| 1. |
- Smolen, JS, et al.
(författare)
-
EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2022 update
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 82:1, s. 3-18
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To provide an update of the EULAR rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations addressing the most recent developments in the field.MethodsAn 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsThese updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on RA management including safety, effectiveness and cost.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Santiago, Tânia, et al.
(författare)
-
Ultrasound and elastography in the assessment of skin involvement in systemic sclerosis : A systematic literature review focusing on validation and standardization – WSF Skin Ultrasound Group
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism. - : Elsevier BV. - 0049-0172. ; 52
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To summarize the published evidence in the literature on the role of ultrasound and elastography to assess skin involvement in systemic sclerosis (SSc). Methods: A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed within the “Skin Ultrasound Working Group” of the World Scleroderma Foundation, according to the Cochrane Handbook. A search was conducted in Pubmed, Cochrane Library and Embase databases from 1/1/1979 to 31/5/2021, using the participants, intervention, comparator and outcomes (PICO) framework. Only full-text articles involving adults, reported in any language, assessing ultrasound to quantify skin pathology in SSc patients. Two reviewers performed the assessment of risk of bias, data extraction and synthesis, independently. Results: Forty-six studies out of 3248 references evaluating skin ultrasound and elastography domains were included. B-mode ultrasound was used in 30 studies (65.2%), elastography in nine (19.6%), and both methods in seven (15.2%). The ultrasound outcome measure domains reported were thickness (57.8%) and echogenicity (17.2%); the elastography domain was stiffness (25%). Methods used for image acquisition and analysis were remarkably heterogeneous and frequently under-reported, precluding data synthesis across studies. The same applies to contextual factors and feasibility. Our data syntheses indicated evidence of good reliability and convergent validity for ultrasound thickness evaluation against mRSS and skin histological findings. Stiffness and echogenicity have limited evidence for validity against histological findings. Evidence for sensitivity to change, test-retest reliability, clinical trial discrimination or thresholds of meaning is limited or absent for reported ultrasound domains. Conclusion: Ultrasound is a valid and reliable tool for skin thickness measurement in SSc but there are significant knowledge gaps regarding skin echogenicity assessment by ultrasound and skin stiffness evaluation by elastography in terms of feasibility, validity and discrimination. Standardization of image acquisition and analysis is needed to foster progress.
|
|
