Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 311
Filtrar
1.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33576791

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Although there is a general focus on early diagnosis and treatment of hip osteoarthritis, there are no validated diagnostic criteria for early-stage hip OA. The current study aimed to take the first steps in developing diagnostic criteria for early-stage hip OA, using factors obtained through history taking, physical examination, radiography and blood testing at the first consultation in individuals presenting with hip pain, suspicious for hip OA, in primary care. METHODS: Data of the 543 individuals with 735 symptomatic hips at baseline who had any follow-up data available from the prospective CHECK cohort study were used. A group of 26 clinical experts (GPs, Rheumatologists and Orthopedic surgeons) evaluated standardized clinical assessment forms of all subjects on the presence of clinically relevant hip OA 5 to 10 years after baseline. Using the expert based diagnoses as reference standard, a backward selection method was used to create predictive models based on pre-defined baseline factors from history taking, physical examination, radiography and blood testing. RESULTS: Prevalence of clinically relevant hip OA during follow-up was 22%. Created models contained 4 to 8 baseline factors (mainly WOMAC pain items, painful/restricted movements, and radiographic features) and obtained area under the curve between 0.62 ± 0.002 and 0.71 ± 0.002. CONCLUSION: Based on clinical and radiographic features of hip OA obtained at first consultation at a GP for pain/stiffness of the hip, the prediction of clinically relevant hip OA within 5 to 10 years was 'poor' to 'fair'.

2.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33483129

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Underreporting of harms in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may lead to incomplete or erroneous assessments of the perceived benefit-to-harm profile of an intervention. To compare benefit with harm in clinical practice and future clinical studies, adverse event (AE) profiles including severity need to be understood. Even though patients report harm symptoms earlier and more frequently than clinicians, rheumatology RCTs currently do not provide a reporting framework from the patient's perspective regarding harms. Our objective for this meta-research project was to identify AEs in order to determine harm clusters and whether these could be self-reported by patients. Our other objective was to examine reported severity grading of the reported harms. METHODS: We considered primary publications of RCTs eligible if they were published between 2008 and 2018 evaluating pharmacological interventions in patients with a rheumatic or musculoskeletal condition and if they were included in Cochrane reviews. We extracted data on harms such as reported AE terms together with severity (if described), and categorized AE- and severity-terms into overall groups. We deemed all AEs with felt components appropriate for patient self-reporting. RESULTS: The literature search identified 187 possible Cochrane reviews, of which 94 were eligible for evaluation, comprising 1,297 articles on individual RCTs. Of these RCTs, 93 pharmacological trials met our inclusion criteria (including 31,023 patients; representing 20,844 accumulated patient years), which reported a total of 21,498 AEs, corresponding to 693 unique reported terms for AEs. We further sub-categorized these terms into 280 harm clusters (i.e., themes). AEs appropriate for patient self-reporting accounted for 58% of the AEs reported. Among the reported AEs, we identified medical terms for all of the 117 harm clusters appropriate for patient reporting and lay language terms for 86%. We intended to include severity grades of the reported AEs, but there was no evidence for systematic reporting of clinician- or patient-reported severity in the primary articles of the 93 trials. However, we identified 33 terms suggesting severity, but severity grading was discernible in only 9%, precluding a breakdown by severity in this systematic review. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the need for a standardized framework for patients' reporting of harms in rheumatology trials. Reporting of AEs with severity should be included in future reporting of harms, both from the patients' and investigators' perspectives. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42018108393.

