Interventions to Improve Statin Tolerance and Adherence in Patients at Risk for Cardiovascular Disease : A Systematic Review for the 2020 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Department of Defense Guidelines for Management of Dyslipidemia.

BACKGROUND: Strategies to improve patients' tolerance of and adherence to statins may enhance the effectiveness of dyslipidemia treatment in those at risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). PURPOSE: To assess the benefits and harms of interventions to improve statin adherence in patients at risk for CVD. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library from December 2013 through May 2019 (English language only). STUDY SELECTION: Systematic reviews (SRs), randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and cohort studies that addressed interventions for improving statin tolerance and adherence. DATA EXTRACTION: One investigator abstracted data and assessed study quality, and a second investigator checked abstractions and assessments for accuracy. DATA SYNTHESIS: One SR, 1 RCT, and 4 cohort studies were included. The SR found that intensified patient care improved adherence and decreased levels of total serum cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) at 6 months or more of follow-up. Compared with statin treatment discontinuation, nondaily statin dosing lowered total cholesterol and LDL-C levels. One large cohort study suggested that more than 90% of patients who discontinued statin treatment could be rechallenged with the same or a different statin and be adherent 1 year after a statin-related adverse event led to discontinuation. Two small cohort studies reported that more than 90% of patients who were previously intolerant to statins and who had low baseline levels of vitamin D were able to adhere to statins 1 year after vitamin D supplementation. LIMITATION: This is a qualitative synthesis of new evidence with existing meta-analyses, and studies had several methodological shortcomings. CONCLUSION: Although the strength of evidence for most interventions was low or very low, intensified patient care and rechallenge with the same or a different statin (or a lower dose) seem to be favorable options for improving statin adherence. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Male Urethral Stricture: American Urological Association Guideline.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this Guideline is to provide a clinical framework for the diagnosis and treatment of male urethral stricture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature using the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases (search dates 1/1/1990 to 12/1/2015) was conducted to identify peer-reviewed publications relevant to the diagnosis and treatment of urethral stricture. The review yielded an evidence base of 250 articles after application of inclusion/exclusion criteria. These publications were used to create the Guideline statements. Evidence-based statements of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendation were developed based on benefits and risks/burdens to patients. Additional guidance is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinion when insufficient evidence existed. RESULTS: The Panel identified the most common scenarios seen in clinical practice related to the treatment of urethral strictures. Guideline statements were developed to aid the clinician in optimal evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients presenting with urethral strictures. CONCLUSIONS: Successful treatment of male urethral stricture requires selection of the appropriate endoscopic or surgical procedure based on anatomic location, length of stricture, and prior interventions. Routine use of imaging to assess stricture characteristics will be required to apply evidence based recommendations, which must be applied with consideration of patient preferences and personal goals. As scientific knowledge relevant to urethral stricture evolves and improves, the strategies presented here will be amended to remain consistent with the highest standards of clinical care.

Urotrauma: AUA guideline.

PURPOSE: The authors of this guideline reviewed the urologic trauma literature to guide clinicians in the appropriate methods of evaluation and management of genitourinary injuries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature using the MEDLINE® and EMBASE databases (search dates 1/1/90-9/19/12) was conducted to identify peer-reviewed publications relevant to urotrauma. The review yielded an evidence base of 372 studies after application of inclusion/exclusion criteria. These publications were used to inform the statements presented in the guideline as Standards, Recommendations or Options. 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). In the absence of sufficient evidence, additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions. RESULTS: Guideline statements were created to inform clinicians on the initial observation, evaluation and subsequent management of renal, ureteral, bladder, urethral and genital traumatic injuries. CONCLUSIONS: Genitourinary organ salvage has become increasingly possible as a result of advances in imaging, minimally invasive techniques, and reconstructive surgery. As the field of genitourinary reconstruction continues to evolve, clinicians must strive to approach clinical problems in a creative, multidisciplinary, evidence-based manner to ensure optimal outcomes.

In-facility delirium prevention programs as a patient safety strategy: a systematic review.

