Gaps between research and recommendations in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To identify recommendations on the diagnosis and management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) supported by low recommendation grades, to study the causes of this low grading, and to propose solutions. METHODS: A group of six rheumatologists, with extensive experience in the development of systematic reviews, reviewed national and international RA recommendations and practice guidelines. They identified all recommendations with a low level of evidence or recommendation grade (levels equivalent to 4, 5, or grades C or D of the Oxford Levels of Evidence), classified them by areas (diagnosis, follow-up, treatment, others), and analyzed plausible causes of low graduation. A Delphi was used to select 10 recommendations where it was most important to obtain quality evidence to support them. Subsequently, actions were proposed to improve evidence and recommendation grading. RESULTS: Fourteen documents were analyzed, in which 192 recommendations with low evidence/grade of recommendation were identified, most of which were on treatment. The two most frequent causes of this low level are the absence of studies and the discrepancy between the wording of the recommendation and the evidence used. Finally, the proposed solution to the critical recommendations is a list of unanswered research questions and possible designs to answer them. CONCLUSIONS: We propose to design and promote research that truly supports or rectifies clinical practice and, thus, bridges the gap between existing evidence and critical recommendations.

Efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids in rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic literature review. / Eficacia y seguridad de los glucocorticoides en la artritis reumatoide: revisión sistemática de la literatura.

OBJECTIVES: 1) To systematically and critically review the evidence on the characteristics, efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids (CS) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA); 2) to generate practical recommendations. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed through a sensitive bibliographic search strategy in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library. We selected randomized clinical trials that analyzed the efficacy and/or safety of CS in patients with RA. Two reviewers performed the first selection by title and abstract. Then 10 reviewers selected the studies after a detailed review of the articles and data collection. The quality of the studies was evaluated with the Jadad scale. In a nominal group meeting, based on the results of the systematic literature review, related recommendations were reached by consensus. RESULTS: A total of 47 articles were finally included. CS in combination with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs help control disease activity and inhibit radiographic progression, especially in the short-to-medium term and in early RA. CS can also improve function and relieve pain. Different types and routes of administration are effective, but there is no standardized scheme (initial dose, tapering and duration of treatment) that is superior to others. Adverse events when using CS are very frequent and are dose-dependent and variable severity, although most are mild. Seven recommendations were generated on the use and risk management of CS. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations aim to resolve some common clinical questions and aid in decision-making for CS use in RA.

Very Low Disease Activity, DAPSA Remission, and Impact of Disease in a Spanish Population with Psoriatic Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the grade of agreement between very low disease activity (VLDA) and Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) remission, as well as their association with the effect of the disease as assessed by the Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID) questionnaire in patients with psoriatic arthritis in routine clinical practice. METHODS: Posthoc analysis of data from a cross-sectional multicenter study. Patients were included who fulfilled the Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR) criteria with at least 1 year of disease duration and were treated with biological and/or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs according to routine clinical practice in Spain. Patients were considered in VLDA if they met 7/7 of the minimal disease activity criteria. DAPSA and clinical (c)DAPSA score ≤ 4 identified remissions. RESULTS: Of the 227 patients included in the original study, 26 (11.5%), 52 (22.9%), and 65 (28.6%) were in VLDA, DAPSA remission, and cDAPSA remission, respectively. There was a moderate agreement between VLDA and DAPSA remission (κ = 0.52) or cDAPSA remission (κ = 0.42). Patients with VLDA had less effect of the disease as measured by PsAID [mean total score (SD): VLDA 1.1 (1.2); DAPSA remission 1.3 (1.5); cDAPSA remission 1.7 (1.6)]. There was a moderate agreement between DAPSA remission or cDAPSA remission and PsAID < 4 (κ = 0.46 and κ = 0.58 respectively), while poor agreement (κ = 0.18) was found between VLDA and PsAID < 4. CONCLUSION: VLDA criteria seem to be more stringent for assessing a status of remission; however, DAPSA remission shows better correlation with a patient-acceptable symptoms state than VLDA does.

Recommendations for the Management of Comorbidity in Patients With Axial Spondyloarthritis in Clinical Practice. / Recomendaciones para el manejo de la comorbilidad en la práctica clínica en pacientes con espondiloartritis axial.

