Objective
To develop an evidence‐based guideline for the comprehensive management of osteoarthritis (OA) as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the Arthritis ...Foundation, updating the 2012 ACR recommendations for the management of hand, hip, and knee OA.
Methods
We identified clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes questions and critical outcomes in OA. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available educational, behavioral, psychosocial, physical, mind‐body, and pharmacologic therapies for OA. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A Voting Panel, including rheumatologists, an internist, physical and occupational therapists, and patients, achieved consensus on the recommendations.
Results
Based on the available evidence, either strong or conditional recommendations were made for or against the approaches evaluated. Strong recommendations were made for exercise, weight loss in patients with knee and/or hip OA who are overweight or obese, self‐efficacy and self‐management programs, tai chi, cane use, hand orthoses for first carpometacarpal (CMC) joint OA, tibiofemoral bracing for tibiofemoral knee OA, topical nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for knee OA, oral NSAIDs, and intraarticular glucocorticoid injections for knee OA. Conditional recommendations were made for balance exercises, yoga, cognitive behavioral therapy, kinesiotaping for first CMC OA, orthoses for hand joints other than the first CMC joint, patellofemoral bracing for patellofemoral knee OA, acupuncture, thermal modalities, radiofrequency ablation for knee OA, topical NSAIDs, intraarticular steroid injections and chondroitin sulfate for hand OA, topical capsaicin for knee OA, acetaminophen, duloxetine, and tramadol.
Conclusion
This guideline provides direction for clinicians and patients making treatment decisions for the management of OA. Clinicians and patients should engage in shared decision‐making that accounts for patients’ values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.
This guideline is structured to provide a clinical framework stratified by cancer severity to facilitate care decisions and guide the specifics of implementing the selected management options. The ...summary presented represents Part I of the two-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing risk stratification and care options by cancer severity.
The systematic review utilized in the creation of this guideline was completed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and through additional supplementation by ECRI Institute. This review included articles published between January 2007 and March 2014 with an update search conducted through August 2016. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. Additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 2 in supplementary unabridged guideline, http://jurology.com/).
The AUA (American Urological Association), ASTRO, and SUO (Society of Urologic Oncology) formulated an evidence-based guideline based on a risk stratified clinical framework for the management of localized prostate cancer.
This guideline attempts to improve a clinician’s ability to treat patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients. In all cases, patient preferences should be considered when choosing a management strategy.
Objective
To develop an evidence‐based guideline for the comprehensive management of osteoarthritis (OA) as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the Arthritis ...Foundation, updating the 2012 ACR recommendations for the management of hand, hip, and knee OA.
Methods
We identified clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes questions and critical outcomes in OA. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available educational, behavioral, psychosocial, physical, mind‐body, and pharmacologic therapies for OA. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A Voting Panel, including rheumatologists, an internist, physical and occupational therapists, and patients, achieved consensus on the recommendations.
Results
Based on the available evidence, either strong or conditional recommendations were made for or against the approaches evaluated. Strong recommendations were made for exercise, weight loss in patients with knee and/or hip OA who are overweight or obese, self‐efficacy and self‐management programs, tai chi, cane use, hand orthoses for first carpometacarpal (CMC) joint OA, tibiofemoral bracing for tibiofemoral knee OA, topical nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for knee OA, oral NSAIDs, and intraarticular glucocorticoid injections for knee OA. Conditional recommendations were made for balance exercises, yoga, cognitive behavioral therapy, kinesiotaping for first CMC OA, orthoses for hand joints other than the first CMC joint, patellofemoral bracing for patellofemoral knee OA, acupuncture, thermal modalities, radiofrequency ablation for knee OA, topical NSAIDs, intraarticular steroid injections and chondroitin sulfate for hand OA, topical capsaicin for knee OA, acetaminophen, duloxetine, and tramadol.
Conclusion
This guideline provides direction for clinicians and patients making treatment decisions for the management of OA. Clinicians and patients should engage in shared decision‐making that accounts for patients’ values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.
This guideline is structured to provide a clinical framework stratified by cancer severity to facilitate care decisions and guide the specifics of implementing the selected management options. The ...summary presented herein represents Part II of the two-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing risk stratification and care options by cancer severity. Please refer to Part I for discussion of specific care options and outcome expectations and management.
The systematic review utilized in the creation of this guideline was completed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and through additional supplementation by ECRI Institute. This review included articles published between January 2007 and March 2014 with an update search conducted through August 2016. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. Additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 2 in supplementary unabridged guideline, http://jurology.com/).
The AUA (American Urological Association), ASTRO, and SUO (Society of Urologic Oncology) formulated an evidence-based guideline based on a risk stratified clinical framework for the management of localized prostate cancer.
