| 1. |
- Gossec, L., et al.
(författare)
-
European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with pharmacological therapies : 2015 update
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. - London : BMJ Books. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 75:3, s. 499-510
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Since the publication of the European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in 2012, new evidence and new therapeutic agents have emerged. The objective was to update these recommendations.METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed regarding pharmacological treatment in PsA. Subsequently, recommendations were formulated based on the evidence and the expert opinion of the 34 Task Force members. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendations were allocated.RESULTS: The updated recommendations comprise 5 overarching principles and 10 recommendations, covering pharmacological therapies for PsA from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), to conventional synthetic (csDMARD) and biological (bDMARD) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, whatever their mode of action, taking articular and extra-articular manifestations of PsA into account, but focusing on musculoskeletal involvement. The overarching principles address the need for shared decision-making and treatment objectives. The recommendations address csDMARDs as an initial therapy after failure of NSAIDs and local therapy for active disease, followed, if necessary, by a bDMARD or a targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD). The first bDMARD would usually be a tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. bDMARDs targeting interleukin (IL)12/23 (ustekinumab) or IL-17 pathways (secukinumab) may be used in patients for whom TNF inhibitors are inappropriate and a tsDMARD such as a phosphodiesterase 4-inhibitor (apremilast) if bDMARDs are inappropriate. If the first bDMARD strategy fails, any other bDMARD or tsDMARD may be used.CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations provide stakeholders with an updated consensus on the pharmacological treatment of PsA and strategies to reach optimal outcomes in PsA, based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion. © 2015 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & European League Against Rheumatism.
|
|
| 2. |
- van Assen, S., et al.
(författare)
-
EULAR recommendations for vaccination in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 70:3, s. 414-422
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives To develop evidence-based European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for vaccination in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD). Methods A EULAR task force was composed of experts representing 11 European countries, consisting of eight rheumatologists, four clinical immunologists, one rheumatologist/clinical immunologist, one infectious disease physician, one nephrologist, one paediatrician/rheumatologist and one clinical epidemiologist. Key questions were formulated and the eligible spectrum of AIIRD, immunosuppressive drugs and vaccines were defined in order to perform a systematic literature review. A search was made of Medline from 1966 to October 2009 as well as abstracts from the EULAR meetings of 2008 and 2009 and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) meetings of 2007 and 2008. Evidence was graded in categories I-IV, the strength of recommendations was graded in categories A-D and Delphi voting was applied to determine the level of agreement between the experts of the task force. Results Eight key questions and 13 recommendations addressing vaccination in patients with AIIRD were formulated. The strength of each recommendation was determined. Delphi voting revealed a very high level of agreement with the recommendations among the experts of the task force. Finally, a research agenda was proposed. Conclusion Recommendations for vaccination in patients with AIIRD based on the currently available evidence and expert opinion were formulated. More research is needed, particularly regarding the incidence of vaccine-preventable infectious diseases and the safety of vaccination in patients with AIIRD.
|
|
| 3. |
- Buch, MH, et al.
(författare)
-
Updated consensus statement on the use of rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 70:6, s. 909-920
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Since initial approval for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), rituximab has been evaluated in clinical trials involving various populations with RA. Information has also been gathered from registries. This report therefore updates the 2007 consensus document on the use of rituximab in the treatment of RA.MethodsPreparation of this new document involved many international experts experienced in the treatment of RA. Following a meeting to agree upon the core agenda, a systematic literature review was undertaken to identify all relevant data. Data were then interrogated by a drafting committee, with subsequent review and discussion by a wider expert committee leading to the formulation of an updated consensus statement. These committees also included patients with RA.ResultsThe new statement covers wide-ranging issues including the use of rituximab in earlier RA and impact on structural progression, and aspects particularly pertinent to rituximab such as co-medication, optimal dosage regimens, repeat treatment cycles and how to manage non-response. Biological therapy following rituximab usage is also addressed, and safety concerns including appropriate screening for hepatitis, immunoglobulin levels and infection risk. This consensus statement will support clinicians and inform patients when using B-cell depletion in the management of RA, providing up-to-date information and highlighting areas for further research.ConclusionNew therapeutic strategies and treatment options for RA, a chronic destructive and disabling disease, have expanded over recent years. These have been summarised in general strategic suggestions and specific management recommendations, emphasising the importance of expedient disease-modifying antirheumatic drug implementation and tight disease control. This consensus statement is in line with these fundamental principles of management.
|
|
| 4. |
- Combe, B, et al.