3.
Ann Rheum Dis ; 2021 Jan 22.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33483318

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To produce European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the reporting of ultrasound studies in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: Based on the literature reviews and expert opinion (through Delphi surveys), a taskforce of 23 members (12 experts in ultrasound in RMDs, 9 in methodology and biostatistics together with a patient research partner and a health professional in rheumatology) developed a checklist of items to be reported in every RMD study using ultrasound. This checklist was further refined by involving a panel of 79 external experts (musculoskeletal imaging experts, methodologists, journal editors), who evaluated its comprehensibility, feasibility and comprehensiveness. Agreement on each proposed item was assessed with an 11-point Likert scale, grading from 0 (total disagreement) to 10 (full agreement). RESULTS: Two face-to-face meetings, as well as two Delphi rounds of voting, resulted in a final checklist of 23 items, including a glossary of terminology. Twenty-one of these were considered 'mandatory' items to be reported in every study (such as blinding, development of scoring systems, definition of target pathologies) and 2 'optional' to be reported only if applicable, such as possible confounding factors (ie, ambient conditions) or experience of the sonographers. CONCLUSION: An EULAR taskforce developed a checklist to ensure transparent and comprehensive reporting of aspects concerning research and procedures that need to be presented in studies using ultrasound in RMDs. This checklist, if widely adopted by authors and editors, will greatly improve the interpretability of study development and results, including the assessment of validity, generalisability and applicability.

5.
Ann Rheum Dis ; 2020 Oct 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33055082

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Initiative established the Contextual Factors Working Group to guide the understanding, identification and handling of contextual factors for clinical trials. In clinical research, different uses of the term 'contextual factors' exist. This study explores the perspectives of researchers (including clinicians) and patients in defining 'contextual factor' and its related terminology, identifying such factors and accounting for them in trials across rheumatology. METHODS: We conducted individual semistructured interviews with researchers (including clinicians) who have experience within the field of contextual factors in clinical trials or other potentially relevant areas, and small focus group interviews with patients with rheumatic conditions. We transcribed the interviews and applied qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 12 researchers and 7 patients. Researcher's and patient's descriptions of contextual factors were categorised into two broad themes, each comprising two contextual factors types. The 'treatment effect' theme focused on factors explaining variations in treatment effects (A) among patients and (B) among studies. The 'outcome measurement' theme focused on factors that explain (C) variations in the measurement result itself (apart from actual changes/differences in the outcome) and (D) variations in the outcome itself (beside treatment of interest). Methods for identifying and handling contextual factors differed among these themes and types. CONCLUSIONS: Two main themes for contextual factors with four types of contextual factors were identified based on input from researchers and patients. This will guide operationalisation of contextual factors. Further research should refine our findings and establish consensus among relevant stakeholders.

7.
J Clin Med ; 9(10)2020 Oct 21.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33096821

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the added value of radiographs for diagnosing knee osteoarthritis (KOA) by general practitioners (GPs) and secondary care physicians (SPs). METHODS: Seventeen GPs and nineteen SPs were recruited to evaluate 1185 knees from the CHECK cohort (presenters with knee pain in primary care) for the presence of clinically relevant osteoarthritis (OA) during follow-up. Experts were required to make diagnoses independently, first based on clinical data only and then on clinical plus radiographic data, and to provide certainty scores (ranging from 1 to 100, where 1 was "certainly no OA" and 100 was "certainly OA"). Next, experts held consensus meetings to agree on the final diagnosis. With the final diagnosis as gold standard, diagnostic indicators were calculated (sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive value, accuracy and positive/negative likelihood ratio) for all knees, as well as for clinically "certain" and "uncertain" knees, respectively. Student paired t-tests compared certainty scores. RESULTS: Most diagnoses of GPs (86%) and SPs (82%) were "consistent" after assessment of radiographic data. Diagnostic indicators improved similarly for GPs and SPs after evaluating the radiographic data, but only improved relevantly in clinically "uncertain" knees. Radiographs added some certainty to "consistent" OA knees (GP 69 vs. 72, p < 0.001; SP 70 vs. 77, p < 0.001), but not to the consistent no OA knees (GP 21 vs. 22, p = 0.16; SP 20 vs. 21, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The added value of radiographs is similar for GP and SP, in terms of diagnostic accuracy and certainty. Radiographs appear to be redundant when clinicians are certain of their clinical diagnosis.