This guideline attempts to improve a clinician’s ability to treat patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients. In all cases, patient preferences should be considered when choosing a management strategy.
In the era of digital health information technology, there has been a proliferation of devices that collect patient-generated health data (PGHD), including consumer blood pressure (BP) monitors. ...Despite their widespread use, it remains unclear whether such devices can improve health outcomes.
We performed a systematic review of the literature on consumer BP monitors that collect PGHD for managing hypertension to summarize their clinical impact on health and surrogate outcomes. We focused particularly on studies designed to measure the specific effect of using a BP monitor independent of cointerventions. We have also summarized the process and consumer experience outcomes.
An information specialist searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase for controlled studies on consumer BP monitors published up to May 12, 2020. We assessed the risk of bias using an adapted 9-item appraisal tool and performed a narrative synthesis of the results.
We identified 41 different types of BP monitors used in 49 studies included for review. Device engineers judged that 38 (92%) of those devices were similar to the currently available consumer BP monitors. The median sample size was 222 (IQR 101-416) participants, and the median length of follow-up was 6 (IQR 3-12) months. Of the included studies, 18 (36%) were designed to isolate the clinical effects of BP monitors; 6 of the 18 (33%) studies evaluated health outcomes (eg, mortality, hospitalizations, and quality of life), and data on those outcomes were unclear. The lack of clarity was due to low event rates, short follow-up duration, and risk of bias. All 18 studies that isolated the effect of BP monitors measured both systolic and diastolic BP and generally demonstrated a decrease of 2 to 4 mm Hg in systolic BP and 1 to 3 mm Hg in diastolic BP compared with non-BP monitor groups. Adherence to using consumer BP monitors ranged from 38% to 89%, and ease of use and satisfaction ratings were generally high. Adverse events were infrequent, but there were a few technical problems with devices (eg, incorrect device alerts).
Overall, BP monitors offer small benefits in terms of BP reduction; however, the health impact of these devices continues to remain unclear. Future studies are needed to examine the effectiveness of BP monitors that transmit data to health care providers. Additional data from implementation studies may help determine which components are critical for sustained BP improvement, which in turn may improve prescription decisions by clinicians and coverage decisions by policy makers.
To report results of implantation of the Ex-PRESS Miniature Glaucoma Implant (Optonol, Neve Ilan, Israel) shunt directly under the conjunctiva in advanced glaucoma.
Noncomparative case series.
Chart ...review of eleven cases of Ex-PRESS implantation. Outcome measures included intraocular pressure (IOP), complications, visual acuity, and additional interventions. Failure was defined as unacceptably high IOP requiring revision or explantation.
Four patients (36%) failed. Ten (91%) experienced hypotony during postoperative week one. In the seven nonfailures, mean pre and postoperative IOPs were 30.3 ± 9.3 mm Hg and 13.6 ± 4.4 mm Hg, respectively (P = .006). The logMAR visual acuity did not change significantly from baseline to follow up (logMAR 1.1 ± 0.9 and 1.4 ± 0.9, respectively, P = .13). There were no intraoperative complications. Postoperative complications in the 11 eyes included choroidal detachment in 3 (27%) and suprachoroidal hemorrhage in 2 (18%). Of the 7 successful cases, additional interventions were required in 4 (57%).
Despite significant IOP reduction, the incidence of complications following Ex-PRESS implantation directly under the conjunctiva was unacceptably high in this group of patients.
Abstract Objective: To assess perceived barriers to glaucoma follow-up care, including the lack of glaucoma knowledge and the lack of health care access, among participants in a community glaucoma ...screening program. Design: Community survey. Participants: Two hundred forty-three consecutive participants in a series of free glaucoma screenings between November 2002 and August 2003. Methods: The survey consisted of 20 questions designed to elicit knowledge of glaucoma and perception of potential barriers to follow-up care. Our aim was to find correlations between patient demographics and knowledge of glaucoma as well as perceived potential barriers to follow-up care. The data were analyzed using SPSS, v. 10.1. Results: The average age of the respondents was 70 years, and females predominated (66%). About half of the respondents knew of an eye doctor in their neighborhood, and 60% had had an eye examination in the past year. Two hundred twenty-two (91%) indicated they could get to an eye doctor if the screening examination indicated they needed a follow-up examination. Two hundred twenty (90.5%) had medical insurance. One hundred seventy-eight (73%) of the participants had heard of glaucoma; 71 (29%) identified an accurate definition of glaucoma. The level of education and the language spoken at home were correlated with both glaucoma awareness ( p < 0.001; p < 0.001) and knowledge of an accurate definition of glaucoma ( p < 0.001; p < 0.025). Conclusions: In this population, a lack of adequate education about glaucoma may be more significantly associated with poor follow-up rates than a lack of access to care in those identified as glaucoma suspects.