(författare)
-
2016 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of early arthritis
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 76:6, s. 948-959
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Since the 2007 recommendations for the management of early arthritis have been presented, considerable research has been published in the field of early arthritis, mandating an update of the 2007 European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for management of early arthritis.MethodsIn accordance with the 2014 EULAR Standardised Operating Procedures, the expert committee pursued an approach that was based on evidence in the literature and on expert opinion. The committee involved 20 rheumatologists, 2 patients and 1 healthcare professional representing 12 European countries. The group defined the focus of the expert committee and target population, formulated a definition of ‘management’ and selected the research questions. A systematic literature research (SLR) was performed by two fellows with the help of a skilled librarian. A set of draft recommendations was proposed on the basis of the research questions and the results of the SLR. For each recommendation, the categories of evidence were identified, the strength of recommendations was derived and the level of agreement was determined through a voting process.ResultsThe updated recommendations comprise 3 overarching principles and 12 recommendations for managing early arthritis. The selected statements involve the recognition of arthritis, referral, diagnosis, prognostication, treatment (information, education, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions), monitoring and strategy. Eighteen items were identified as relevant for future research.ConclusionsThese recommendations provide rheumatologists, general practitioners, healthcare professionals, patients and other stakeholders with an updated EULAR consensus on the entire management of early arthritis.
|
|
| 5. |
- Elhai, M, et al.
(författare)
-
Outcomes of patients with systemic sclerosis treated with rituximab in contemporary practice: a prospective cohort study
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 78:7, s. 979-987
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To assess the safety and efficacy of rituximab in systemic sclerosis (SSc) in clinical practice.MethodsWe performed a prospective study including patients with SSc from the European Scleroderma Trials and Research (EUSTAR) network treated with rituximab and matched with untreated patients with SSc. The main outcomes measures were adverse events, skin fibrosis improvement, lung fibrosis worsening and steroids use among propensity score-matched patients treated or not with rituximab.Results254 patients were treated with rituximab, in 58% for lung and in 32% for skin involvement. After a median follow-up of 2 years, about 70% of the patients had no side effect. Comparison of treated patients with 9575 propensity-score matched patients showed that patients treated with rituximab were more likely to have skin fibrosis improvement (22.7 vs 14.03 events per 100 person-years; OR: 2.79 [1.47–5.32]; p=0.002). Treated patients did not have significantly different rates of decrease in forced vital capacity (FVC)>10% (OR: 1.03 [0.55–1.94]; p=0.93) nor in carbon monoxide diffusing capacity (DLCO) decrease. Patients having received rituximab were more prone to stop or decrease steroids (OR: 2.34 [1.56–3.53], p<0.0001). Patients treated concomitantly with mycophenolate mofetil had a trend for better outcomes as compared with patients receiving rituximab alone (delta FVC: 5.22 [0.83–9.62]; p=0.019 as compared with controls vs 3 [0.66–5.35]; p=0.012).ConclusionRituximab use was associated with a good safety profile in this large SSc-cohort. Significant change was observed on skin fibrosis, but not on lung. However, the limitation is the observational design. The potential stabilisation of lung fibrosis by rituximab has to be addressed by a randomised trial.
|
|
| 6. |
- Emery, P, et al.
(författare)
-
Certolizumab pegol in combination with dose-optimised methotrexate in DMARD-naïve patients with early, active rheumatoid arthritis with poor prognostic factors: 1-year results from C-EARLY, a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 76:1, s. 96-104
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To assess the efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol (CZP)+dose-optimised methotrexate (MTX) versus placebo (PBO)+dose-optimised MTX in inducing and sustaining clinical remission in DMARD-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe, active, progressive rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with poor prognostic factors over 52 weeks.MethodsDMARD-naïve patients with ≤1 year of active RA were randomised (3:1) in a double-blind manner to CZP (400 mg Weeks 0, 2, 4, then 200 mg Q2W to Week 52)+MTX or PBO+MTX (the mean optimised-MTX dose=21 and 22 mg/week, respectively). Sustained remission (sREM) and sustained low disease activity (sLDA; DAS28(ESR)<2.6 and DAS28(ESR)≤3.2, respectively, at both Weeks 40 and 52) were the primary and secondary endpoints.ResultsPatients were randomised to CZP+MTX (n=660) and PBO+MTX (n=219). At Week 52, significantly more patients assigned to CZP+MTX compared with PBO+MTX achieved sREM (28.9% vs 15.0%, p<0.001) and sLDA (43.8% vs 28.6%, p<0.001). Inhibition of radiographic progression and improvements in physical functioning were significantly greater for CZP+MTX versus PBO+MTX (van der Heijde modified total Sharp score (mTSS) mean absolute change from baseline (CFB): 0.2 vs 1.8, p<0.001, rate of mTSS non-progressors: 70.3% vs 49.7%, p<0.001; least squares (LS) mean CFB in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI): −1.00 vs −0.82, p<0.001). Incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs was similar between treatment groups. Infection was the most frequent AE, with higher incidence for CZP+MTX (71.8/100 patient-years (PY)) versus PBO+MTX (52.7/100 PY); the rate of serious infection was similar between CZP+MTX (3.3/100 PY) and PBO+MTX (3.7/100 PY).ConclusionsCZP+dose-optimised MTX treatment of DMARD-naïve early RA resulted in significantly more patients achieving sREM and sLDA, improved physical function and inhibited structural damage compared with PBO+dose-optimised MTX.Trial registration numberNCT01519791.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