8.
J Am Geriatr Soc ; 2020 Oct 19.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33075140

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To identify barriers and solutions for the recruitment and retention of older (aged ≥65 years) people in clinical trials. DESIGN: Systematic literature review. METHODS: Three databases (Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL) were searched for articles reporting on barriers or solutions regarding the recruitment or retention of older people. Only original research articles were included. RESULTS: Fifty eligible articles were identified. Exclusion criteria were the most common cause of poor recruitment of older adults (mainly age and comorbidities). Patients' families or physicians often advised against participation (22% of included studies). Lack of interest (18%) and problems with transportation (18%) were also commonly cited as challenges. Fourteen trials (28%) reported that monitoring and adapting their recruitment methods helped, along with a flexible research team (26%) and provision of transportation (24%). Retention was impaired by death (12%), illness (8%), and loss of interest (6%). Methods with a positive effect on retention included financial incentives and regular information about the progress of the study (12%), a low staff turnover (12%), flexibility in appointment making (10%), and expression of appreciation by the staff through letters, gifts, and cards to the participants (10%). CONCLUSION: We identified several barriers and have listed potential solutions that may improve recruitment and lead to fewer dropouts in trials involving older populations. Implementation of our findings may help mitigate the manifold challenges that come with running a trial with older people.

9.
J Rheumatol ; 2020 Oct 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33060321

RESUMO

We read with interest the article by Hanly and Lethbridge concerning long-term patterns of glucocorticoid (GC) use in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)1 Their report indicates that GC use has remained relatively stable over time, in contrast to greater use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic agents in the treat-to-target directive. They also report that rheumatologists prescribe lower doses than other physicians, and that the mean dose for rheumatologists has decreased over time.

10.
JMIR Form Res ; 4(9): e20165, 2020 Sep 21.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32955447

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Several mobile apps that monitor symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) exist, but a recent systematic review indicated that high-quality apps are lacking. When patients self-monitor their own disease with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and self-initiate care at the right moment, it may be possible to reduce the frequency of their clinic visits, which would reduce health care burden and costs. We developed an app, that is, the MijnReuma Reade app, for this purpose and performed 2 pilot tests with weekly self-monitoring. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to design, develop, and evaluate the usability, satisfaction, and usage of the MijnReuma Reade app-an app that allows patients with RA to monitor their own disease. The secondary objective was to review the patients' perspectives on app usage and its intended purpose. METHODS: This app was designed in collaboration with patients with RA, rheumatologists, and information technology experts. Two 1-month pilot studies were performed, after which satisfaction (0-10 scale), usability (system usability scale, 0-100), and usage (proportion of completed questionnaires) of this app were assessed. After the second pilot study, semistructured interviews were performed to determine patients' perspectives and the promoters and barriers of app usage. RESULTS: In the first and second pilot study, 42 and 27 patients were included, respectively. Overall, the patients were satisfied (medians, 8 and 7) and found the app usable (mean system usability scores, 76 and 71) in pilot studies 1 and 2, respectively. App usage declined over time in both the pilot studies; 61% (17/28) and 37% (10/27) of the patients who disclosed their usage statistics completed the final weekly questionnaire in pilot study 1 and pilot study 2, respectively. Approximately 81% (25/31) of the patients indicated they would like to skip hospital visits if the self-monitored disease activity is low. In the semistructured interviews, technical problems, internal resistance (respondent fatigue, the app reminded them of their disease), and a lack of symptoms were identified as barriers for usage. Patients reported that "experiencing more grip on their disease" and "improved communication with their physician" were promoters for usage. Patients reported that pain positively mediated usage, that is, more pain promoted and less pain discouraged app usage. CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates the feasibility of the MijnReuma Reade app that enables self-monitoring of the disease activity in patients with RA with the overarching aim to allocate clinical consultations according to need. Satisfaction with the app and usability of the app were found to be high; however, app usage declined over time. Patients acknowledged the potential of the app to self-monitor their own disease and would like to be able to skip clinic visits if the monitored disease activity is low. To evaluate this strategy, a randomized controlled trial is underway.

11.
Ann Rheum Dis ; 79(10): 1269-1276, 2020 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32606042

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To explore whether trial population characteristics modify treatment responses across various interventions, comparators and rheumatic conditions. METHODS: In this meta-epidemiological study, we included trials from systematic reviews available from the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group published up to 23 April 2019 in Cochrane Library with meta-analyses of five or more randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published from year 2000. From trial reports, we extracted data on 20 population characteristics. For characteristics with sufficient data (ie, available for ≥2/3 of the trials), we performed multilevel meta-epidemiological analyses. RESULTS: We identified 19 eligible systematic reviews contributing 187 RCTs (212 comparisons). Only age and sex were explicitly reported in ≥2/3 of the trials. Using information about the country of the trials led to sufficient data for five further characteristics, that is, 7 out of 20 (35%) protocolised characteristics were analysed. The meta-regressions showed effect modification by economic status, place of residence, and, nearly, from healthcare system (explaining 4.8%, 0.9% and 1.5% of the between-trial variation, respectively). No effect modification was demonstrated from age, sex, patient education/health literacy or predominant religion. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the scarce reporting of most population characteristics, hampering investigation of their impact with meta-research. Our sparse results suggest that place of residence (ie, continent of the trial), economic status (based on World Bank classifications) and healthcare system (based on WHO index for health system performance) may be important in explaining the variation in treatment response across trials. There is an urgent need for consistent reporting of important population characteristics in trials. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019127642.


Assuntos
Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/métodos , Doenças Reumáticas/terapia , Resultado do Tratamento , Demografia , Humanos , Fatores Socioeconômicos
12.
Arthritis Res Ther ; 22(1): 177, 2020 07 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32711571

RESUMO

The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) has defined core sets for (i) symptom-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (SM-ARD), (ii) clinical record keeping, and (iii) disease-controlling anti-rheumatic therapy (DC-ART). These include the following domains for all three core sets: "physical function," "pain," "spinal mobility," "spinal stiffness," and "patient's global assessment" (PGA). The core set for clinical record keeping further includes the domains "peripheral joints/entheses" and "acute phase reactants," and the core set for DC-ART further includes the domains "fatigue" and "spine radiographs/hip radiographs." The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) endorsed the core sets in 1998.Using empirical evidence from axSpA trials, we investigated the efficacy (i.e., net benefit) according to the ASAS/OMERACT core outcome set for axSpA across all interventions tested in trials included in subsequent Cochrane reviews. For all continuous scales, we combined data using the standardized mean difference (SMD) to meta-analyze outcomes involving the same domains. Also, through meta-regression analysis, we examined the effect of the separate SMD measures (independent variables) on the primary endpoint (log [OR], dependent variable) across all trials.Based on 11 eligible Cochrane reviews, from these, 85 articles were screened; we included 43 trials with 63 randomized comparisons. Mean (SD) number of ASAS/OMERACT core outcome domains measured for SM-ARD/physical therapy trials was 4.2 (1.7). Six trials assessed all proposed domains. Mean (SD) for number of core outcome domains for DC-ART trials was 5.8 (1.7). No trials assessed all nine domains. Eight trials (16%) were judged to have inadequate (i.e., high risk of) selective outcome reporting bias. The most responsible core domains for achieving success in meeting the primary objective per trial were pain, OR (95% CI) 5.19 (2.28, 11.77), and PGA, OR (95% CI) 1.87 (1.14, 3.07). In conclusion, selective outcome reporting (and "missing data") should be reduced by encouraging the use of the endorsed ASAS/OMERACT outcome domains in clinical trials. Overall outcome reporting was good for SM-ARD/physical therapy trials and poor for DC-ART trials. Our findings suggest that both PGA and pain provide a valuable holistic construct for the assessment of improvement beyond more objective measures of spinal inflammation.

13.
Ann Rheum Dis ; 2020 May 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32366524
14.
Ocul Immunol Inflamm ; : 1-10, 2020 Apr 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32286112

RESUMO

Purpose: To develop an algorithm for the diagnosis of Behçet's disease (BD) uveitis based on ocular findings.Methods: Following an initial survey among uveitis experts, we collected multi-center retrospective data on 211 patients with BD uveitis and 207 patients with other uveitides, and identified ocular findings with a high diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Subsequently, we collected multi-center prospective data on 127 patients with BD uveitis and 322 controls and developed a diagnostic algorithm using Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis and expert opinion.Results: We identified 10 items with DOR >5. The items that provided the highest accuracy in CART analysis included superficial retinal infiltrate, signs of occlusive retinal vasculitis, and diffuse retinal capillary leakage as well as the absence of granulomatous anterior uveitis or choroiditis in patients with vitritis.Conclusion: This study provides a diagnostic tree for BD uveitis that needs to be validated in future studies.

