Which factors predict discordance between a patient and physician on a gout flare?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the factors associated with discordance between patient and physician on the presence of a gout flare. METHODS: Patients' self-reports of current gout flares were assessed with the question, 'Are you having a gout flare today?' which was then compared with a concurrent, blinded, physician's assessment. Based on agreement or disagreement with physicians on the presence of a gout flare, flares were divided into concordant and discordant groups, respectively. Within the discordant group, two subgroups-patient-reported flare but the physician disagreed and physician-reported flare but the patient disagreed-were identified. The factors associated with discordance were analysed with multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 268 gout flares, 81 (30.2%) flares were discordant, with either patient or physician disagreeing on the presence of a flare. Of the discordant flares, in 57 (70.4%) the patient reported a flare but the physician disagreed. In multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted for demographics, disagreement among patients and physicians on the presence of a gout flare was associated with lower pain scores at rest [odds ratio (OR) for each point increase on 0-10 point pain scale 0.81 (95% Wald CI 0.73, 0.90), P < 0.0001] and less presence of joint swelling [OR 0.24 (95% CI 0.10, 0.61), P = 0.003] or joint warmth [OR 0.39 (95% CI 0.20, 0.75), P = 0.005]. CONCLUSION: Although patients and physicians generally agree about the presence of gout flare, discordance may occur in the setting of low pain scores and in the absence of swollen or warm joints.

Belimumab for systemic lupus erythematosus.

BACKGROUND: Belimumab, the first biologic approved for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), has been shown to reduce autoantibody levels in people with SLE and help control disease activity. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of belimumab (alone or in combination) in systematic lupus erythematosus. SEARCH METHODS: An Information Specialist carried out the searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to 25 September 2019. There were no language or date restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of belimumab (alone or in combination) compared to placebo/control treatment (immunosuppressive drugs, such as azathioprine, cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil or another biologic), in adults with SLE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: Six RCTs (2917 participants) qualified for quantitative analyses. All included studies were multicenter, international or US-based. The age range of the included participants was 22 to 80 years; most were women; and study duration ranged from 84 days to 76 weeks. The risk of bias was generally low except for attrition bias, which was high in 67% of studies. Compared to placebo, more participants on belimumab 10 mg/kg (Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved dose) showed at least a 4-point improvement (reduction) in Safety of Estrogen in Lupus National Assessment (SELENA) - Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) score, a validated SLE disease activity index: (risk ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.45; 829/1589 in belimumab group and 424/1077 in placebo; I2= 0%; 4 RCTs; high-certainty evidence). Change in health-related quality of life (HRQOL), assessed by Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary score improvement (range 0 to 100), showed there was probably little or no difference between groups (mean difference 1.6 points, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.90; 401 in belimumab group and 400 in placebo; I2= 0%; 2 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). The belimumab 10 mg/kg group showed greater improvement in glucocorticoid dose, with a higher proportion of participants reducing their dose by at least 50% compared to placebo (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.15; 81/269 in belimumab group and 52/268 in placebo; I2= 0%; 2 RCTs; high-certainty evidence). The proportion of participants experiencing harm may not differ meaningfully between the belimumab 10 mg/kg and placebo groups: one or more serious adverse event (RR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.11; 238/1700 in belimumab group and 199/1190 in placebo; I2= 48%; 5 RCTs; low-certainty evidence; ); one or more serious infection (RR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.66 to 1.54; 44/1230 in belimumab group and 40/955 in placebo; I2= 0%; 4 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence); and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.63 to 1.07; 113/1700 in belimumab group and 94/1190 in placebo; I2= 0%; 5 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). Mortality was rare, and may not differ between belimumab 10 mg/kg and placebo (Peto odds ratio 1.15, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.25; 9/1714 in belimumab group and 6/1203 in placebo; I2= 4%; 6 RCTs; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The six studies that provided evidence for benefits and harms of belimumab were well-designed, high-quality RCTs. At the FDA-approved dose of 10 mg/kg, based on moderate to high-certainty data, belimumab was probably associated with a clinically meaningful efficacy benefit compared to placebo in participants with SLE at 52 weeks. Evidence related to harms is inconclusive and mostly of moderate to low-certainty evidence. More data are needed for the longer-term efficacy of belimumab.

