EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an update of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations to account for the most recent developments in the field. METHODS: An international task force considered new evidence supporting or contradicting previous recommendations and novel therapies and strategic insights based on two systematic literature searches on efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) since the last update (2016) until 2019. A predefined voting process was applied, current levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned and participants ultimately voted independently on their level of agreement with each of the items. RESULTS: The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 12 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GCs); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib). Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering on sustained clinical remission is provided. Cost and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs are addressed. Initially, MTX plus GCs and upon insufficient response to this therapy within 3 to 6 months, stratification according to risk factors is recommended. With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD or JAK inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD is recommended. On sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered, but not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were mostly high. CONCLUSIONS: These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on the management of RA with respect to benefit, safety, preferences and cost.

2017 EULAR recommendations for a core data set to support observational research and clinical care in rheumatoid arthritis.

Personalised medicine, new discoveries and studies on rare exposures or outcomes require large samples that are increasingly difficult for any single investigator to obtain. Collaborative work is limited by heterogeneities, both what is being collected and how it is defined. To develop a core set for data collection in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) research which (1) allows harmonisation of data collection in future observational studies, (2) acts as a common data model against which existing databases can be mapped and (3) serves as a template for standardised data collection in routine clinical practice to support generation of research-quality data. A multistep, international multistakeholder consensus process was carried out involving voting via online surveys and two face-to-face meetings. A core set of 21 items ('what to collect') and their instruments ('how to collect') was agreed: age, gender, disease duration, diagnosis of RA, body mass index, smoking, swollen/tender joints, patient/evaluator global, pain, quality of life, function, composite scores, acute phase reactants, serology, structural damage, treatment and comorbidities. The core set should facilitate collaborative research, allow for comparisons across studies and harmonise future data from clinical practice via electronic medical record systems.

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2016 update.

Recent insights in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) necessitated updating the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) RA management recommendations. A large international Task Force based decisions on evidence from 3 systematic literature reviews, developing 4 overarching principles and 12 recommendations (vs 3 and 14, respectively, in 2013). The recommendations address conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GC); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, clazakizumab, sarilumab and sirukumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (Janus kinase (Jak) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib). Monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and the targets of sustained clinical remission (as defined by the American College of Rheumatology-(ACR)-EULAR Boolean or index criteria) or low disease activity are discussed. Cost aspects were taken into consideration. As first strategy, the Task Force recommends MTX (rapid escalation to 25 mg/week) plus short-term GC, aiming at >50% improvement within 3 and target attainment within 6 months. If this fails stratification is recommended. Without unfavourable prognostic markers, switching to-or adding-another csDMARDs (plus short-term GC) is suggested. In the presence of unfavourable prognostic markers (autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions, failure of 2 csDMARDs), any bDMARD (current practice) or Jak-inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD or tsDMARD is recommended. If a patient is in sustained remission, bDMARDs can be tapered. For each recommendation, levels of evidence and Task Force agreement are provided, both mostly very high. These recommendations intend informing rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies, hospital officials, social security agencies and regulators about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA, aimed at attaining best outcomes with current therapies.

Points to consider for reporting, screening for and preventing selected comorbidities in chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases in daily practice: a EULAR initiative.

In chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases, comorbidities such as cardiovascular diseases and infections are suboptimally prevented, screened for and managed. The objective of this European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) initiative was to propose points to consider to collect comorbidities in patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. We also aimed to develop a pragmatic reporting form to foster the implementation of the points to consider. In accordance with the EULAR Standardised Operating Procedures, the process comprised (1) a systematic literature review of existing recommendations on reporting, screening for or preventing six selected comorbidities: ischaemic cardiovascular diseases, malignancies, infections, gastrointestinal diseases, osteoporosis and depression and (2) a consensus process involving 21 experts (ie, rheumatologists, patients, health professionals). Recommendations on how to treat the comorbidities were not included in the document as they vary across countries. The literature review retrieved 42 articles, most of which were recommendations for reporting or screening for comorbidities in the general population. The consensus process led to three overarching principles and 15 points to consider, related to the six comorbidities, with three sections: (1) reporting (ie, occurrence of the comorbidity and current treatments); (2) screening for disease (eg, mammography) or for risk factors (eg, smoking) and (3) prevention (eg, vaccination). A reporting form (93 questions) corresponding to a practical application of the points to consider was developed. Using an evidence-based approach followed by expert consensus, this EULAR initiative aims to improve the reporting and prevention of comorbidities in chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Next steps include dissemination and implementation.