15.
Semin Arthritis Rheum ; 50(6): 1400-1405, 2020 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32222381

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard in clinical research due to credible causality. Their results, however, may not be generalizable to real-world populations. While glucocorticoids (GCs) remain a mainstay of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment, it is unclear whether the results of GC-RCTs are generalizable to current real-world RA patients. METHODS: MEDLINE was searched for RCTs and, as comparators, cohort studies (CSs) in RA evaluating systemic GCs. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for descriptive baseline characteristics (including general demographics, comorbidities, and disease activity) that have been shown to be able to modify the benefit-risk-ratio of various RA therapeutics. These meta-analyses were stratified by study type (RCT and CS). Stratified estimates were subsequently compared. Further sensitivity analyses were performed stratifying by disease duration. RESULTS: 56 RCTs (7053 participants) and 10 CSs (14,688 participants) were included. 12 characteristics were reported frequently enough to allow for comparative analysis. In 10/12 characteristics (83%), RCT estimates did not appear to differ from CS estimates. However, RCT participants were younger (-4.7 years [95% CI -7.2 to -2.1]; p < 0.001) and had higher erythrocyte sedimentation rates (11.8 mm/h [5.7 to 17.8]; p < 0.001) than CS participants. Comorbidities could not be assessed due to insufficient reporting. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that evidence from GC trials in RA is of acceptable generalizability to current real-world patients - especially compared to findings from biologic agents in RA. However, RCT participants were younger than real-world patients, potentially limiting the generalizability of trial results to elderly patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42019134675).

16.
JMIR Res Protoc ; 9(2): e15105, 2020 Feb 19.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32130182

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine based on self-measurement of disease activity could be one of the key components to create the health care system of the future. Previous publications in various medical fields have shown that it is possible to safely telemonitor patients while reducing the number of outpatient clinic visits. For this purpose, we developed a mobile phone app for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), which allows them to self-monitor their disease. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to assess the safety and efficacy of self-initiated care assisted by a smartphone app in patients with RA. METHODS: This is a randomized controlled trial that will be performed for 1 year. A total of 176 patients with RA will be randomized to either self-initiated care with only one scheduled follow-up consultation assisted by our app or usual care. The coprimary outcome measures are the number of outpatient clinic consultations with a rheumatologist taking place during the trial period and the mean disease activity score as measured by the disease activity score 28 (DAS28) at 12 months. The secondary outcomes are patient satisfaction, adherence, patient empowerment, and cost evaluation of health care assisted by the app. RESULTS: Recruitment started in May 2019, and up to 18 months will be required for completion of recruitment. Thus far, 78 patients have been randomized, and thus far, experiences with the app have been positive. The study results are expected to be published by the end of 2021. CONCLUSIONS: The completion of this study will provide important data regarding the following: (1) safety of self-initiated care supported by a smartphone app in terms of DAS28 and (2) efficacy of lowering health care usage with this new strategy of providing health care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NL7715; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7715. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/15105.

17.
J Rheumatol ; 47(9): 1379-1384, 2020 09 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32007937

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To survey participants with polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) to evaluate the face validity, acceptability, and domain match of proposed candidate outcome measures. METHODS: A structured, online, anonymous survey was disseminated by patient support groups through their networks and online forums. The candidate outcome measures comprised (1) visual analog scale (VAS) and numerical rating score (NRS) to assess pain; (2) VAS, NRS, and duration to assess stiffness; (3) the modified Health Assessment Questionnaire and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index to assess physical function; and (4) C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate to assess inflammation. Free-text answers were analyzed using descriptive thematic analysis to determine respondents' views of the candidate instruments. RESULTS: Seventy-eight people with PMR from 6 countries (UK, France, USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) participated in the survey. Most respondents agreed candidate instruments were acceptable or "good to go." Free-text analysis identified 5 themes that participants considered inadequately covered by the proposed instruments. These related to (1) the variability, context, and location of pain; (2) the variability of stiffness; (3) fatigue; (4) disability; and (5) the correlation of inflammatory marker levels and severity of symptoms, sometimes reflecting disease activity and other times not. CONCLUSION: Participants reported additional aspects of their experience that are not covered by the proposed instruments, particularly for the experience of stiffness and effect of fatigue. New patient-reported outcome measures are required to increase the relevance of results from clinical trials to patients with PMR.