Delirium, an acute decline in attention and cognition, occurs among hospitalized patients at rates estimated to range from 14% to 56% and increases the risk for morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of in-facility multicomponent delirium prevention programs. A search of 6 databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL) was conducted through September 2012. Randomized, controlled trials; controlled clinical trials; interrupted time series; and controlled before-after studies with a prospective postintervention portion were eligible for inclusion. The evidence from 19 studies that met the inclusion criteria suggests that most multicomponent interventions are effective in preventing onset of delirium in at-risk patients in a hospital setting. Evidence was insufficient to determine the benefit of such programs in other care settings. Future comparative effectiveness studies with standardized protocols are needed to identify which components in multicomponent interventions are most effective for delirium prevention.

2022 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases.

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.

2022 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases.

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.

Consumer Devices for Patient-Generated Health Data Using Blood Pressure Monitors for Managing Hypertension: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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. 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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.

2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Recommendations for Nonpharmacologic Therapies, Medication Monitoring, Immunizations, and Imaging.

OBJECTIVE: To provide recommendations for the management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) with a focus on nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations, and imaging, irrespective of JIA phenotype. METHODS: We developed clinically relevant Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low). A Voting Panel including clinicians and patients/caregivers achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS: Recommendations in this guideline include the use of physical therapy and occupational therapy interventions; a healthy, well-balanced, age-appropriate diet; specific laboratory monitoring for medications; widespread use of immunizations; and shared decision-making with patients/caregivers. Disease management for all patients with JIA is addressed with respect to nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations, and imaging. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low in quality. For that reason, more than half of the recommendations are conditional. CONCLUSION: This clinical practice guideline complements the 2019 American College of Rheumatology JIA and uveitis guidelines, which addressed polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, enthesitis, and uveitis, and a concurrent 2021 guideline on oligoarthritis, temporomandibular arthritis, and systemic JIA. It serves as a tool to support clinicians, patients, and caregivers in decision-making. The recommendations take into consideration the severity of both articular and nonarticular manifestations as well as patient quality of life. Although evidence is generally low quality and many recommendations are conditional, the inclusion of caregivers and patients in the decision-making process strengthens the relevance and applicability of the guideline. It is important to remember that these are recommendations. Clinical decisions, as always, should be made by the treating clinician and patient/caregiver.

2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Therapeutic Approaches for Oligoarthritis, Temporomandibular Joint Arthritis, and Systemic Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To provide updated guidelines for pharmacologic management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), focusing on treatment of oligoarthritis, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis, and systemic JIA with and without macrophage activation syndrome. Recommendations regarding tapering and discontinuing treatment in inactive systemic JIA are also provided. METHODS: We developed clinically relevant Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low). A Voting Panel including clinicians and patients/caregivers achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS: Similar to those published in 2019, these JIA recommendations are based on clinical phenotypes of JIA, rather than a specific classification schema. This guideline provides recommendations for initial and subsequent treatment of JIA with oligoarthritis, TMJ arthritis, and systemic JIA as well as for tapering and discontinuing treatment in subjects with inactive systemic JIA. Other aspects of disease management, including factors that influence treatment choice and medication tapering, are discussed. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low in quality. For that reason, more than half of the recommendations are conditional. CONCLUSION: This clinical practice guideline complements the 2019 American College of Rheumatology JIA and uveitis guidelines, which addressed polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, enthesitis, and uveitis. It serves as a tool to support clinicians, patients, and caregivers in decision-making. The recommendations take into consideration the severity of both articular and nonarticular manifestations as well as patient quality of life. Although evidence is generally low quality and many recommendations are conditional, the inclusion of caregivers and patients in the decision-making process strengthens the relevance and applicability of the guideline. It is important to remember that these are recommendations. Clinical decisions, as always, should be made by the treating clinician and patient/caregiver.

2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Recommendations for Nonpharmacologic Therapies, Medication Monitoring, Immunizations, and Imaging.