Tai Chi for rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, systemic, inflammatory, autoimmune disease that results in joint deformity and immobility of the musculoskeletal system. The major goals of treatment are to relieve pain, reduce inflammation, slow down or stop joint damage, prevent disability, and preserve or improve the person's sense of well-being and ability to function. Tai Chi, interchangeably known as Tai Chi Chuan, is an ancient Chinese health-promoting martial art form that has been recognized in China as an effective arthritis therapy for centuries. This is an update of a review published in 2004. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of Tai Chi as a treatment for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). SEARCH METHODS: We updated the search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and clinical trial registries from 2002 to September 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials examining the benefits (ACR improvement criteria or pain, disease progression, function, and radiographic progression), and harms (adverse events and withdrawals) of exercise programs with Tai Chi instruction or incorporating principles of Tai Chi philosophy. We included studies of any duration that included control groups who received either no therapy or alternate therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: Adding three studies (156 additional participants) to the original review, this update contains a total of seven trials with 345 participants. Participants were mostly women with RA, ranging in age from 16 to 80 years, who were treated in outpatient settings in China, South Korea, and the USA. The majority of the trials were at high risk of bias for performance and detection bias, due to the lack of blinding of participants or assessors. Almost 75% of the studies did not report random sequence generation, and we judged the risk of bias as unclear for allocation concealment in the majority of studies. The duration of the Tai Chi programs ranged from 8 to 12 weeks.It is uncertain whether Tai Chi-based exercise programs provide a clinically important improvement in pain among Tai Chi participants compared to no therapy or alternate therapy. The change in mean pain in control groups, measured on visual analog scale (VAS 0 to 10 score, reduced score means less pain) ranged from a decrease of 0.51 to an increase of 1.6 at 12 weeks; in the Tai Chi groups, pain was reduced by a mean difference (MD) of -2.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.19 to -1.11); 22% absolute improvement (95% CI, 11% to 32% improvement); 2 studies, 81 participants; very low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision, blinding and attrition bias.There was very low-quality evidence, downgraded for, blinding, and attrition, that was inconclusive for an important difference in disease activity, measured using Disease Activity Scale (DAS-28-ESR) scores (0 to 10 scale, lower score means less disease activity), with no change in the control group and 0.40 reduction (95% CI -1.10 to 0.30) with Tai Chi; 4% absolute improvement (95% CI 11% improvement to 3% worsening); 1 study, 43 participants.For the assessment of function, the change in mean Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ; 0 to 3 scale, lower score means better function) ranged from 0 to 0.1 in the control group, and reduced by MD 0.33 in the Tai Chi group (95% CI -0.79 to 0.12); 11% absolute improvement (95% CI 26% improvement to 4% worsening); 2 studies, 63 participants; very low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision, blinding, and attrition. We are unsure of an important improvement, as the results were inconclusive.Participants in Tai Chi programs were less likely than those in a control group to withdraw from studies at 8 to 12 weeks (19/180 in intervention groups versus 49/165 in control groups; risk ratio (RR) 0.40 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.86); absolute difference 17% fewer (95% CI 30% fewer to 3% fewer); 7 studies, 289 participants; low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision and blinding.There were no data available for radiographic progression. Short-term adverse events were not reported by group, but in two studies there was some narrative description of joint and muscle soreness and cramps; long-term adverse events were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain whether Tai Chi has any effect on clinical outcomes (joint pain, activity limitation, function) in RA, and important effects cannot be confirmed or excluded, since all outcomes had very low-quality evidence. Withdrawals from study were greater in the control groups than the Tai Chi groups, based on low-quality evidence. Although the incidence of adverse events is likely to be low with Tai Chi, we are uncertain, as studies failed to explicitly report such events. Few minor adverse events (joint and muscle soreness and cramps) were described qualitatively in the narrative of two of the studies. This updated review provides minimal change in the conclusions from the previous review, i.e. a pain outcome.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis naive to methotrexate: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (biologics) are highly effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head biologic comparison studies. We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis (NMA) to update the 2009 Cochrane Overview. This review is focused on the adults with RA who are naive to methotrexate (MTX) that is, receiving their first disease-modifying agent. OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA who are naive to methotrexate. METHODS: In June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase; and trials registers. We used standard Cochrane methods. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for traditional meta-analyses and 95% credible intervals (CrI) using a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for network meta-analysis (NMA). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) for ease of interpretation. We also present results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB/H). MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen RCTs with 6485 participants met inclusion criteria (including five studies from the original 2009 review), and data were available for four TNF biologics (adalimumab (six studies; 1851 participants), etanercept (three studies; 678 participants), golimumab (one study; 637 participants) and infliximab (seven studies; 1363 participants)) and two non-TNF biologics (abatacept (one study; 509 participants) and rituximab (one study; 748 participants)).Less than 50% of the studies were judged to be at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 21% were at low risk for selective reporting, 53% had low risk of bias for attrition and 89% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. Three trials used biologic monotherapy, that is, without MTX. There were no trials with placebo-only comparators and no trials of tofacitinib. Trial duration ranged from 6 to 24 months. Half of the trials contained participants with early RA (less than two years' duration) and the other half included participants with established RA (2 to 10 years). Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX (17 trials (6344 participants)/MTX + methylprednisolone 2 trials (141 participants))In traditional meta-analyses, there was moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency that biologics with MTX were associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit versus comparator as demonstrated by ACR50 (American College of Rheumatology scale) and RA remission rates. For ACR50, biologics with MTX showed a risk ratio (RR) of 1.40 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.49), absolute difference of 16% (95% CI 13% to 20%) and NNTB = 7 (95% CI 6 to 8). For RA remission rates, biologics with MTX showed a RR of 1.62 (95% CI 1.33 to 1.98), absolute difference of 15% (95% CI 11% to 19%) and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 6 to 7). Biologics with MTX were also associated with a statistically significant, but not clinically meaningful, benefit in physical function (moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency), with an improvement of HAQ scores of -0.10 (95% CI -0.16 to -0.04 on a 0 to 3 scale), absolute difference -3.3% (95% CI -5.3% to -1.3%) and NNTB = 4 (95% CI 2 to 15).We did not observe evidence of differences between biologics with MTX compared to MTX for radiographic progression (low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision and inconsistency) or serious adverse events (moderate-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision). Based on low-quality evidence, results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events (RR of 1.32, but 95% confidence interval included possibility of important harm, 0.89 to 1.97). Results for cancer were also inconclusive (Peto OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.33) and downgraded to low-quality evidence for serious imprecision. Biologic without MTX versus active comparator (MTX 3 trials (866 participants)There was no evidence of statistically significant or clinically important differences for ACR50, HAQ, remission, (moderate-quality evidence for these benefits, downgraded for imprecision), withdrawals due to adverse events,and serious adverse events (low-quality evidence for these harms, downgraded for serious imprecision). All studies were for TNF biologic monotherapy and none for non-TNF biologic monotherapy. Radiographic progression was not measured. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In MTX-naive RA participants, there was moderate-quality evidence that, compared with MTX alone, biologics with MTX was associated with absolute and relative clinically meaningful benefits in three of the efficacy outcomes (ACR50, HAQ scores, and RA remission rates). A benefit regarding less radiographic progression with biologics with MTX was not evident (low-quality evidence). We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that biologic therapy with MTX was not associated with any higher risk of serious adverse events compared with MTX, but results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events and cancer to 24 months.TNF biologic monotherapy did not differ statistically significantly or clinically meaningfully from MTX for any of the outcomes (moderate-quality evidence), and no data were available for non-TNF biologic monotherapy.We conclude that biologic with MTX use in MTX-naive populations is beneficial and that there is little/inconclusive evidence of harms. More data are needed for tofacitinib, radiographic progression and harms in this patient population to fully assess comparative efficacy and safety.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis unsuccessfully treated with biologics: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs: referred to as biologics) are effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head comparison studies. Our systematic review, standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) updates the 2009 Cochrane overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)' and adds new data. This review is focused on biologic or tofacitinib therapy in people with RA who had previously been treated unsuccessfully with biologics. OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (placebo or methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA, previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics. METHODS: On 22 June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase; and trials registries (WHO trials register, Clinicaltrials.gov). We carried out article selection, data extraction, and risk of bias and GRADE assessments in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We have also presented results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). Outcomes measured included four benefits (ACR50, function measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score, remission defined as DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6, slowing of radiographic progression) and three harms (withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and cancer). MAIN RESULTS: This update includes nine new RCTs for a total of 12 RCTs that included 3364 participants. The comparator was placebo only in three RCTs (548 participants), MTX or other traditional DMARD in six RCTs (2468 participants), and another biologic in three RCTs (348 participants). Data were available for four tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-biologics: (certolizumab pegol (1 study; 37 participants), etanercept (3 studies; 348 participants), golimumab (1 study; 461 participants), infliximab (1 study; 27 participants)), three non-TNF biologics (abatacept (3 studies; 632 participants), rituximab (2 studies; 1019 participants), and tocilizumab (2 studies; 589 participants)); there was only one study for tofacitinib (399 participants). The majority of the trials (10/12) lasted less than 12 months.We judged 33% of the studies at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 25% had low risk of bias for attrition, 92% were at unclear risk for selective reporting; and 92% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for most outcomes to moderate or low due to study limitations, heterogeneity, or rarity of direct comparator trials. Biologic monotherapy versus placeboCompared to placebo, biologics were associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in RA as demonstrated by higher ACR50 and RA remission rates. RR was 4.10 for ACR50 (95% CI 1.97 to 8.55; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 14% (95% CI 6% to 21%); and NNTB = 8 (95% CI 4 to 23). RR for RA remission was 13.51 (95% CI 1.85 to 98.45, one study available; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 5% to 13%); and NNTB = 11 (95% CI 3 to 136). Results for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events did not show any statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences. There were no studies available for analysis for function measured by HAQ, radiographic progression, or cancer outcomes. There were not enough data for any of the outcomes to look at subgroups. Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs)Compared to MTX/other traditional DMARDs, biologic + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50, function measured by HAQ, and RA remission rates in direct comparisons. RR for ACR50 was 4.07 (95% CI 2.76 to 5.99; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 16% (10% to 21%); NNTB = 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). HAQ scores showed an improvement with a mean difference (MD) of 0.29 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.36; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9.7% improvement (95% CI 7% to 12%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Remission rates showed an improved RR of 20.73 (95% CI 4.13 to 104.16; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 10% (95% CI 8% to 13%); and NNTB = 17 (95% CI 4 to 96), among the biologic + MTX group compared to MTX/other DMARDs. There were no studies for radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significantly different for withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer. Tofacitinib monotherapy versus placeboThere were no published data. Tofacitinib + MTX versus active comparator (MTX)In one study, compared to MTX, tofacitinib + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 (RR 3.24; 95% CI 1.78 to 5.89; absolute benefit RD 19% (95% CI 12% to 26%); NNTB = 6 (95% CI 3 to 14); moderate-quality evidence), and function measured by HAQ, MD 0.27 improvement (95% CI 0.14 to 0.39); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 4.7% to 13%), NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 10); high-quality evidence). RA remission rates were not statistically significantly different but the observed difference may be clinically meaningful (RR 15.44 (95% CI 0.93 to 256.1; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%); NNTB could not be calculated. There were no studies for radiographic progression. There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and results were inconclusive for cancer. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Biologic (with or without MTX) or tofacitinib (with MTX) use was associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefits (ACR50, HAQ, remission) compared to placebo or an active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs) among people with RA previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.No studies examined radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significant for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer.

Biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis in people with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) failure: a Cochrane Systematic Review and network meta-analysis (NMA).

BACKGROUND: We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA), which updates the 2009 Cochrane Overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)'. This review is focused on biologic monotherapy in people with RA in whom treatment with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) including methotrexate (MTX) had failed (MTX/other DMARD-experienced). OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of biologic monotherapy (includes anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) or non-TNF (abatacept, anakinra, rituximab, tocilizumab)) or tofacitinib monotherapy (oral small molecule) versus comparator (placebo or MTX/other DMARDs) in adults with RA who were MTX/other DMARD-experienced. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6, June), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and Embase (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Article selection, data extraction and risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We calculated absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). MAIN RESULTS: This update includes 40 new RCTs for a total of 46 RCTs, of which 41 studies with 14,049 participants provided data. The comparator was placebo in 16 RCTs (4,532 patients), MTX or other DMARD in 13 RCTs (5,602 patients), and another biologic in 12 RCTs (3,915 patients). Monotherapy versus placeboBased on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR50) and physical function, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) versus placebo. RR was 4.68 for ACR50 (95% CI, 2.93 to 7.48); absolute benefit RD 23% (95% CI, 18% to 29%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI, 3 to 8). The mean difference (MD) was -0.32 for HAQ (95% CI, -0.42 to -0.23; a negative sign represents greater HAQ improvement); absolute benefit of -10.7% (95% CI, -14% to -7.7%); and NNTB = 4 (95% CI, 3 to 5). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy showed similar results for ACR50 , downgraded to moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, anakinra or tofacitinib monotherapy showed a similar results for HAQ versus placebo with mostly moderate quality evidence.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant greater proportion of disease remission versus placebo with RR 1.12 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.22); absolute benefit 10% (95% CI, 3% to 17%; NNTB = 10 (95% CI, 8 to 21)).Based on low-quality direct evidence, results for biologic monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase. The direct estimate for TNF monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events showed a clinically meaningful and statistically significant result with RR 2.02 (95% CI, 1.08 to 3.78), absolute benefit RD 3% (95% CI,1% to 4%), based on moderate-quality evidence. The NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic, anakinra, or tofacitinib monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and for serious adverse events were all inconclusive and downgraded to low-quality evidence. Monotherapy versus active comparator (MTX/other DMARDs)Based on direct evidence of moderate quality, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 and HAQ scores versus MTX/other DMARDs with a RR of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.14 to 2.08); absolute benefit 13% (95% CI, 2% to 23%), NNTB = 7 (95% CI, 4 to 26) and a mean difference in HAQ of -0.27 (95% CI, -0.40 to -0.14); absolute benefit of -9% (95% CI, -13.3% to -4.7%), NNTB = 2 (95% CI, 2 to 4). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF monotherapy and NMA estimate for non-TNF biologic monotherapy for ACR50 showed similar results, based on moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for non-TNF biologic monotherapy, but not TNF monotherapy, showed similar HAQ improvements , based on mostly moderate-quality evidence.There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for direct estimates of biologic monotherapy versus active comparator for RA disease remission. NMA estimates showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful difference versus active comparator for TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 7% (95% CI, 2% to 14%)) and non-TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 19% (95% CrI, 7% to 36%)), both downgraded to moderate quality.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence from a single study, radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologic monotherapy versus active comparator, MD -4.34 (95% CI, -7.56 to -1.12), though the absolute reduction was small, -0.97% (95% CI, -1.69% to -0.25%). We are not sure of the clinical relevance of this reduction.Direct and NMA evidence (downgraded to low quality), showed inconclusive results for withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events and cancer, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based mostly on RCTs of six to 12-month duration in people with RA who had previously experienced and failed treatment with MTX/other DMARDs, biologic monotherapy improved ACR50, function and RA remission rates compared to placebo or MTX/other DMARDs.Radiographic progression was reduced versus active comparator, although the clinical significance was unclear.Results were inconclusive for whether biologic monotherapy was associated with an increased risk of withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events or cancer, versus placebo (no data on cancer) or MTX/other DMARDs.

Biologics or tofacitinib for rheumatoid arthritis in incomplete responders to methotrexate or other traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of the 2009 Cochrane overview and network meta-analysis (NMA) of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of nine biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib, versus comparator (MTX, DMARD, placebo (PL), or a combination) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to methotrexate (MTX) or other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), i.e., MTX/DMARD incomplete responders (MTX/DMARD-IR). METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (via The Cochrane Library Issue 6, June 2015), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and EMBASE (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Data extraction, risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated both direct estimates using standard meta-analysis and used Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for NMA estimates to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) which are reported in the abstract for the ease of interpretation. MAIN RESULTS: This update included 73 new RCTs for a total of 90 RCTs; 79 RCTs with 32,874 participants provided usable data. Few trials were at high risk of bias for blinding of assessors/participants (13% to 21%), selective reporting (4%) or major baseline imbalance (8%); a large number had unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation (68%) or allocation concealment (74%).Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in ACR50 versus comparator (RR 2.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.36 to 3.10); absolute benefit 24% more patients (95% CI 19% to 29%), number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 5 (4 to 6). NMA estimates for ACR50 in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 3.23 (95% credible interval (Crl) 2.75 to 3.79), non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 2.99; 95% Crl 2.36 to 3.74), and anakinra + MTX/DMARD (RR 2.37 (95% Crl 1.00 to 4.70) were similar to the direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a clinically and statistically important improvement in function measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (0 to 3 scale, higher = worse function) with a mean difference (MD) based on direct evidence of -0.25 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.22); absolute benefit of -8.3% (95% CI -9.3% to -7.3%), NNTB = 3 (95% CI 2 to 4). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -10.3% (95% Crl -14% to -6.7%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -7.3% (95% Crl -13.6% to -0.67%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically and statistically significantly greater proportion of participants achieving remission in RA (defined by disease activity score DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6) versus comparator (RR 2.81 (95% CI, 2.23 to 3.53); absolute benefit 18% more patients (95% CI 12% to 25%), NNTB = 6 (4 to 9)). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 17% (95% Crl 11% to 23%)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 19% (95% Crl 12% to 28%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologics + MTX/DMARDs versus comparator, MD -2.61 (95% CI -4.08 to -1.14). The absolute reduction was small, -0.58% (95% CI -0.91% to -0.25%) and we are unsure of the clinical relevance of this reduction. NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction -0.67% (95% Crl -1.4% to -0.12%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction, -0.68% (95% Crl -2.36% to 0.92%)) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for imprecision), results for withdrawals due to adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase in withdrawals, RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.30). The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.24 (95% Crl 0.99 to 1.57)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.20 (95% Crl 0.87 to 1.67)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low for both imprecision and indirectness.Based on direct evidence of high quality, biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically significantly increased risk (statistically borderline significant) of serious adverse events on biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR [can be interpreted as RR due to low event rate] 1.12 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.27); absolute risk 1% (0% to 2%), As well, the NMA estimate for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.20 (95% Crl 1.01 to 1.43)) showed moderate quality evidence of an increase in the risk of serious adverse events. The other two NMA estimates were downgraded to low quality due to imprecision and indirectness and had wide confidence intervals resulting in uncertainty around the estimates: non-TNF biologics + MTX/DMARD: 1.07 (95% Crl 0.89 to 1.29) and anakinra: RR 1.06 (95% Crl 0.65 to 1.75).Based on direct evidence of low quality (downgraded for serious imprecision), results were inconclusive for cancer (Peto OR 1.07 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.68) for all biologic+MTX/DMARD combinations. The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.21 (95% Crl 0.63 to 2.38) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 0.99 (95% Crl 0.58 to 1.78)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low quality for both imprecision and indirectness.Main results text shows the results for tofacitinib and differences between medications. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based primarily on RCTs of 6 months' to 12 months' duration, there is moderate quality evidence that the use of biologic+MTX/DMARD in people with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to MTX or other DMARDs results in clinically important improvement in function and higher ACR50 and remission rates, and increased risk of serious adverse events than the comparator (MTX/DMARD/PL; high quality evidence). Radiographic progression is slowed but its clinical relevance is uncertain. Results were inconclusive for whether biologics + MTX/DMARDs are associated with an increased risk of cancer or withdrawals due to adverse events.

Risk of fracture in women with glucocorticoid requiring diseases is independent from glucocorticoid use: An analysis on a nation-wide database.

OBJECTIVE: Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) is a common cause of secondary osteoporosis. However, glucocorticoid requiring diseases pose a risk themselves for fracture. The aim of the present study was to determine the risk of fracture associated with variety of glucocorticoid requiring diseases independently from glucocorticoid use and other risk factors for osteoporosis. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of a nation-wide cohort (DeFRACalc79 database). We used multivariable regression analysis adjusting for several risk factors for fracture and glucocorticoid intake to estimate the independent role of glucocorticoid requiring illnesses on fracture risk. RESULTS: We found that patients with rheumatoid arthritis, connective tissue diseases, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and neurological diseases were at greater risk of vertebral or hip fracture (crude ORs 1.31, 1.20, 1.92 and 2.97 respectively). After adjusting for potential confounders COPD and neurological diseases remained significantly associated with an increased risk of vertebral or hip fractures (aORs 1.33, 95 % CI 1.18-1.49 and 2.43, 95 % CI 2.17-2.74). Rheumatoid arthritis, COPD, IBD and neurological diseases also significantly increased the risk of non-vertebral, non-hip fractures (aORs 1.23, 1.42, 1.52 and 1.94 respectively). CONCLUSION: Some glucocorticoid requiring diseases were independently associated with an increased risk of fractures. COPD and neurological diseases with both vertebral and non-vertebral fracture risk while RA and IBD were independently associated only with non-vertebral, non-hip fractures.

Real-World Effectiveness of Pegloticase Associated With Use of Concomitant Immunomodulatory Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to ascertain pegloticase persistence and adverse events associated with concomitant immunomodulatory drug treatment in patients with gout. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with gout using the American College of Rheumatology's Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness registry from January 2016 through June 2020. The first pegloticase infusion defined the index date. Based on concomitant immunomodulatory drug treatment, we identified three exposure groups: (1) immunomodulatory drug initiators (patients initiating an immunomodulatory prescription ±60 days from the index date), (2) prevalent immunomodulatory drug recipients (patients receiving their first immunomodulatory drug prescription >60 days before the index date with at least one prescription within ±60 days of the index date), and (3) immunomodulatory nonrecipients (patients receiving pegloticase without concomitant immunomodulatory drugs). We calculated the proportion of patients who achieved serum urate levels ≤6 mg/dL and who had laboratory abnormalities (white blood cell count <3.4 x 109/L, platelet count <135,000, hematocrit level <30%, alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase level ≥1.5 times the upper limit normal value) within 180 days after the index date. Cox regression analyzed time to pegloticase discontinuation, controlling for potential confounders. RESULTS: We identified 700 pegloticase recipients (91 immunomodulatory drug initiators, 33 prevalent immunomodulatory drug recipients, and 576 nonrecipients), with a median follow-up of 14 months. Immunomodulatory drug recipients were less likely to discontinue pegloticase. The adjusted hazard ratios of pegloticase discontinuation associated with concomitant immunomodulatory drug initiation and prevalent treatment were 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-0.75) and 0.69 (95% CI 0.42-1.16), respectively. Laboratory abnormalities were uncommon (<5%) and were not higher in concomitant immunomodulatory drug treatment. CONCLUSION: Consistent with clinical trials, results from this large observational registry suggest that concomitant immunomodulatory drug treatment improves pegloticase persistence.

Urate-lowering therapy, serum urate, inflammatory biomarkers, and renal function in patients with gout following pegloticase discontinuation.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Little is known about long-term clinical outcomes or urate-lowering (ULT) therapy use following pegloticase discontinuation. We examined ULT use, serum urate (SU), inflammatory biomarkers, and renal function following pegloticase discontinuation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of gout patients who discontinued pegloticase using the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) registry from 1/2016 to 6/2022. We defined discontinuation as a gap ≥ 12 weeks after last infusion. We examined outcomes beginning two weeks after last dose and identified ULT therapy following pegloticase discontinuation. We evaluated changes in lab values (SU, eGFR, CRP and ESR), comparing on- treatment (≤ 15 days of the second pegloticase dose) to post-treatment. RESULTS: Of the 375 gout patients discontinuing pegloticase, median (IQR) laboratory changes following discontinuation were: SU: +2.4 mg/dL (0.0,6.3); eGFR: -1.9 mL/min (- 8.7,3.7); CRP: -0.8 mg/L (-12.8,0.0); and ESR: -4.0 mm/hr (-13.0,0.0). Therapy post-discontinuation included oral ULTs (86.0%), restarting pegloticase (4.5%), and no documentation of ULT (9.5%), excluding patients with multiple same-day prescriptions (n = 17). Oral ULTs following pegloticase were: 62.7% allopurinol, 34.1% febuxostat. The median (IQR) time to starting/restarting ULT was 92.0 days (55.0,173.0). Following ULT prescribing (≥ 30 days), only 51.0% of patients had SU < 6 mg/dL. Patients restarting pegloticase achieved a median SU of 0.9 mg/dL (IQR:0.2,9.7) and 58.3% had an SU < 6 mg/dL. CONCLUSION: Pegloticase treats uncontrolled gout in patients with failed response to xanthine oxidase inhibitors, but among patients who discontinue, optimal treatment is unclear. Based on this analysis, only half of those starting another ULT achieved target SU. Close follow-up is needed to optimize outcomes after pegloticase discontinuation.

COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake, Hesitancy, and Flare in a Large Rheumatology Practice Network.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to ascertain COVID-19 vaccine uptake, reasons for hesitancy, and self-reported flare in a large rheumatology practice-based network. METHODS: A tablet-based survey was deployed by 108 rheumatology practices from December 2021 to December 2022. Patients were asked about COVID-19 vaccine status and why they might not receive a vaccine or booster. We used descriptive statistics to explore the differences between vaccination status and vaccine and booster hesitancy, comparing patients with and without autoimmune and inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRDs). We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between vaccine uptake and AIIRD status and self-reported flare and AIIRD status. We reported adjusted odds ratios (aORs). RESULTS: Of the 61,158 patients, 89% reported at least one dose of vaccine; of the vaccinated, 68% reported at least one booster. Vaccinated patients were less likely to have AIIRDs (44% vs 56%). A greater proportion of patients with AIIRDs were vaccine hesitant (14% vs 10%) and booster hesitant (21% vs 16%) compared to patients without AIIRDs. Safety concerns (28%) and side effects (23%) were the main reasons for vaccine hesitancy, whereas a lack of recommendation from the physician was the primary factor for booster hesitancy (23%). Patients with AIIRD did not have increased odds of self-reported flare or worsening disease compared to patients without with AIIRD (aOR 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94-1.05). Among the patients who were vaccine hesitant and booster hesitant, 12% and 39% later reported receiving a respective dose. Patients with AIIRD were 32% less likely to receive a vaccine (aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.65-0.72) versus patients without AIIRD. CONCLUSION: Some patients who are vaccine and booster hesitant eventually receive a vaccine dose, and future interventions tailored to patients with AIIRD may be fruitful.

American College of Rheumatology Clinical Guidance for Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children Associated With SARS-CoV-2 and Hyperinflammation in Pediatric COVID-19: Version 3.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance on the management of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C), a condition characterized by fever, inflammation, and multiorgan dysfunction that manifests late in the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Recommendations are also provided for children with hyperinflammation during COVID-19, the acute, infectious phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: The Task Force is composed of 9 pediatric rheumatologists and 2 adult rheumatologists, 2 pediatric cardiologists, 2 pediatric infectious disease specialists, and 1 pediatric critical care physician. Preliminary statements addressing clinical questions related to MIS-C and hyperinflammation in COVID-19 were developed based on evidence reports. Consensus was built through a modified Delphi process that involved anonymous voting and webinar discussion. A 9-point scale was used to determine the appropriateness of each statement (median scores of 1-3 for inappropriate, 4-6 for uncertain, and 7-9 for appropriate). Consensus was rated as low, moderate, or high based on dispersion of the votes. Approved guidance statements were those that were classified as appropriate with moderate or high levels of consensus, which were prespecified before voting. RESULTS: The guidance was approved in June 2020 and updated in November 2020 and October 2021, and consists of 41 final guidance statements accompanied by flow diagrams depicting the diagnostic pathway for MIS-C and recommendations for initial immunomodulatory treatment of MIS-C. CONCLUSION: Our understanding of SARS-CoV-2-related syndromes in the pediatric population continues to evolve. This guidance document reflects currently available evidence coupled with expert opinion, and will be revised as further evidence becomes available.

