or tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFI) using deidentified data from Optum Clinformatics (2012–2020), IBM MarketScan (2012–2018) and Medicare (parts A, B and D, 2012–2017) claims databases: (1) A ‘real-world evidence (RWE) cohort’ consisting of routine care patients and (2) A ‘randomised controlled trial (RCT)-duplicate cohort’ mimicking inclusion and exclusion criteria of the ORAL surveillance trial to calibrate results against the trial findings. Cox proportional hazards models with propensity score fine stratification weighting were used to estimate HR and 95% CIs for composite outcome of myocardial infarction and stroke and accounting for 76 potential confounders. Database-specific effect estimates were pooled using fixed effects models with inverse-variance weighting. Results In the RWE cohort, 102 263 patients were identified of whom 12 852 (12.6%) initiated tofacitinib. The pooled weighted HR (95% CI) comparing tofacitinib with TNFI was 1.01 (0.83 to 1.23) in RWE cohort and 1.24 (0.90 to 1.69) in RCT-duplicate cohort which aligned closely with ORAL-surveillance results (HR: 1.33, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.94). Conclusions We did not find evidence for an increased risk of cardiovascular outcomes with tofacitinib in patients with RA treated in the real-world setting; however, tofacitinib was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular outcomes, although statistically non-significant, in patients with RA with cardiovascular risk factors. Trial registration number NCT04772248.

Tofacitinib and risk of cardiovascular outcomes: results from the Safety of TofAcitinib in Routine care patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (STAR-RA) study

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.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/art.41752

Kent Kwas Huston

Papers

2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis