Portuguese recommendations for the use of biological therapies in patients with axial spondyloarthritis - 2016 update.

OBJECTIVE: To update the recommendations for the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) with biological therapies, endorsed by the Portuguese Society of Rheumatology. METHODS: These treatment recommendations were formulated by Portuguese rheumatologists based on literature evidence and consensus opinion. At a national meeting, the 7 recommendations included in this document were discussed and updated. A draft of the full text of the recommendations was then circulated and suggestions were incorporated. A final version was again circulated before publication and the level of agreement among Portuguese Rheumatologists was anonymously assessed using an online survey. RESULTS: A consensus was achieved regarding the initiation, assessment of response and switching of biological therapies in patients with axSpA. In total, seven recommendations were produced. The first recommendation is a general statement indicating that biological therapy is not a first-line drug treatment option and should only be used after conventional treatment has failed. The second recommendation is also a general statement about the broad concept of axSpA adopted by these recommendations that includes both non-radiographic and radiographic axSpA. Recommendations 3 to 7 deal with the definition of active disease (including the recommended threshold of 2.1 for the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score [ASDAS] or the threshold of 4 [0-10 scale] for the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI]), conventional treatment failure (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs being the first-line drug treatment), assessment of response to treatment (based on an ASDAS improvement  of at least 1.1 units or a BASDAI improvement of at least 2 units [0-10 scale] or at least 50%), and strategy in the presence of an inadequate response (where switching is recommended) or in the presence of long-term remission (where a process of biological therapy optimization can be considered, either a gradual increase in the interval between doses or a decrease of each dose of the biological therapy). CONCLUSION: These recommendations may be used for guidance in deciding which patients with axSpA should be treated with biological therapies. They cover a rapidly evolving area of therapeutic intervention. As more evidence becomes available and more biological therapies are licensed, these recommendations will have to be updated.

PORTUGUESE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE USE OF BIOLOGICAL THERAPIES IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS--2015 UPDATE.

OBJECTIVE: To update recommendations for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis with biological therapies, endorsed by the Portuguese Society of Rheumatology (SPR). METHODS: These treatment recommendations were formulated by Portuguese rheumatologists based on literature evidence and consensus opinion. At a national meeting the 16 recommendations included in this document were discussed and updated. The level of agreement among Portuguese Rheumatologists was assessed using an online survey. A draft of the full text of the recommendations was then circulated and suggestions were incorporated. A final version was again circulated before publication. RESULTS: A consensus was achieved regarding the initiation, assessment of response and switching biological therapies in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Specific recommendations were developed for several disease domains: peripheral arthritis, axial disease, enthesitis and dactylitis. CONCLUSION: These recommendations may be used for guidance in deciding which patients with PsA should be treated with biological therapies. They cover a rapidly evolving area of therapeutic intervention. As more evidence becomes available and more biological therapies are licensed, these recommendations will have to be updated.

2011 Portuguese recommendations for the use of biological therapies in patients with psoriatic arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop recommendations for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with biological therapies, endorsed by the Portuguese Society of Rheumatology. METHODS: These treatment recommendations were formulated by Portuguese rheumatologists based on literature evidence and consensus opinion. A draft of the recommendations was first circulated to all Portuguese rheumatologists and their suggestions were incorporated in the draft. At a national meeting the recommendations were discussed and all attending rheumatologists voted on the level of agreement for each recommendation. A second draft was again circulated before publication. RESULTS: A consensus was achieved regarding the initiation, assessment of response and switching biological therapies in patients with PsA. Specific recommendations were developed for several disease domains: peripheral arthritis, axial disease, enthesitis and dactylitis. CONCLUSION: These recommendations may be used for guidance in deciding which patients with PsA should be treated with biological therapies. They cover a rapidly evolving area of therapeutic intervention. As more evidence becomes available and more biological therapies are licensed, these recommendations will have to be updated.

Portuguese recommendations for the use of biological therapies in patients with axial spondyloarthritis--December 2011 update.

OBJECTIVE: To develop recommendations for the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis with biological therapies, endorsed by the Portuguese Society of Rheumatology. METHODS: These treatment recommendations were formulated by Portuguese rheumatologists based on literature evidence and consensus opinion. A draft of the recommendations and supporting evidence was first circulated to all Portuguese rheumatologists and their suggestions were incorporated in the draft. Secondly, at a national meeting the recommendations were presented, discussed and revised. Finally, the document resulting from this meeting was again circulated to all Portuguese rheumatologists, who anonymously voted online on the level of agreement with the recommendations. RESULTS: A consensus was achieved regarding the initiation, assessment of response and switching biological therapies in patients with axial spondyloarthritis. CONCLUSION: These recommendations may be used for guidance in deciding which patients with axial spondyloarthritis should be treated with biological therapies. They cover a rapidly evolving area of therapeutic intervention. As more evidence becomes available and more biological therapies are licensed, these recommendations will have to be updated.

Portuguese guidelines for the use of biological agents in rheumatoid arthritis - March 2010 update.

The authors present the revised version of the Portuguese Society of Rheumatology (SPR) guidelines for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with biological therapies. In these guidelines the criteria for introduction and maintenance of biological agents are discussed as well as the contraindications and procedures in the case of non-responders. Biological treatment should be considered in RA patients with a disease activity score 28 (DAS 28) superior to 3.2 despite treatment with 20mg/week of methotrexate (MTX) for at least 3 months or, if such treatment is not possible, after 6 months of other conventional disease modifying drug or combination therapy. A DAS 28 score between 2.6 and 3.2 with a significant functional or radiological deterioration under treatment with conventional regimens could also constitute an indication for biological treatment. The treatment goal should be remission or, if that is not achievable, at least a low disease activity, characterized by a DAS28 lower than 3.2, without significative functional or radiological worsening. The response criteria, at the end of the first 3 months of treatment, are a decrease of 0.6 in the DAS28 score. After 6 months of treatment response criteria is defined as a decrease of more than 1.2 in the DAS28 score. Non-responders, in accordance to the Rheumatologist's clinical opinion, should try a switch to another biological agent (tumour necrosis factor antagonist, abatacept, rituximab or tocilizumab).

[The network of methotrexate toxicity]. / A teia de toxicidade do metotrexato.

INTRODUCTION: Methotrexate is a folic acid antagonist recognised as one of the most important DMARD's in the rheumatoid arthritis treatment. Although the indisputable efficacy and the good tolerance profile, the broad toxicity spectrum is very variable with respect both to symptoms and intensity. The side effects vary from malaise and asthenia to pneumonitis or pancytopenia, which can be fatal. OBJECTIVES: To review the adverse effects of methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature review, using Medline as a starting point, searching with the keywords "methotrexate", "toxic effects", "adverse effects", "rheumatoid arthritis". The relevant papers and selected references found therein were used. RESULTS: The gastrointestinal symptoms are the most frequent, but myelossupression and pneumonitis are the most feared ones. Elevation of transaminases could indicate hepatic toxicity, placing the risk of cirrhosis. Cutaneous lesions, neurologic symptoms, changes in the bone metabolism, teratogenecity and hyperhomocysteinemia are other examples of the adverse effects of methotrexate. The post-dosing reactions are still not well known. The folate supplementation is important in the prevention of folate metabolism dependent symptoms. The farmacogenomics may help to identify patients in greater risk for multiple side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Knowing and monitoring the methotrexate side effects is extremely important and should be carefully considered in order to prevent both therapeutic withdrawals due to toxicity as well as fatal outcomes.