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.
Objective
To update evidence‐based recommendations for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA).
Methods
We conducted updated ...systematic literature reviews for 20 clinical questions on pharmacologic treatment addressed in the 2015 guidelines, and for 26 new questions on pharmacologic treatment, treat‐to‐target strategy, and use of imaging. New questions addressed the use of secukinumab, ixekizumab, tofacitinib, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biosimilars, and biologic tapering/discontinuation, among others. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations and required at least 70% agreement among the voting panel.
Results
Recommendations for AS and nonradiographic axial SpA are similar. TNFi are recommended over secukinumab or ixekizumab as the first biologic to be used. Secukinumab or ixekizumab is recommended over the use of a second TNFi in patients with primary nonresponse to the first TNFi. TNFi, secukinumab, and ixekizumab are favored over tofacitinib. Co‐administration of low‐dose methotrexate with TNFi is not recommended, nor is a strict treat‐to‐target strategy or discontinuation or tapering of biologics in patients with stable disease. Sulfasalazine is recommended only for persistent peripheral arthritis when TNFi are contraindicated. For patients with unclear disease activity, spine or pelvis magnetic resonance imaging could aid assessment. Routine monitoring of radiographic changes with serial spine radiographs is not recommended.
Conclusion
These recommendations provide updated guidance regarding use of new medications and imaging of the axial skeleton in the management of AS and nonradiographic axial SpA.
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.
Objective
To develop recommendations for prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid‐induced osteoporosis (GIOP).
Methods
We conducted a systematic review to synthesize the evidence for the benefits ...and harms of GIOP prevention and treatment options. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to rate the quality of evidence. We used a group consensus process to determine the final recommendations and grade their strength. The guideline addresses initial assessment and reassessment in patients beginning or continuing long‐term (≥3 months) glucocorticoid (GC) treatment, as well as the relative benefits and harms of lifestyle modification and of calcium, vitamin D, bisphosphonate, raloxifene, teriparatide, and denosumab treatment in the general adult population receiving long‐term GC treatment, as well as in special populations of long‐term GC users.
Results
Because of limited evidence regarding the benefits and harms of interventions in GC users, most recommendations in this guideline are conditional (uncertain balance between benefits and harms). Recommendations include treating only with calcium and vitamin D in adults at low fracture risk, treating with calcium and vitamin D plus an additional osteoporosis medication (oral bisphosphonate preferred) in adults at moderate‐to‐high fracture risk, continuing calcium plus vitamin D but switching from an oral bisphosphonate to another antifracture medication in adults in whom oral bisphosphonate treatment is not appropriate, and continuing oral bisphosphonate treatment or switching to another antifracture medication in adults who complete a planned oral bisphosphonate regimen but continue to receive GC treatment. Recommendations for special populations, including children, people with organ transplants, women of childbearing potential, and people receiving very high‐dose GC treatment, are also made.
Conclusion
This guideline provides direction for clinicians and patients making treatment decisions. Clinicians and patients should use a shared decision‐making process that accounts for patients’ values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.
Objective
To update evidence‐based recommendations for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA).
Methods
We conducted updated ...systematic literature reviews for 20 clinical questions on pharmacologic treatment addressed in the 2015 guidelines, and for 26 new questions on pharmacologic treatment, treat‐to‐target strategy, and use of imaging. New questions addressed the use of secukinumab, ixekizumab, tofacitinib, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biosimilars, and biologic tapering/discontinuation, among others. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations and required at least 70% agreement among the voting panel.
Results
Recommendations for AS and nonradiographic axial SpA are similar. TNFi are recommended over secukinumab or ixekizumab as the first biologic to be used. Secukinumab or ixekizumab is recommended over the use of a second TNFi in patients with primary nonresponse to the first TNFi. TNFi, secukinumab, and ixekizumab are favored over tofacitinib. Co‐administration of low‐dose methotrexate with TNFi is not recommended, nor is a strict treat‐to‐target strategy or discontinuation or tapering of biologics in patients with stable disease. Sulfasalazine is recommended only for persistent peripheral arthritis when TNFi are contraindicated. For patients with unclear disease activity, spine or pelvis magnetic resonance imaging could aid assessment. Routine monitoring of radiographic changes with serial spine radiographs is not recommended.
Conclusion
These recommendations provide updated guidance regarding use of new medications and imaging of the axial skeleton in the management of AS and nonradiographic axial SpA.
Objective
To develop treatment recommendations for children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis manifesting as non‐systemic polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, or enthesitis.
Methods
The Patient/Population, ...Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) questions were developed and refined by members of the guideline development teams. A systematic review was conducted to compile evidence for the benefits and harms associated with treatments for these conditions. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of evidence. A group consensus process was conducted among the Voting Panel to generate the final recommendations and grade their strength. A Parent and Patient Panel used a similar consensus approach to provide patient/caregiver preferences for key questions.
Results
Thirty‐nine recommendations were developed (8 strong and 31 conditional). The quality of supporting evidence was very low or low for 90% of the recommendations. Recommendations are provided for the use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, and intraarticular and oral glucocorticoids. Recommendations for the use of physical and occupational therapy are also provided. Specific recommendations for polyarthritis address general medication use, initial and subsequent treatment, and adjunctive therapies. Good disease control, with therapeutic escalation to achieve low disease activity, was recommended. The sacroiliitis and enthesitis recommendations primarily address initial therapy and adjunctive therapies.
Conclusion
This guideline provides direction for clinicians, caregivers, and patients making treatment decisions. Clinicians, caregivers, and patients should use a shared decision‐making process that accounts for patients’ values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.
Objective
To develop recommendations for prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid‐induced osteoporosis (GIOP).
