Institution
American College of Rheumatology
Nonprofit•Atlanta, Georgia, United States•
About: American College of Rheumatology is a nonprofit organization based out in Atlanta, Georgia, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Guideline & Population. The organization has 141 authors who have published 117 publications receiving 33521 citations.
Topics: Guideline, Population, Vasculitis, Rheumatology, Health care
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
Stanford University1, American College of Rheumatology2, Mayo Clinic3, University of Colorado Hospital4, Cleveland Clinic5, National Institutes of Health6, University of Kentucky7, University of Illinois at Chicago8, Harvard University9, Johns Hopkins University10, SUNY Downstate Medical Center11, University of California, San Diego12
TL;DR: The Americal College of Rheumatology Subcommittee on Classification of Vasculitis of the Diagnostic and Therapeutic Criteria Committee developed classification criteria for 7 forms of vasculitis: polyarteritis nodosa, Churg-Strauss syndrome, Wegener's granulomatosis, hypersensitivity vasculopathy, Henoch-Schonlein purpura, giant cell (temporal) arteritis, and Takayasu arteritis.
Abstract: The Americal College of Rheumatology Subcommittee on Classification of Vasculitis of the Diagnostic and Therapeutic Criteria Committee developed classification criteria for 7 forms of vasculitis: polyarteritis nodosa, Churg-Strauss syndrome, Wegener's granulomatosis, hypersensitivity vasculitis, Henoch-Schonlein purpura, giant cell (temporal) arteritis, and Takayasu arteritis. The data collection methods, quality control, and analytic procedures used to derive the classification rules are discussed herein
575 citations
••
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons1, American College of Physicians2, University of Pennsylvania3, American Academy of Neurology4, American Physical Therapy Association5, American College of Rheumatology6, Cochrane Collaboration7, American Academy of Family Physicians8, University of Ottawa9, Ottawa Hospital10
TL;DR: This methodology of developing EBCPGs provides a structured approach to assessing the literature and developing guidelines that incorporates clinicians' feedback and is widely acceptable to practicing clinicians.
Abstract: Introduction. A structured and rigorous methodology was developed for the formulation of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (EBCPGs), then was used to develop EBCPGs for selected rehabilitation interventions for the management of low back pain. Methods. Evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies was identified and synthesized using methods defined by the Cochrane Collaboration that minimize bias by using a systematic approach to literature search, study selection, data extraction, and data synthesis. Meta-analysis was conducted where possible. The strength of evidence was graded as level I for RCTs or level II for nonrandomized studies. Developing Recommendations. An expert panel was formed by inviting stakeholder professional organizations to nominate a representative. This panel developed a set of criteria for grading the strength of both the evidence and the recommendation. The panel decided that evidence of clinically important benefit (defined as 15% greater relative to a control based on panel expertise and empiric results) in patient-important outcomes was required for a recommendation. Statistical significance was also required, but was insufficient alone. Patient-important outcomes were decided by consensus as being pain, function, patient global assessment, quality of life, and return to work, providing that these outcomes were assessed with a scale for which measurement reliability and validity have been established. Validating the Recommendations. A feedback survey questionnaire was sent to 324 practitioners from 6 professional organizations. The response rate was 51%. Results. Four positive recommendations of clinical benefit were developed. Therapeutic exercises were found to be beneficial for chronic, subacute, and postsurgery low back pain. Continuation of normal activities was the only intervention with beneficial effects for acute low back pain. These recommendations were mainly in agreement with previous EBCPGs, although some were not covered by other EBCPGs. There was wide agreement with these recommendations from practitioners (greater than 85%). For several interventions and indications (eg, thermotherapy, therapeutic ultrasound, massage, electrical stimulation), there was a lack of evidence regarding efficacy. Conclusions. This methodology of developing EBCPGs provides a structured approach to assessing the literature and developing guidelines that incorporates clinicians' feedback and is widely acceptable to practicing clinicians. Further well-designed RCTs are warranted regarding the use of several interventions for patients with low back pain where evidence was insufficient to make recommendations.
524 citations
••
National Institutes of Health1, Oregon Health & Science University2, American University of Beirut3, University of California, San Francisco4, Brigham and Women's Hospital5, University of Wisconsin-Madison6, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia7, University of Toronto8, University of Mississippi Medical Center9, University of Alberta10, American College of Rheumatology11, Hospital for Special Surgery12, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center13, University of California, Irvine14, University of Massachusetts Medical School15, Ghent University16, University of California, Los Angeles17, University of Texas at Austin18, University of Colorado Boulder19
TL;DR: To provide evidence‐based recommendations for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spONDyloarthritis (SpA).
Abstract: Objective
To provide evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA).
Methods
A core group led the development of the recommendations, starting with the treatment questions. A literature review group conducted systematic literature reviews of studies that addressed 57 specific treatment questions, based on searches conducted in OVID Medline (1946–2014), PubMed (1966–2014), and the Cochrane Library. We assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method. A separate voting group reviewed the evidence and voted on recommendations for each question using the GRADE framework.
