Pan American League of Associations for Rheumatology Guidelines for the Treatment of Takayasu Arteritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop the first evidence-based Pan American League of Associations for Rheumatology (PANLAR) guidelines for the treatment of Takayasu arteritis (TAK). METHODS: A panel of vasculitis experts developed a series of clinically meaningful questions addressing the treatment of TAK patients in the PICO (population/intervention/comparator/outcome) format. A systematic literature review was performed by a team of methodologists. The evidence quality was assessed according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations/Assessment/Development/Evaluation) methodology. The panel of vasculitis experts voted each PICO question and made recommendations, which required ≥70% agreement among the voting members. RESULTS: Eleven recommendations were developed. Oral glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for newly diagnosed and relapsing TAK patients. The addition of nontargeted synthetic immunosuppressants (e.g., methotrexate, leflunomide, azathioprine, or mycophenolate mofetil) is recommended for patients with newly diagnosed or relapsing disease that is not organ- or life-threatening. For organ- or life-threatening disease, we conditionally recommend tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (e.g., infliximab or adalimumab) or tocilizumab with consideration for short courses of cyclophosphamide as an alternative in case of restricted access to biologics. For patients relapsing despite nontargeted synthetic immunosuppressants, we conditionally recommend to switch from one nontargeted synthetic immunosuppressant to another or to add tumor necrosis factor inhibitors or tocilizumab. We conditionally recommend low-dose aspirin for patients with involvement of cranial or coronary arteries to prevent ischemic complications. We strongly recommend performing surgical vascular interventions during periods of remission whenever possible. CONCLUSION: The first PANLAR treatment guidelines for TAK provide evidence-based guidance for the treatment of TAK patients in Latin American countries.

Argentine Guidelines for the Prevention and Treatment of Glucocorticoid-Induced Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women and Men Aged 50 Years and Older.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to provide an evidence-based framework to guide health care professionals treating patients under glucocorticoid (GC) therapy and develop guidelines for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO) in postmenopausal women and men aged ≥50 years. METHODS: An expert panel on bone diseases designed a series of clinically meaningful questions following the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome) structure. Using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology, we made a systematic literature review, extracted and summarized the effect estimates, and graded the quality of the evidence. The expert panel voted each PICO question and made recommendations after reaching an agreement of at least 70%. RESULTS: Seventeen recommendations (9 strong and 8 conditional) and 8 general principles were developed for postmenopausal women and men aged ≥50 years under GC treatment. Bone mineral density (BMD), occurrence of fragility fractures, probability of fracture at 10 years by Fracture Risk Assessment Tool, and other screening factors for low BMD are recommended for patient evaluation and stratification according to fragility fracture risk. The treatment of patients under GC therapy should include counseling on lifestyle habits and strict control of comorbidities. The goal of GIO treatment is the nonoccurrence of new fragility fractures as well as to increase or maintain BMD in certain clinical situations. This was considered for the therapeutic approach in different clinical scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: This GIO guideline provides evidence-based guidance for health care providers treating patients.

Patient perspectives on long-term outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis. A qualitative study from the OMERACT patient outcomes in longitudinal studies working group.

OBJECTIVES: To identify patient-centered domains with long-term relevance to people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We conducted semi-structured individual cognitive interviews of patients with RA with at least five years of disease duration, sampled from five different countries (United States, Italy, Spain, Mexico, and Argentina). Participants were encouraged to discuss their long-term concerns regarding RA. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using qualitative content analysis within a constructivist/interpretivist theoretical framework. RESULTS: Twenty-eight participants were interviewed, 24 were women. Six main themes, representing important aspects of the daily life of people with RA were generated: (i) Living with symptoms and functional limitations, (ii) Lack of participation, (iii) Partner and family issues, (iv) Risk of damage to vital organs, (v) Coping strategies, and (vi) Healthcare concerns, primarily expressed by participants from non-European countries lacking universal healthcare coverage. In addition, participants discussed the importance of contextual factors and how they impact long-term outcomes. These included attitudes towards disease, social support, or financial burdens. CONCLUSIONS: We identified six domains of importance to people with RA that are seldom measured in longitudinal registries and should be considered in patient-centered longitudinal studies.

Pan American League of Associations for Rheumatology Guidelines for the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis.

Considerable variability exists in the way health-care providers treat patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis in Latin America. The most frequently used treatments for ANCA-associated vasculitis are cyclophosphamide and prolonged glucocorticoid tapers; however, randomised controlled trials conducted over the past 30 years have led to the development of several evidence-based treatment alternatives for these patients. Latin America faces socioeconomic challenges that affect access to care, and the use of certain costly medications with proven efficacy ANCA-associated vasculitis is often restricted. For these reasons, the Pan American League of Associations for Rheumatology developed the first ANCA-associated vasculitis treatment guidelines tailored for Latin America. A panel of local vasculitis experts generated clinically meaningful questions related to the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) format. Following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology, a team of methodologists conducted a systematic literature review. The panel of vasculitis experts voted on each PICO question and made recommendations, which required at least 70% agreement among the voting members. 21 recommendations and two expert opinion statements for the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis were developed, considering the current evidence and the socioeconomic characteristics of the region. These recommendations include guidance for the use of glucocorticoids, non-glucocorticoid immunosuppressants, and plasma exchange.