Nurses' Role in Cardiovascular Risk Assessment and Management in People with Inflammatory Arthritis: A European Perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular risk (CVR) assessment and management in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) is recommended but European nurses' involvement in this role has not been well studied. AIM: The aim of the present study was to explore European nurses' role in assessing and managing CVR, in order to suggest topics for practice development and research in this area regarding persons with IA. METHODS: We searched Embase, Cinahl, Cochrane, PsycInfo and PubMed databases and included European articles from the past ten years if they described how nurses assess and/or manage CVR. In addition to the systematic review, we provided case studies from five different countries to illustrate national guidelines and nurses' role regarding CVR assessment and management in patients with IA. RESULTS: Thirty-three articles were included. We found that trained nurses were undertaking CVR assessment and management in different settings and groups of patients. The assessments include blood pressure, body mass index, waist circumference, glucose and lipid-profile, adherence to medication and behavioural risk factors (unhealthy diet, physical inactivity, alcohol and smoking). Different tools were used to calculate patients' risk. Risk management differed from brief advice to long-term follow-up. Nurses tended to take a holistic and individually tailored approach. Clinical examples of inclusion of rheumatology nurses in these tasks were scarce. CONCLUSION: Nurses undertake CVR assessment, communication and management in different types of patients. This is considered to be a highly relevant task for rheumatology nursing, especially in patients with IA. Further studies are needed to assess patients' perspective, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of nurse-led CVR. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Resource utilisation and direct costs in patients with recently diagnosed fibromyalgia who are offered one of three different interventions in a randomised pragmatic trial.

The purpose of this study is to understand the course of costs over a 2-year period in a cohort of recently diagnosed fibromyalgia (FM) patients receiving different treatment strategies. Following the diagnosis, patients were randomly assigned to a multidisciplinary programme (MD), aerobic exercise (AE) or usual care (UC) without being aware of alternative interventions. Time between diagnosis and start of treatment varied between patients. Resource utilisation, health care costs and costs for patients and families were collected through cost diaries. Mixed linear model analyses (MLM) examined the course of costs over time. Linear regression was used to explore predictors of health care costs in the post-intervention period. Two hundred three participants, 90 % women, mean (SD) age 41.7 (9.8) years, were included in the cohort. Intervention costs per patient varied from €864 to 1392 for MD and were €121 for AE. Health care costs (excluding intervention costs) decreased after diagnosis, but before the intervention in each group, and increased again afterwards to the level close to the diagnostic phase. In contrast, patient and family costs slightly increased over time in all groups without initial decrease immediately after diagnosis. Annualised health care costs post-intervention varied between €1872 and 2310 per patient and were predicted by worse functioning and high health care costs at diagnosis. In patients with FM, health care costs decreased following the diagnosis by a rheumatologist. Offering patients a specific intervention after diagnosis incurred substantial costs while having only marginal effects on costs.

Predictors for health improvement in patients with fibromyalgia: a 2-year follow-up study.

Fibromyalgia (FM) has a high impact on all aspects of health. The effect from interventions is usually small and characterized by uncertainty. Better insight in predictors for improved health is essential. The present study aimed to understand predictors for patient global impression of change and changes in overall health. Data from a longitudinal cohort of recently diagnosed FM patients (n = 203) were used. Within this cohort, patients were pre-randomized to either a multidisciplinary (n = 108) or an, aerobic exercise (n = 47) program, or usual care (n = 48). Only a limited number of patients started with the programs (n = 86) or participated fully, i.e., attended >70 % of the scheduled sessions (n = 68). Patients completed questionnaires covering all components of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) bio-psycho-social model of health, which was used as a framework to structure potential predictors. Principal component analysis was used to reduce the number of potential predictors. Regression analyses were used to explore associations with the outcome variables. Principal component analysis yielded five factors representing areas that covered different ICF components and chapters. "Being employed" and "full participation in a program" were independently associated with a better global impression of change. A longer duration of FM-related symptoms and more limitations in physical areas of body functions were independently associated with a worse impression of overall health. Higher levels of perceived limitations in physical and mental activities were associated with "starting to participate in a program" and with "full participation in a program." Recently diagnosed FM patients that report fewer physical limitations may experience more improvement in health if they are at work and have a positive attitude towards participating in an offered health-care intervention. These findings give support to an active rather than to a care-avoiding attitude of health-care workers in their contacts to these patients.

Challenges in demonstrating the effectiveness of multidisciplinary treatment on quality of life, participation and health care utilisation in patients with fibromyalgia: a randomised controlled trial.

This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary intervention with aftercare (MD) compared to aerobic exercise (AE) and usual care (UC) in recently diagnosed patients with fibromyalgia (FM). In a Zelen-like design, eligible patients from the outpatient rheumatology clinics of three medical centres in the South of the Netherlands were consecutively recruited and pre-randomised to MD (n = 108), AE (n = 47) or UC (n = 48). MD consisted of a 12-week course of sociotherapy, physiotherapy, psychotherapy and creative arts therapy (three half days per week), followed by five aftercare meetings in 9 months. AE was given twice a week in a 12-week course. UC varied but incorporated at least education and lifestyle advice. Primary outcomes were health-related quality of life (HR-Qol), participation and health care utilisation. Secondary outcome was the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ). Total follow-up duration of the study was 21-24 months. As willingness to participate in AE was limited, this group has been analysed but interpretation of the data is considered arguable. Within the MD group, a statistically significantly improved HR-Qol and a statistically significant reduction in number of hours sick leave, number of contacts with general practitioners and number of contacts with medical specialists was found. Moreover, statistically significant improvements were found on the FIQ, which increased after the intervention. However, no statistically significant between-group differences were found at the endpoint of the study. MD seemed to yield positive effects, but firm conclusions with regard to effectiveness cannot be formulated due to small between-group differences and limitations of the study.