Results
In patients with active AS, the strong recommendations included use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) when activity persists despite NSAID treatment, not to use systemic glucocorticoids, use of physical therapy, and use of hip arthroplasty for patients with advanced hip arthritis. Among the conditional recommendations was that no particular TNFi was preferred except in patients with concomitant inflammatory bowel disease or recurrent iritis, in whom TNFi monoclonal antibodies should be used. In patients with active nonradiographic axial SpA despite treatment with NSAIDs, we conditionally recommend treatment with TNFi. Other recommendations for patients with nonradiographic axial SpA were based on indirect evidence and were the same as for patients with AS.
Conclusion
These recommendations provide guidance for the management of common clinical questions in AS and nonradiographic axial SpA. Additional research on optimal medication management over time, disease monitoring, and preventive care is needed to help establish best practices in these areas.
432 citations
••
National Institutes of Health1, Oregon Health & Science University2, University of California, San Francisco3, Boston University4, University of California, Los Angeles5, Case Western Reserve University6, Toronto Western Hospital7, Columbia University Medical Center8, West Los Angeles College9, University of Mississippi Medical Center10, University of Washington11, American College of Rheumatology12, ECRI Institute13, University of Alberta14, University of Colorado Boulder15
TL;DR: To update evidence‐based recommendations for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spONDyloarthritis (SpA).
Abstract: Objective To update evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA). Methods We conducted updated systematic literature reviews for 20 clinical questions on pharmacologic treatment addressed in the 2015 guidelines, and for 26 new questions on pharmacologic treatment, treat-to-target strategy, and use of imaging. New questions addressed the use of secukinumab, ixekizumab, tofacitinib, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biosimilars, and biologic tapering/discontinuation, among others. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations and required at least 70% agreement among the voting panel. Results Recommendations for AS and nonradiographic axial SpA are similar. TNFi are recommended over secukinumab or ixekizumab as the first biologic to be used. Secukinumab or ixekizumab is recommended over the use of a second TNFi in patients with primary nonresponse to the first TNFi. TNFi, secukinumab, and ixekizumab are favored over tofacitinib. Co-administration of low-dose methotrexate with TNFi is not recommended, nor is a strict treat-to-target strategy or discontinuation or tapering of biologics in patients with stable disease. Sulfasalazine is recommended only for persistent peripheral arthritis when TNFi are contraindicated. For patients with unclear disease activity, spine or pelvis magnetic resonance imaging could aid assessment. Routine monitoring of radiographic changes with serial spine radiographs is not recommended. Conclusion These recommendations provide updated guidance regarding use of new medications and imaging of the axial skeleton in the management of AS and nonradiographic axial SpA.
405 citations
••
Yale University1, McMaster University2, University of California, Los Angeles3, University of Wisconsin-Madison4, University of Oklahoma5, University of California, Davis6, Case Western Reserve University7, Duke University8, Tufts Medical Center9, Boston Children's Hospital10, Virginia Commonwealth University11, American College of Rheumatology12
TL;DR: To develop recommendations for prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid‐induced osteoporosis (GIOP).
Abstract: Objective
To develop recommendations for prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP).
Methods
We conducted a systematic review to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of GIOP prevention and treatment options. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to rate the quality of evidence. We used a group consensus process to determine the final recommendations and grade their strength. The guideline addresses initial assessment and reassessment in patients beginning or continuing long-term (≥3 months) glucocorticoid (GC) treatment, as well as the relative benefits and harms of lifestyle modification and of calcium, vitamin D, bisphosphonate, raloxifene, teriparatide, and denosumab treatment in the general adult population receiving long-term GC treatment, as well as in special populations of long-term GC users.
Results
Because of limited evidence regarding the benefits and harms of interventions in GC users, most recommendations in this guideline are conditional (uncertain balance between benefits and harms). Recommendations include treating only with calcium and vitamin D in adults at low fracture risk, treating with calcium and vitamin D plus an additional osteoporosis medication (oral bisphosphonate preferred) in adults at moderate-to-high fracture risk, continuing calcium plus vitamin D but switching from an oral bisphosphonate to another antifracture medication in adults in whom oral bisphosphonate treatment is not appropriate, and continuing oral bisphosphonate treatment or switching to another antifracture medication in adults who complete a planned oral bisphosphonate regimen but continue to receive GC treatment. Recommendations for special populations, including children, people with organ transplants, women of childbearing potential, and people receiving very high-dose GC treatment, are also made.
Conclusion
This guideline provides direction for clinicians and patients making treatment decisions. Clinicians and patients should use a shared decision-making process that accounts for patients' values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.
384 citations
Authors
Showing all 142 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Anthony S. Fauci | 185 | 960 | 133535 |
David T. Felson | 153 | 861 | 133514 |
Peter Tugwell | 129 | 948 | 125480 |
Marc C. Hochberg | 127 | 691 | 87268 |
Frederick Wolfe | 119 | 417 | 101272 |
Daniel E. Furst | 109 | 643 | 59748 |
Daniel H. Solomon | 100 | 623 | 38921 |
Claire Bombardier | 100 | 295 | 61805 |
James F. Fries | 100 | 369 | 83589 |
Theodore Pincus | 97 | 420 | 46012 |
Elie A. Akl | 95 | 482 | 58031 |
Matthew H. Liang | 93 | 339 | 53685 |
Sherine E. Gabriel | 91 | 273 | 63492 |
Michael E. Weinblatt | 86 | 455 | 44442 |
Gene G. Hunder | 86 | 244 | 61920 |