Pan American League of Associations for Rheumatology guidelines for the treatment of giant cell arteritis.

Considerable variability exists in the way that health-care providers treat patients with giant cell arteritis in Latin America, with patients commonly exposed to excessive amounts of glucocorticoids. In addition, large health disparities prevail in this region due to socioeconomic factors, which influence access to care, including biological treatments. For these reasons, the Pan American League of Associations for Rheumatology developed the first evidence-based giant cell arteritis treatment guidelines tailored for Latin America. A panel of vasculitis experts from Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Brazil, and Argentina generated clinically meaningful questions related to the treatment of giant cell arteritis in the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) format. Following the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation methodology, a team of methodologists did a systematic literature search, extracted and summarised the effects of the interventions, and graded the quality of the evidence. The panel of vasculitis experts voted on each PICO question and made recommendations, which required at least 70% agreement among the voting members to be included in the guidelines. Nine recommendations and one expert opinion statement for the treatment of giant cell arteritis were developed considering the most up-to-date evidence and the socioeconomic characteristics of Latin America. These recommendations include guidance for the use of glucocorticoids, tocilizumab, methotrexate, and aspirin for patients with giant cell arteritis.

Outcomes Reported in Prospective Long-Term Observational Studies and Registries of Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Worldwide: An Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Prospective long-term observational studies (LOS) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) lack a core set of universally collected outcome measures, particularly patient-centered outcomes, precluding accurate comparisons across studies. Our aim was to identify long-term outcome measures collected and reported in these studies. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of registries and LOS of patients with RA, searching in ClinicalTrials.gov, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Registry of Patient Registries, and Google Scholar. The names and acronyms of registries and LOS were further searched in the Medline and Embase databases to retrieve published articles. Two independent reviewers undertook data collection, quality appraisal, and data extraction. RESULTS: We identified 88 registries/LOS that met our eligibility criteria. These were divided into 2 groups: disease-based (52 [59%]) and therapy-based (36 [41%]). Methodologic and reporting standards varied across the eligible studies. For clinical outcomes, disease activity was recorded in 88 (100%) of all LOS/registries. The most commonly reported measure (86 [98%]) was the composite outcome Disease Activity Score using 28 joints. Of the patient-centered outcomes collected, physical functioning was most frequently reported (75 [85%]) with the Health Assessment Questionnaire (75 [85%]) as the most commonly used instrument within this domain. Other domains of patient-centered outcomes were comparatively infrequently recorded: mental (29 [33%]), social (20 [23%]), and health-related quality of life (37 [42%]). CONCLUSION: Most registries/LOS collect measures of disease activity and physical function. However, there is substantial heterogeneity in the collection of relevant patient-centered outcomes that measure symptom burden and mental and social ramifications of RA.

Overall survival in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and solid malignancies receiving biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic therapy.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: The effects of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and cancer are largely unknown. We examined overall survival (OS) in patients with RA and solid malignancies receiving bDMARDs. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with RA and solid malignancies seen at MD Anderson Cancer Center between 2002 and 2014. Cox proportional hazard regression models, stratified by tumor type and stage, were fit evaluating use of bDMARDs as a time fixed and time varying covariate. RESULTS: We identified 431 RA patients with solid malignancies: 111 (26%) received bDMARDs after their cancer diagnosis. Median OS from cancer diagnosis was 16.1 years. Of the patients receiving bDMARDs, most had localized disease, and only 14 (13%) had advanced cancer. In the stratified Cox models no statistically significant differences were observed between patients who received tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or patients who received nonTNFi, compared with those who did not receive bDMARDs (hazard ratio (HR), 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.31, 1.44; HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.26, 4.60 respectively). In breast cancer patients, those receiving TNFi or nonTNFi had a numerically higher but statistically nonsignificant HR compared with those who did not receive bDMARD: HR, 1.40 (95% CI, 0.42, 4.73), and HR, 1.37 (95% CI, 0.22, 8.42) respectively. CONCLUSION: No significant differences in OS were observed between patients who received bDMARDs and those who did not. Additional data is needed to evaluate other cancer outcomes such as recurrence and progression, and patients with advanced cancer. Key Points •We found no statistically significant differences in OS between patients with RA and concomitant solid malignancies who received bDMARDs and those who did not. •Most patients who received bDMARDs had been diagnosed with early stage cancer •As few patients with advanced cancer received bDMARDs safety for this group cannot be established •No significant differences were observed between TNFi and nonTNFi, but the sample size was small.

Systematic Review of Recommendations on the Use of Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis and Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate consensus recommendations regarding management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients with cancer. METHODS: We searched electronic databases, guideline registries, and relevant web sites for cancer-specific recommendations on RA management. Reviewers independently selected and appraised the recommendations according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. We identified similarities and discrepancies among recommendations. RESULTS: Of 4,077 unique citations, 39 recommendations were identified, of which half described their consensus process. Average scores for the AGREE II domains ranged from 33% to 87%. Cancer risk in RA was addressed in 79% of recommendations, with acknowledgement of increased overall cancer risk. Recommendations did not agree on the safety of using disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in RA patients with cancer, except for the contraindication of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients at risk for lymphoma. Most recommendations agreed that RA treatment should be stopped and re-evaluated with a new diagnosis of cancer. Recommendations for patients with a history of cancer differed depending on the drug, cancer type, and time since cancer diagnosis. Few recommendations addressed all issues. CONCLUSION: Recommendations for the treatment of RA in patients with cancer often fail to meet expected methodologic criteria. There was agreement on the need for caution when prescribing DMARDs to these patients. However, several areas continue to lack consensus, and given the paucity of evidence, there is an urgent need for research and expert opinion to guide and standardize the management of RA in patients with cancer.

Utilization of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) interfere with the immune system and could theoretically increase risk of malignancies. However, recent evidence has not substantiated such concerns and physicians are less reluctant in treating patients with underlying cancer with such bDMARDs. We aimed to understand the current utilization patterns of bDMARDs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in cancer patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with prevalent RA and cancer initially seen at MD Anderson Cancer Center between 2002 and 2014. A cohort of cancer patients was identified from the tumor registry, and patients with RA were identified through ICD-9 codes, followed by review of electronic medical records. We included patients 18 years and older, with a cancer diagnosis, and a diagnosis of RA by a rheumatologist. Patients were followed until 2016. RESULTS: We identified 431 patients with RA and cancer that met our inclusion criteria. Overall, 111 (26%) received bDMARDs after their cancer diagnosis; of these, 60 (54%) had received bDMARDs prior to their cancer diagnosis and continued to receive this therapy following their diagnosis. Thirteen (22%) switched to a different bDMARD, and the rest continued to receive the same agent after their cancer diagnosis. Of all patients on a bDMARD, 91 (82%) received tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi). CONCLUSIONS: The treatment landscape of patients with a history of cancer and RA is changing. Future studies evaluating the safety of bDMARDs in patients with a recent history of cancer or with active cancer are needed. Part of the data of this project was presented as a poster at the 2016 American College of Rheumatology annual meeting. Zamora NV, Siddhanamatha H, Barbo A, Tayar J, Lin H, Suarez-Almazor M. Utilization of Biologic Therapy in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Cancer [abstract].Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016; 68 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/utilization-of-biologic-therapy-in-patients-with-rheumatoid-arthritis-and-cancer/. Accessed September 30, 2019. Key Points • One in four patients with RA and concomitant cancer received bDMARDs, including TNFi, after their cancer diagnosis, at our institution. • Half of the patients with RA and cancer who received bDMARDs had initiated therapy prior to the cancer diagnosis, continuing thereafter.

Core Outcome Sets Specifically for Longterm Observational Studies: OMERACT Special Interest Group Update in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: This is an update from the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Core Outcomes in Longterm Observational Studies Special Interest Group with a focus on rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Preliminary data and proposed next steps were outlined and discussed by participants. RESULTS: Domains identified after initial steps (systematic review and qualitative research) were pain, physical functioning, participation (i.e., work, social), longterm symptoms, fertility/family planning, emotional well-being, coping, financial status, and adverse events including death. CONCLUSION: The group agreed conceptually that short-term core outcomes could be different from longer term ones. Participants emphasized the importance of analyzing the need for core domains specifically for longterm longitudinal observational studies.

Critical Outcomes in Longitudinal Observational Studies and Registries in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: An OMERACT Special Interest Group Report.

OBJECTIVE: Outcomes important to patients are those that are relevant to their well-being, including quality of life, morbid endpoints, and death. These outcomes often occur over the longterm and can be identified in prospective longitudinal observational studies (PLOS). There are no standards for which outcome domains should be considered. Our overarching goal is to identify critical longterm outcome domains for patients with rheumatic diseases, and to develop a conceptual framework to measure and classify them within the scope of OMERACT Filter 2.0. METHODS: The steps of this initiative primarily concern rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and include (1) performing a systematic review of RA patient registries and cohorts to identify previously collected and reported outcome domains and measurement instruments; (2) developing a conceptual framework and taxonomy for identification and classification of outcome domains; (3) conducting focus groups to identify domains considered critical by patients with RA; and (4) surveying patients, providers, and researchers to identify critical outcomes that can be evaluated through the OMERACT filter. RESULTS: In our initial evaluation of databases and registries across countries, we found both commonalities and differences, with no clear standardization. At the initial group meeting, participants agreed that additional work is needed to identify which critical outcomes should be collected in PLOS, and suggested several: death, independence, and participation, among others. An operational strategy for the next 2 years was proposed. CONCLUSION: Participants endorsed the need for an initiative to identify and evaluate critical outcome domains and measurement instruments for data collection in PLOS.