18.
Ann Rheum Dis ; 79(6): 685-699, 2020 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31969328

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Antirreumáticos/uso terapêutico , Artrite Reumatoide/tratamento farmacológico , Produtos Biológicos/uso terapêutico , Sociedades Médicas , Medicamentos Sintéticos/uso terapêutico , Antirreumáticos/economia , Produtos Biológicos/economia , Consenso , Quimioterapia Combinada , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Inibidores de Janus Quinases/uso terapêutico , Medicamentos Sintéticos/economia , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto , Fator de Necrose Tumoral alfa/antagonistas & inibidores
19.
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) ; 72(11): 1550-1559, 2020 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31562795

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Pain interference and pain behavior are highly relevant outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is a universally applicable set of item banks measuring patient-reported health, and if applied as computerized adaptive tests (CATs), more efficiently and precisely than current instruments. The objective was to study the psychometric properties of the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS pain interference (PROMIS-PI) and the PROMIS pain behavior (PROMIS-PB) item banks in patients with RA. METHODS: A total of 2,029 patients with RA completed the full PROMIS-PI (version 1.1, 40 items), and 1,554 patients completed the full PROMIS-PB (version 1.1, 39 items). The following psychometric properties were studied: unidimensionality, local dependence, monotonicity and graded response model (GRM) fit, cross-cultural validity (differential item functioning [DIF] for language [Dutch versus Flemish]), other forms of measurement invariance, construct validity, reliability, and floor and ceiling effects. RESULTS: The PROMIS-PI and PROMIS-PB banks were sufficiently unidimensional (Omega-hierarchical [Omega-H] 0.99, 0.95, and explained common variance 0.95, 0.78, respectively), had negligible local dependence (0.3-1.4% of item pairs), good monotonicity (H 0.75, 0.46), and a good GRM model fit (no misfitting items). Furthermore, both item banks showed good cross-cultural validity (no DIF for language), measurement invariance (no DIF for age, sex, administration mode, and disease activity), good construct validity (all hypotheses met), high reliability (>0.90 in the range of patients with RA), and an absence of floor and ceiling effects (0% minimum or maximum score, respectively). CONCLUSION: Both PROMIS-PI and PROMIS-PB banks showed good psychometric properties in patients with RA and can be used as CATs in research and clinical practice.

20.
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) ; 72(10): 1490-1496, 2020 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31421022

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The elderly, a population defined by an age of ≥65 years, are underrepresented in rheumatology trials, possibly due to investigators' concerns of increased premature discontinuations in higher age groups. The present study was undertaken to evaluate whether the proportion of included elderly individuals (PE) is independently associated with participant retention in rheumatology trials. METHODS: Medline was searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA) of any intervention (years 2016 and 2017). PE was either extracted from the research manuscript or estimated from an assumed (truncated) normal distribution. We used mixed-effects meta-regression models including several covariates to assess whether there is an independent association between PE and participant retention. Using sensitivity analyses, we evaluated whether associations were connected to attrition due to lack of efficacy (LoE) or adverse events (AE). RESULTS: In total, 243 RCTs comprising >48,000 participants were included. Pooled participant retention was 88%. PE was not associated with retention in the unadjusted (P = 0.97) or adjusted (all: P ≥ 0.14) models. Of all covariates, only study duration and type of intervention were associated with retention (both: P < 0.001). Post hoc analyses allowing for interaction revealed a small but statistically significant positive association between PE and retention in pharmacologic interventions and a negative association in physical/physiotherapeutic interventions (overall P for interaction = 0.05). No associations were found for PE and attrition due to LoE or AE. CONCLUSION: Participant retention in RA and OA trials is high and not associated with PE. These findings should motivate investigators to include more elderly participants in rheumatology trials.


Assuntos
Retenção nos Cuidados , Reumatologia , Fatores Etários , Idoso , Artrite Reumatoide/terapia , Humanos , Osteoartrite/terapia , Análise de Regressão
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA