| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Studenic, P, et al.
(författare)
-
American College of Rheumatology/EULAR remission criteria for rheumatoid arthritis: 2022 revision
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 82:1, s. 74-80
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In 2011, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and EULAR endorsed provisional criteria for remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), both Boolean-based and index-based. Based on recent studies indicating that a higher threshold for the patient global assessment (PtGA) may improve agreement between the two sets of criteria, our goals were to externally validate a revision of the Boolean remission criteria using a higher PtGA threshold and to validate the provisionally endorsed index-based criteria.MethodsWe used data from four randomised trials comparing biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs to methotrexate or placebo. We tested the higher proposed PtGA threshold of 2 cm (Boolean2.0) (range 0–10 cm) compared with the original threshold of 1 cm (Boolean1.0). We analysed agreement between the Boolean-based and index-based criteria (Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)) for remission and examined how well each remission definition predicted later good physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score≤0.5) and radiographic non-progression.ResultsData from 2048 trial participants, 1101 with early RA and 947 with established RA, were included. The proportion of patients with disease in remission at 6 months after treatment initiation increased when using Boolean2.0 compared with Boolean1.0, from 14.8% to 20.6% in early RA and 4.2% to 6.0% in established RA. Agreement between Boolean2.0 and the SDAI or CDAI remission criteria was better than for Boolean1.0, particularly in early disease. Boolean2.0, SDAI, and CDAI remission criteria had similar positive likelihood ratios (LRs) to predict radiographic nonprogression and a HAQ score of ≤0.5 (positive LR 3.8–4.3). The omission of PtGA (BooleanX) worsened the prediction of good functional outcomes.ConclusionUsing the Boolean 2.0 criteria classifies, more patients as achieving remission and increases the agreement with index-based remission criteria without jeopardising predictive value for radiographic or functional outcomes. This revised Boolean definition and the previously provisionally endorsed index-based criteria were endorsed by ACR and EULAR.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