OBJECTIVE: To provide recommendations for the management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) with a focus on nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations, and imaging, irrespective of JIA phenotype. METHODS: We developed clinically relevant Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low). A Voting Panel including clinicians and patients/caregivers achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS: Recommendations in this guideline include the use of physical therapy and occupational therapy interventions; a healthy, well-balanced, age-appropriate diet; specific laboratory monitoring for medications; widespread use of immunizations; and shared decision-making with patients/caregivers. Disease management for all patients with JIA is addressed with respect to nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations, and imaging. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low in quality. For that reason, more than half of the recommendations are conditional. CONCLUSION: This clinical practice guideline complements the 2019 American College of Rheumatology JIA and uveitis guidelines, which addressed polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, enthesitis, and uveitis, and a concurrent 2021 guideline on oligoarthritis, temporomandibular arthritis, and systemic JIA. It serves as a tool to support clinicians, patients, and caregivers in decision-making. The recommendations take into consideration the severity of both articular and nonarticular manifestations as well as patient quality of life. Although evidence is generally low quality and many recommendations are conditional, the inclusion of caregivers and patients in the decision-making process strengthens the relevance and applicability of the guideline. It is important to remember that these are recommendations. Clinical decisions, as always, should be made by the treating clinician and patient/caregiver.

2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Therapeutic Approaches for Oligoarthritis, Temporomandibular Joint Arthritis, and Systemic Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To provide updated guidelines for pharmacologic management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), focusing on treatment of oligoarthritis, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis, and systemic JIA with and without macrophage activation syndrome. Recommendations regarding tapering and discontinuing treatment in inactive systemic JIA are also provided. METHODS: We developed clinically relevant Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low). A Voting Panel including clinicians and patients/caregivers achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS: Similar to those published in 2019, these JIA recommendations are based on clinical phenotypes of JIA, rather than a specific classification schema. This guideline provides recommendations for initial and subsequent treatment of JIA with oligoarthritis, TMJ arthritis, and systemic JIA as well as for tapering and discontinuing treatment in subjects with inactive systemic JIA. Other aspects of disease management, including factors that influence treatment choice and medication tapering, are discussed. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low in quality. For that reason, more than half of the recommendations are conditional. CONCLUSION: This clinical practice guideline complements the 2019 American College of Rheumatology JIA and uveitis guidelines, which addressed polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, enthesitis, and uveitis. It serves as a tool to support clinicians, patients, and caregivers in decision-making. The recommendations take into consideration the severity of both articular and nonarticular manifestations as well as patient quality of life. Although evidence is generally low quality and many recommendations are conditional, the inclusion of caregivers and patients in the decision-making process strengthens the relevance and applicability of the guideline. It is important to remember that these are recommendations. Clinical decisions, as always, should be made by the treating clinician and patient/caregiver.

Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for multiple sclerosis: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation in patients with progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) refractory to conventional medical treatment. METHODS: Eight case series met our a priori inclusion criteria for the primary outcome of progression-free survival. Individual study quality was rated using an 11-item scale for case series. The strength of the overall body of evidence for each outcome was rated using a system developed by the ECRI Institute. Data from different studies were statistically combined using meta-analysis. An additional six studies were included for a summary of mortality and morbidity. RESULTS: For secondary progressive MS, immunoablative therapy with autologous bone marrow/peripheral blood stem cell transplantation was associated with higher progression-free survival (up to 3 years following treatment) when using intermediate-intensity conditioning regimens compared with high-intensity conditioning regimens. The evidence was insufficient to determine whether the treatment was effective in patients with other types of MS. Treatment-related mortality was about 2.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with secondary progressive MS refractory to conventional medical treatment have longer progression-free survival following autologous stem cell transplantation with intermediate-intensity conditioning regimens than with high-intensity conditioning regimens.

Continuous positive airway pressure reduces risk of motor vehicle crash among drivers with obstructive sleep apnea: systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with an increased risk of motor vehicle crash. OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review of the literature concerning the impact of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment on motor vehicle crash risk among drivers with OSA. The primary objective was to determine whether CPAP use could reduce the risk of motor vehicle crash among drivers with OSA. A secondary objective involved determining the time on treatment required for CPAP to improve driver safety. DATA SOURCES: We searched seven electronic databases (MEDLINE, PubMed (PreMEDLINE), EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, TRIS, and the Cochrane library) and the reference lists of all obtained articles. STUDY SELECTION: We included studies (before-after, case-control, or cohort) that addressed the stated objectives. We evaluated the quality of each study and the interplay between the quality, quantity, robustness, and consistency of the evidence. We also tested for publication bias. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by two independent analysts. When appropriate, data were combined in a fixed or random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: A meta-analysis of 9 observational studies examining crash risk of drivers with OSA pre- vs. post-CPAP found a significant risk reduction following treatment (risk ratio = 0.278, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.35; P < 0.001). Although crash data are not available to assess the time course of change, daytime sleepiness improves significantly following a single night of treatment, and simulated driving performance improves significantly within 2 to 7 days of CPAP treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Observational studies indicate that CPAP reduces motor vehicle crash risk among drivers with OSA.

