| 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. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Smolen, JS, et al.
(författare)
-
EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2016 update
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 76:6, s. 960-977
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Recent insights in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) necessitated updating the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) RA management recommendations. A large international Task Force based decisions on evidence from 3 systematic literature reviews, developing 4 overarching principles and 12 recommendations (vs 3 and 14, respectively, in 2013). The recommendations address conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GC); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, clazakizumab, sarilumab and sirukumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (Janus kinase (Jak) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib). Monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and the targets of sustained clinical remission (as defined by the American College of Rheumatology-(ACR)-EULAR Boolean or index criteria) or low disease activity are discussed. Cost aspects were taken into consideration. As first strategy, the Task Force recommends MTX (rapid escalation to 25 mg/week) plus short-term GC, aiming at >50% improvement within 3 and target attainment within 6 months. If this fails stratification is recommended. Without unfavourable prognostic markers, switching to—or adding—another csDMARDs (plus short-term GC) is suggested. In the presence of unfavourable prognostic markers (autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions, failure of 2 csDMARDs), any bDMARD (current practice) or Jak-inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD or tsDMARD is recommended. If a patient is in sustained remission, bDMARDs can be tapered. For each recommendation, levels of evidence and Task Force agreement are provided, both mostly very high. These recommendations intend informing rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology 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.
|
|
| 7. |
- Smolen, JS, et al.
(författare)
-
EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 79:6, s. 685-699
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To provide an update of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations to account for the most recent developments in the field.MethodsAn international task force considered new evidence supporting or contradicting previous recommendations and novel therapies and strategic insights based on two systematic literature searches on efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) since the last update (2016) until 2019. A predefined voting process was applied, current levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned and participants ultimately voted independently on their level of agreement with each of the items.ResultsThe task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 12 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GCs); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib). Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering on sustained clinical remission is provided. Cost and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs are addressed. Initially, MTX plus GCs and upon insufficient response to this therapy within 3 to 6 months, stratification according to risk factors is recommended. With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD or JAK inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD is recommended. On sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered, but not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were mostly high.ConclusionsThese updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on the management of RA with respect to benefit, safety, preferences and cost.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Van Hoovels, L., et al.
(författare)
-
IgA rheumatoid factor in rheumatoid arthritis
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. - : Walter de Gruyter GmbH. - 1434-6621 .- 1437-4331. ; 60:10, s. 1617-1626
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives Rheumatoid factor (RF) is a well-established marker for the diagnosis and classification of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Most studies evaluated IgM RF or isotype-nonspecific total RF assays. We evaluated the added value of IgA RF in this context. Methods An international sample cohort consisting of samples from 398 RA patients and 1073 controls was tested for IgA RF with 3 commercial assays. For all RA patients and 100 controls essential clinical and serological data for ACR/EULAR classification were available. Results The sensitivity of IgA RF for diagnosing RA was lower than the sensitivity of IgM RF. Differences in numerical values between IgA RF assays were observed. With all assays, the highest IgA RF values were found in patients with primary Sjogren's syndrome. Double positivity for IgM RF and IgA RF had a higher specificity for RA than either IgM RF or IgA RF. The sensitivity of double positivity was lower than the sensitivity of either IgA RF or IgM RF. Single positivity for IgA RF was at least as prevalent in controls than in RA patients. Adding IgA RF to IgM RF and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) did not affect RA classification. However, combined positivity for IgA RF, IgM RF and IgG ACPA had a higher specificity and lower sensitivity for RA classification than positivity for either of the antibodies. Conclusions IgA RF showed a lower sensitivity than IgM RF. Combining IgA RF with IgM RF and ACPA did not improve sensitivity of RA classification. Combined positivity (IgA-RF/IgM-RF/ACPA) increased specificity.
|
|
| 10. |
- Van Hoovels, L., et al.
(författare)
-
Multicentre study to improve clinical interpretation of rheumatoid factor and anti-citrullinated protein/peptide antibodies test results
- 2022
-
Ingår i: RMD Open. - : BMJ. - 2056-5933. ; 8:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated protein/peptide antibodies (ACPA) are important biomarkers for diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, there is poor harmonisation of RF and ACPA assays. The aim of this study was to refine RF and ACPA interpretation across commercial assays. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six total RF isotype-non-specific assays, 3 RF IgM isotype-specific assays and 9 ACPA immunoglobulin G assays of 13 different companies were evaluated using 398 diagnostic samples from patients with RA and 1073 disease controls. RESULTS: Using cut-offs proposed by the manufacturer, there was a large variability in diagnostic sensitivity and specificity between assays. Thresholds of antibody levels were determined based on predefined specificities and used to define test result intervals. Test result interval-specific likelihood ratios (LRs) were concordant across the different RF and ACPA assays. For all assays, the LR for RA increased with increasing antibody level. Higher LRs were found for ACPA than for RF. ACPA levels associated with LRs >80 were found in a substantial fraction (>22%) of patients with RA. CONCLUSION: Defining thresholds for antibody levels and assigning test result interval-specific LRs allows alignment of clinical interpretation for all RF and ACPA assays. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
|
|