Use of path modeling to inform a clinical decision support application to encourage osteoporosis medication use.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis medication use is suboptimal. Simple interventions personalized to a patients' stage of readiness are needed to encourage osteoporosis medication use. OBJECTIVES: To estimate interrelationships of sociodemographic factors, perceived fracture risk, health literacy, receipt of medication information, medication trust and readiness to use osteoporosis medication; and apply observed relationships to inform design specifications for a clinical decision support application that can be used for personalized patient counseling. METHODS: Data from a national sample of older women (n = 1759) with self-reported history of fractures and no current use of osteoporosis medication treatment were used to estimate an acceptable path model that describes associations among key sociodemographic characteristics, health literacy, perceived fracture risk, receipt of osteoporosis medication information within the past year, trust in osteoporosis medications, and readiness to use osteoporosis medication. Path model results were used to inform an application for personalized patient counseling that can be easily integrated into clinical decision support systems. RESULTS: Increased age (ß = 0.13), trust for medications (ß = 0.12), higher perceived fracture risk (ß = 0.21), and having received medication information within the past year (ß = 0.21) were all positively associated with readiness to use osteoporosis medication (p < 0.0001). Whereas, health literacy (ß = -0.09) was inversely associated with readiness to use osteoporosis medication (p < 0.0001). Using these results, a brief 6-item question set was constructed for simple integration into clinical decision support applications. Patient responses were used to inform a provider dashboard that integrates a patient's stage of readiness for osteoporosis medication use, predictors of readiness, and personalized counseling points appropriate to their stage of readiness. CONCLUSION: Content of counseling strategies must be aligned with a patient's stage of readiness to use treatment. Path modeling can be effectively used to identify factors for inclusion in an evidenced-based clinical decision support application designed to assist providers with personalized patient counseling and osteoporosis medication use decisions.

American College of Rheumatology Guidance for the Management of Pediatric Rheumatic Disease During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Version 2.

OBJECTIVE: To provide clinical guidance to rheumatology providers who treat children with pediatric rheumatic disease (PRD) in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: The task force, consisting of 7 pediatric rheumatologists, 2 pediatric infectious disease physicians, 1 adult rheumatologist, and 1 pediatric nurse practitioner, was convened on May 21, 2020. Clinical questions and subsequent guidance statements were drafted based on a review of the queries posed by the patients as well as the families and healthcare providers of children with PRD. An evidence report was generated and disseminated to task force members to assist with 3 rounds of asynchronous, anonymous voting by email using a modified Delphi approach. Voting was completed using a 9-point numeric scoring system with predefined levels of agreement (categorized as disagreement, uncertainty, or agreement, with median scores of 1-3, 4-6, and 7-9, respectively) and consensus (categorized as low, moderate, or high). To be approved as a guidance statement, median vote ratings were required to fall into the highest tertile for agreement, with either moderate or high levels of consensus. RESULTS: To date, 39 guidance statements have been approved by the task force. Those with similar recommendations were combined to form a total of 33 final guidance statements, all of which received median vote ratings within the highest tertile of agreement and were associated with either moderate consensus (n = 5) or high consensus (n = 28). CONCLUSION: These guidance statements have been generated based on review of the available literature, indicating that children with PRD do not appear to be at increased risk for susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection. This guidance is presented as a "living document," recognizing that the literature on COVID-19 is rapidly evolving, with future updates anticipated.

American College of Rheumatology Guidance for the Management of Rheumatic Disease in Adult Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Version 3.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the management of adult rheumatic disease in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: A task force, including 10 rheumatologists and 4 infectious disease specialists from North America, was convened. Clinical questions were collated, and an evidence report was rapidly generated and disseminated. Questions and drafted statements were reviewed and assessed using a modified Delphi process. This included asynchronous anonymous voting by email and webinars with the entire panel. Task force members voted on agreement with draft statements using a 1-9-point numerical scoring system, and consensus was determined to be low, moderate, or high based on the dispersion of votes. For approval, median votes were required to meet predefined levels of agreement (median values of 7-9, 4-6, and 1-3 defined as agreement, uncertainty, or disagreement, respectively) with either moderate or high levels of consensus. RESULTS: Draft guidance statements approved by the task force have been combined to form final guidance. CONCLUSION: These guidance statements are provided to promote optimal care during the current pandemic. However, given the low level of available evidence and the rapidly evolving literature, this guidance is presented as a "living document," and future updates are anticipated.

Development of a multi-component intervention to promote participation of Black and Latinx individuals in biomedical research.

INTRODUCTION: Barriers to research participation by racial and ethnic minority group members are multi-factorial, stem from historical social injustices and occur at participant, research team, and research process levels. The informed consent procedure is a key component of the research process and represents an opportunity to address these barriers. This manuscript describes the development of the Strengthening Translational Research in Diverse Enrollment (STRIDE) intervention, which aims to improve research participation by individuals from underrepresented groups. METHODS: We used a community-engaged approach to develop an integrated, culturally, and literacy-sensitive, multi-component intervention that addresses barriers to research participation during the informed consent process. This approach involved having Community Investigators participate in intervention development activities and using community engagement studios and other methods to get feedback from community members on intervention components. RESULTS: The STRIDE intervention has three components: a simulation-based training program directed toward clinical study research assistants that emphasizes cultural competency and communication skills for assisting in the informed consent process, an electronic consent (eConsent) framework designed to improve health-related research material comprehension and relevance, and a "storytelling" intervention in which prior research participants from diverse backgrounds share their experiences delivered via video vignettes during the consent process. CONCLUSIONS: The community engaged development approach resulted in a multi-component intervention that addresses known barriers to research participation and can be integrated into the consent process of research studies. Results of an ongoing study will determine its effectiveness at increasing diversity among research participants.