Recent clinical trials suggest that treating patients with hypertension to lower blood pressure (BP) targets improves cardiovascular outcomes.
To summarize the effects of intensive (or targeted) ...systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) lowering with pharmacologic treatment on cardiovascular outcomes and harms in adults with hypertension.
Multiple databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, were searched for relevant systematic reviews (SRs) published in English from 15 December 2013 through 25 March 2019, with updated targeted searches through 8 January 2020.
8 SRs of randomized controlled trials examining either a standardized SBP target of -10 mm Hg (1 SR) or BP lowering below a target threshold (7 SRs).
One investigator abstracted data, assessed study quality, and performed GRADE assessments; a second investigator checked abstractions and assessments.
The main outcome of interest was reduction in composite cardiovascular outcomes. High-strength evidence showed benefit of a 10-mm Hg reduction in SBP for cardiovascular outcomes among patients with hypertension in the general population, patients with chronic kidney disease, and patients with heart failure. Evidence on reducing SBP for cardiovascular outcomes in patients with a history of cardiovascular disease (moderate strength) or diabetes mellitus (high strength) to a lower SBP target was mixed. Low-strength evidence supported intensive lowering to a 10-mm Hg reduction in SBP for cardiovascular outcomes in patients with a history of stroke. All reported harms were considered, including general adverse events, serious adverse events, cognitive impairment, fractures, falls, syncope, hypotension, withdrawals due to adverse events, and acute kidney injury. Safety results were mixed or inconclusive.
This was a qualitative synthesis of new evidence with existing meta-analyses. Data were sparse for outcomes related to treating DBP to a lower target or for patients older than 60 years.
Overall, current clinical literature supports intensive BP lowering in patients with hypertension for improving cardiovascular outcomes. In most subpopulations, intensive lowering was favored over less-intensive lowering, but the data were less clear for patients with diabetes mellitus or cardiovascular disease.
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration.
Objective
To provide evidence‐based recommendations on the use of vaccinations in children and adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).
Methods
This guideline follows American ...College of Rheumatology (ACR) policy guiding management of conflicts of interest and disclosures and the ACR guideline development process, which includes the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. It also adheres to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria. A core leadership team consisting of adult and pediatric rheumatologists and a guideline methodologist drafted clinical population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. A review team performed a systematic literature review for the PICO questions, graded the quality of evidence, and produced an evidence report. An expert Voting Panel reviewed the evidence and formulated recommendations. The panel included adult and pediatric rheumatology providers, infectious diseases specialists, and patient representatives. Consensus required ≥70% agreement on both the direction and strength of each recommendation.
Results
This guideline includes expanded indications for some vaccines in patients with RMDs, as well as guidance on whether to hold immunosuppressive medications or delay vaccination to maximize vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy. Safe approaches to the use of live attenuated vaccines in patients taking immunosuppressive medications are also addressed. Most recommendations are conditional and had low quality of supporting evidence.
Conclusion
Application of these recommendations should consider patients’ individual risk for vaccine‐preventable illness and for disease flares, particularly if immunosuppressive medications are held for vaccination. Shared decision‐making with patients is encouraged in clinical settings.
Objective
To provide evidence‐based recommendations on the use of vaccinations in children and adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).
Methods
This guideline follows American ...College of Rheumatology (ACR) policy guiding management of conflicts of interest and disclosures and the ACR guideline development process, which includes the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. It also adheres to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria. A core leadership team consisting of adult and pediatric rheumatologists and a guideline methodologist drafted clinical population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. A review team performed a systematic literature review for the PICO questions, graded the quality of evidence, and produced an evidence report. An expert Voting Panel reviewed the evidence and formulated recommendations. The panel included adult and pediatric rheumatology providers, infectious diseases specialists, and patient representatives. Consensus required ≥70% agreement on both the direction and strength of each recommendation.
Results
This guideline includes expanded indications for some vaccines in patients with RMDs, as well as guidance on whether to hold immunosuppressive medications or delay vaccination to maximize vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy. Safe approaches to the use of live attenuated vaccines in patients taking immunosuppressive medications are also addressed. Most recommendations are conditional and had low quality of supporting evidence.
Conclusion
Application of these recommendations should consider patients’ individual risk for vaccine‐preventable illness and for disease flares, particularly if immunosuppressive medications are held for vaccination. Shared decision‐making with patients is encouraged in clinical settings.
PDF