Methods
We conducted a systematic review to synthesize the evidence for the benefits ...and harms of GIOP prevention and treatment options. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to rate the quality of evidence. We used a group consensus process to determine the final recommendations and grade their strength. The guideline addresses initial assessment and reassessment in patients beginning or continuing long‐term (≥3 months) glucocorticoid (GC) treatment, as well as the relative benefits and harms of lifestyle modification and of calcium, vitamin D, bisphosphonate, raloxifene, teriparatide, and denosumab treatment in the general adult population receiving long‐term GC treatment, as well as in special populations of long‐term GC users.
Results
Because of limited evidence regarding the benefits and harms of interventions in GC users, most recommendations in this guideline are conditional (uncertain balance between benefits and harms). Recommendations include treating only with calcium and vitamin D in adults at low fracture risk, treating with calcium and vitamin D plus an additional osteoporosis medication (oral bisphosphonate preferred) in adults at moderate‐to‐high fracture risk, continuing calcium plus vitamin D but switching from an oral bisphosphonate to another antifracture medication in adults in whom oral bisphosphonate treatment is not appropriate, and continuing oral bisphosphonate treatment or switching to another antifracture medication in adults who complete a planned oral bisphosphonate regimen but continue to receive GC treatment. Recommendations for special populations, including children, people with organ transplants, women of childbearing potential, and people receiving very high‐dose GC treatment, are also made.
Conclusion
This guideline provides direction for clinicians and patients making treatment decisions. Clinicians and patients should use a shared decision‐making process that accounts for patients' values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.
This systematic review compares treatment options for patients with giant cell arteritis (GCA) and evaluates the test accuracy of studies used in diagnosing and monitoring GCA. These studies were ...used to inform evidence‐based recommendations for the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/Vasculitis Foundation (VF) vasculitis management guidelines. A systematic review and search of articles in English in Ovid Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted. Articles were screened for suitability, and studies presenting the highest level of evidence were given preference. Three hundred ninety‐nine full‐text articles addressing GCA questions were reviewed to inform 27 Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome questions. No benefit was found with intravenous glucocorticoids (GCs) compared with high‐dose oral GCs in patients with cranial ischemic symptoms (27.4% vs 12.3%; odds ratio OR 2.39 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75‐7.62, very low certainty of evidence). Weekly tocilizumab with a 26‐week GC taper was superior to a 52‐week GC taper in patients achieving remission (risk ratio 4.00 95% CI 1.97‐8.12, low certainty of evidence). Non‐GC immunosuppressive therapies with GCs compared with GCs alone showed no statistically significant in relapse at 1 year (OR 0.87 95% CI 0.73‐1.04, moderate certainty of evidence) or serious adverse events (OR 0.81 95% CI 0.54‐1.20; moderate certainty of evidence). Temporal artery biopsy has a sensitivity of 61% (95% CI 38%‐79%) and a specificity of 98% (95% CI 95%‐99%) in patients with a clinical diagnosis of suspected GCA. This comprehensive systematic review synthesizes and evaluates the benefits and harms of different treatment options and the accuracy of commonly used tests for the diagnosis and monitoring of GCA.
Objective
Takayasu’s arteritis (TAK) is a granulomatous large‐vessel vasculitis primarily affecting the aorta and its proximal branches. TAK can be a difficult disease to diagnose and manage given ...the rarity of the disease as well as current limitations in biomarkers, imperfect imaging modalities, and few randomized controlled trials.
Methods
In developing the American College of Rheumatology/Vasculitis Foundation guideline for the management of TAK, we performed an extensive systematic literature review to guide our recommendations. We included RCTs first. When RCTs were not available, we included observational studies that reported on patient‐important outcomes for the intervention and comparison. When studies with comparative data were not available, we included case series that present patient‐important outcomes for either the intervention or the comparison.
Results
Three hundred forty‐seven articles were included for full review to answer 27 population, intervention, comparison, and outcome questions related to TAK. Ten studies were evaluated that addressed the use of glucocorticoids (GCs), non‐GC nonbiologic therapies, as well as biologics in treating TAK. A total of 33 studies, including 8 comparative studies, were included to determine the test accuracy of commonly available diagnostic tests for TAK.
Conclusion
This comprehensive systematic review synthesizes and evaluates the benefits and harms of different treatment options and the accuracy of commonly used tests for the management of TAK.
Objective
The aim of this systemic review is to compare different treatments for patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) to inform evidence‐based ...recommendations for the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/Vasculitis Foundation (VF) Vasculitis Management Guidelines.
Methods
A systemic review was conducted by searching articles in English using OVID Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles were screened for suitability in addressing PICO questions, with studies presenting the highest level of evidence given preference.
Results
A total of 729 full‐text articles addressing GPA and MPA PICO questions were reviewed. For remission induction, rituximab was shown to be noninferior to cyclophosphamide (CYC) (odds ratio OR: 1.55, moderate certainty of evidence). The addition of plasma exchange to induction therapy in severe disease did not improve the composite end point of death or end stage renal disease (hazard ratio HR: 0.86 95% confidence interval CI: 0.65, 1.13, moderate certainty of evidence). In nonsevere disease, methotrexate was noninferior to CYC for induction of remission (remission at 6 months of 90% vs. 94%). For maintenance of remission, methotrexate and azathioprine showed no difference in the risk of relapse over a mean follow‐up of 29 months (HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.52, 1.65low certainty of evidence). As maintenance therapy, rituximab was superior to a tapering azathioprine strategy in major relapse‐free survival at 28 months (HR: 6.61, 95% CI: 1.56, 27.96, moderate certainty of evidence). In two randomized trials, longer‐term azathioprine maintenance therapy (>24 months) is associated with fewer relapses without an increase in adverse events.
Conclusion
This comprehensive systematic review synthesizes and evaluates the benefits and toxicities of different treatment options for GPA and MPA.
PDF