American College of Rheumatology Clinical Guidance for Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children Associated With SARS-CoV-2 and Hyperinflammation in Pediatric COVID-19: Version 2.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance on the management of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C), a condition characterized by fever, inflammation, and multiorgan dysfunction that manifests late in the course of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Recommendations are also provided for children with hyperinflammation during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the acute, infectious phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: The Task Force was composed of 9 pediatric rheumatologists and 2 adult rheumatologists, 2 pediatric cardiologists, 2 pediatric infectious disease specialists, and 1 pediatric critical care physician. Preliminary statements addressing clinical questions related to MIS-C and hyperinflammation in COVID-19 were developed based on evidence reports. Consensus was built through a modified Delphi process that involved anonymous voting and webinar discussion. A 9-point scale was used to determine the appropriateness of each statement (median scores of 1-3 for inappropriate, 4-6 for uncertain, and 7-9 for appropriate). Consensus was rated as low, moderate, or high based on dispersion of the votes. Approved guidance statements were those that were classified as appropriate with moderate or high levels of consensus, which were prespecified before voting. RESULTS: The first version of the guidance was approved in June 2020, and consisted of 40 final guidance statements accompanied by a flow diagram depicting the diagnostic pathway for MIS-C. The document was revised in November 2020, and a new flow diagram with recommendations for initial immunomodulatory treatment of MIS-C was added. CONCLUSION: Our understanding of SARS-CoV-2-related syndromes in the pediatric population continues to evolve. This guidance document reflects currently available evidence coupled with expert opinion, and will be revised as further evidence becomes available.

Flare Rate Thresholds for Patient Assessment of Disease Activity States in Gout.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between gout flare rate and self-categorization into remission, low disease activity (LDA), and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS). METHODS: Patients with gout self-categorized as remission, LDA, and PASS, and reported number of flares over the preceding 6 and 12 months. Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine the association between being in each disease state (LDA and PASS were combined) and flare count, and self-reported current flare. A distribution-based approach and extended Youden index identified possible flare count thresholds for each state. RESULTS: Investigators from 17 countries recruited 512 participants. Remission was associated with a median recalled flare count of zero over both 6 and 12 months. Each recalled flare reduced the likelihood of self-perceived remission compared with being in higher disease activity than LDA/PASS, by 52% for 6 months and 23% for 12 months, and the likelihood of self-perceived LDA/PASS by 15% and 5% for 6 and 12 months, respectively. A threshold of 0 flares in preceding 6 and 12 months was associated with correct classification of self-perceived remission in 58% and 56% of cases, respectively. CONCLUSION: Flares are significantly associated with perceptions of disease activity in gout, and no flares over the prior 6 or 12 months is necessary for most people to self-categorize as being in remission. However, recalled flare counts alone do not correctly classify all patients into self-categorized disease activity states, suggesting that other factors may also contribute to self-perceived gout disease activity.

American College of Rheumatology Guidance for the Management of Rheumatic Disease in Adult Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Version 2.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the management of adult rheumatic disease in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: A task force, including 10 rheumatologists and 4 infectious disease specialists from North America, was convened. Clinical questions were collated, and an evidence report was rapidly generated and disseminated. Questions and drafted statements were reviewed and assessed using a modified Delphi process. This included asynchronous anonymous voting by e-mail and webinars with the entire panel. Task force members voted on agreement with draft statements using a 1-9-point numerical scoring system, and consensus was determined to be low, moderate, or high based on the dispersion of votes. For approval, median votes were required to meet predefined levels of agreement (median values of 7-9, 4-6, and 1-3 defined as agreement, uncertainty, or disagreement, respectively) with either moderate or high levels of consensus. RESULTS: To date, the task force has approved 80 guidance statements: 36 with moderate and 44 with high consensus. These were combined, resulting in 27 final guidance statements. CONCLUSION: These guidance statements are provided to promote optimal care during the current pandemic. However, given the low level of available evidence and the rapidly evolving literature, this guidance is presented as a "living document," and future updates are anticipated.

American College of Rheumatology Guidance for the Management of Pediatric Rheumatic Disease During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Version 1.

OBJECTIVE: To provide clinical guidance to rheumatology providers who treat children with pediatric rheumatic disease (PRD) in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: The task force, consisting of 7 pediatric rheumatologists, 2 pediatric infectious disease physicians, 1 adult rheumatologist, and 1 pediatric nurse practitioner, was convened on May 21, 2020. Clinical questions and subsequent guidance statements were drafted based on a review of the queries posed by the patients as well as the families and healthcare providers of children with PRD. An evidence report was generated and disseminated to task force members to assist with 3 rounds of asynchronous, anonymous voting by email using a modified Delphi approach. Voting was completed using a 9-point numeric scoring system with predefined levels of agreement (categorized as disagreement, uncertainty, or agreement, with median scores of 1-3, 4-6, and 7-9, respectively) and consensus (categorized as low, moderate, or high). To be approved as a guidance statement, median vote ratings were required to fall into the highest tertile for agreement, with either moderate or high levels of consensus. RESULTS: The task force drafted 33 guidance statements, which were voted upon during the second and third rounds of voting. Of these 33 statements, all received median vote ratings within the highest tertile of agreement and were associated with either moderate consensus (n = 6) or high consensus (n = 27). Statements with similar recommendations were combined, resulting in 27 final guidance statements. CONCLUSION: These guidance statements have been generated based on review of the available literature, indicating that children with PRD do not appear to be at increased risk for susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection. This guidance is presented as a "living document," recognizing that the literature on COVID-19 is rapidly evolving, with future updates anticipated.