OBJECTIVES: To identify priorities among comorbidities in axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA) and recommend how to follow them from an eminently practical perspective. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group was selected (10 rheumatologists-six of them experts in AxSpA-, 2 general practitioners, an internist, a cardiologist, a gastroenterologist and a psychologist). In a first discussion meeting, the scope and users were established and a list of comorbidities was voted based on frequency and impact. The panelists had to defend the inclusion of each comorbidity/item in the document with consistent arguments. Four panelists and two methodologists developed systematic reviews on controversial topics. In a second meeting, the results of the reviews and the arguments concerning the items to be included were presented. After the meeting, the final document was drafted. RESULTS: The final document includes two checklists, one for health professionals and another for patients; they incorporate cardiovascular risk, renal comorbidities, gastrointestinal risk, lifestyle, risk of infections and vaccinations, pulmonary involvement, concomitant medication, psycho-affective disorders, osteoporosis, and risk of fracture. In addition, the document reflects the arguments favoring the inclusion of each item and how to record the items for subsequent collection. The panel considered it also appropriate to likewise establish «practices to avoid¼ applicable to comorbidity in AxSpA. CONCLUSIONS: Two checklists and a list of situations to avoid were generated to facilitate the management of comorbidities in AxSpA. In a future step, their utility and acceptance will be tested by a broad group of users that includes doctors, patients and nurses.

Recommendations for infectious disease screening in migrants to Western Europe with inflammatory arthropathies before starting biologic agents. Results from a multidisciplinary task force of four European societies (SIR, SER, SIMET, SEMTSI) facing the largest impact of the flow of migrants today.

OBJECTIVES: Inflammatory arthritis needs infectious disease screening before starting a biologic agent, however, few data are known about migrant patients, who represent a peculiar population which requires a multidisciplinary approach among international health specialists and should also be considered by health authorities. For this reason, the Italian and Spanish Societies of Rheumatology (SIR and SER) and Tropical Medicine (SIMET and SEMTSI) promoted a multidisciplinary task force in order to produce specific recommendations about screening and advices to be considered in migrant patients with inflammatory arthritis candidate to receive biological therapy, according to their geographical origin. METHODS: The experts provided a prioritised list of research questions and the eligible spectrum of inflammatory arthritis, biologic drugs and infectious disease were defined in order to perform a systematic literature review. A search was made in Medline, Embase and Cochrane library, updated to March 2015. Ubiquitous infections and HBV, HCV, HIV and tuberculosis that are already considered in national and international recommendations, were not included. The strength of each recommendation was determined. RESULTS: The task force members agreed on 7 overarching principles. The risk of reactivation of selected potentially latent infectious disease was addressed in migrants with inflammatory arthritis candidates for biologics was considered and 15 potentially relevant infections were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Fifteen disease-specific recommendations were formulated on the basis of high level of agreement among the experts panel.

Standards of care for patients with spondyloarthritis.

To define and give priory to standards of care in patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA). A systematic literature review on SpA standards of care and a specific search in relevant and related sources was performed. An expert panel was established who developed the standards of care and graded their priority (high, mild, low, or no priority) following qualitative methodology and Delphi process. An electronic survey was sent to a representative sample of 167 rheumatologists all around the country, who also gave priority to the standards of care (same scale). A descriptive analysis is presented. The systematic literature review retrieved no article specifically related to SpA patients. A total of 38 standards of care were obtained-12 related to structure, 20 to process, and 6 to result. Access to care, treatment, and safety standards of care were given a high priority by most of rheumatologists. Standards not directly connected to daily practice were not given such priority, as standards which included a time framework. The standards generated for the performance evaluation (including patient and professionals satisfaction) were not considered especially important in general. This set of standards of care should help improve the quality of care in SpA patients.

How good is to switch between biologics? A systematic review of the literature.

UNLABELLED: Despite the biological rationale for switching between TNF-antagonists, there is not a definitive answer from a clinical point of view. METHODS: We performed a systematic review. The strategy for the literature search included synonyms for the active drugs, trade names, and different synonyms for biologic therapies, plus the words "switch" or "switching", limited to studies in humans. The time limit was March 1st 2007. From 256 initial hits in Medline and Embase, plus 13 abstracts from rheumatology meetings, we finally included 33 studies. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The most frequently died switches are those between etanercept and infliximab. The mean number of patients studied per type of switch was 126. There are, apart from retrospective observational studies and cases series, 5 prospective cohorts from biologic registries, 1 randomised open-label clinical trial and 1 phase IV clinical trial, all seven of which are of moderate to good quality. There results are promising but not excellent. Any switch, especially those between monoclonal antibodies, have an effect size that is usually lower than that of a first biologic. When the switch is due to an adverse event with the first TNF-antagonist, however, the response rate of the second one is high. Perhaps the best alternative when a first TNF-antagonist fails is to start a different type of biologic, and leave the switch to another TNF-antagonist in the case of adverse event to the previous one.