2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation Guideline for the Management of Osteoarthritis of the Hand, Hip, and Knee.

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.

2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation Guideline for the Management of Osteoarthritis of the Hand, Hip, and Knee.

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.

2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation Guideline for the Screening, Monitoring, and Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis-Associated Uveitis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop recommendations for the screening, monitoring, and treatment of uveitis in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). METHODS: Pediatric rheumatologists, ophthalmologists with expertise in uveitis, patient representatives, and methodologists generated key clinical questions to be addressed by this guideline. This was followed by a systematic literature review and rating of the available evidence according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology. A group consensus process was used to compose the final recommendations and grade their strength as conditional or strong. RESULTS: Due to a lack of literature with good quality of evidence, recommendations were formulated on the basis of available evidence and a consensus expert opinion. Regular ophthalmic screening of children with JIA is recommended because of the risk of uveitis, and the frequency of screening should be based on individual risk factors. Regular ophthalmic monitoring of children with uveitis is recommended, and intervals should be based on ocular examination findings and treatment regimen. Ophthalmic monitoring recommendations were strong primarily because of concerns of vision-threatening complications of uveitis with infrequent monitoring. Topical glucocorticoids should be used as initial treatment to achieve control of inflammation. Methotrexate and the monoclonal antibody tumor necrosis factor inhibitors adalimumab and infliximab are recommended when systemic treatment is needed for the management of uveitis. The timely addition of nonbiologic and biologic drugs is recommended to maintain uveitis control in children who are at continued risk of vision loss. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides direction for clinicians and patients/parents making decisions on the screening, monitoring, and management of children with JIA and uveitis, using GRADE methodology and informed by a consensus process with input from rheumatology and ophthalmology experts, current literature, and patient/parent preferences and values.

2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation Guideline for the Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Therapeutic Approaches for Non-Systemic Polyarthritis, Sacroiliitis, and Enthesitis.

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.

2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation Guideline for the Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Therapeutic Approaches for Non-Systemic Polyarthritis, Sacroiliitis, and Enthesitis.

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.

2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation Guideline for the Screening, Monitoring, and Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis-Associated Uveitis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop recommendations for the screening, monitoring, and treatment of uveitis in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). METHODS: Pediatric rheumatologists, ophthalmologists with expertise in uveitis, patient representatives, and methodologists generated key clinical questions to be addressed by this guideline. This was followed by a systematic literature review and rating of the available evidence according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology. A group consensus process was used to compose the final recommendations and grade their strength as conditional or strong. RESULTS: Due to a lack of literature with good quality of evidence, recommendations were formulated on the basis of available evidence and a consensus expert opinion. Regular ophthalmic screening of children with JIA is recommended because of the risk of uveitis, and the frequency of screening should be based on individual risk factors. Regular ophthalmic monitoring of children with uveitis is recommended, and intervals should be based on ocular examination findings and treatment regimen. Ophthalmic monitoring recommendations were strong primarily because of concerns of vision-threatening complications of uveitis with infrequent monitoring. Topical glucocorticoids should be used as initial treatment to achieve control of inflammation. Methotrexate and the monoclonal antibody tumor necrosis factor inhibitors adalimumab and infliximab are recommended when systemic treatment is needed for the management of uveitis. The timely addition of nonbiologic and biologic drugs is recommended to maintain uveitis control in children who are at continued risk of vision loss. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides direction for clinicians and patients/parents making decisions on the screening, monitoring, and management of children with JIA and uveitis, using GRADE methodology and informed by a consensus process with input from rheumatology and ophthalmology experts, current literature, and patient/parent preferences and values.