Mobile health technologies for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to perform a standardized review of available mobile health (mHealth) applications (apps) for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and to conduct a systematic review of the literature on mHealth technologies in SLE. METHODS: Google Play and AppStore in the United States of America were queried and the quality of eligible mHealth apps was assessed using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). Web of Science, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched from inception through June 2019. RESULTS: Of 324 mHealth apps found, 20 were eligible for inclusion; 10 focused on education, 7 offered tools to track patient-reported symptoms, 5 included interactive online communities, and 1 enabled emoji sharing. The reviewed apps scored poorly on the MARS quality scale with a mean score 2.3 (0.6) out of 5. Of 1147 studies identified in the literature review, 21 were eligible for inclusion; 11 studies (52.4%) focused on the development and use of mHealth for providing patient information, while only 2 (9.5%) were randomized trials of mHealth interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is growing interest in the development of mHealth technologies to support SLE patients, currently available tools are of poor quality and limited functionality, and the literature examining this area is sparse.

OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee, hip, and polyarticular osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To update and expand upon prior Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) guidelines by developing patient-focused treatment recommendations for individuals with Knee, Hip, and Polyarticular osteoarthritis (OA) that are derived from expert consensus and based on objective review of high-quality meta-analytic data. METHODS: We sought evidence for 60 unique interventions. A systematic search of all relevant databases was conducted from inception through July 2018. After abstract and full-text screening by two independent reviewers, eligible studies were matched to PICO questions. Data were extracted and meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan software. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence Profiles were compiled using the GRADEpro web application. Voting for Core Treatments took place first. Four subsequent voting sessions took place via anonymous online survey, during which Panel members were tasked with voting to produce recommendations for all joint locations and comorbidity classes. We designated non-Core treatments to Level 1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, or 5, based on the percentage of votes in favor, in addition to the strength of the recommendation. RESULTS: Core Treatments for Knee OA included arthritis education and structured land-based exercise programs with or without dietary weight management. Core Treatments for Hip and Polyarticular OA included arthritis education and structured land-based exercise programs. Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were strongly recommended for individuals with Knee OA (Level 1A). For individuals with gastrointestinal comorbidities, COX-2 inhibitors were Level 1B and NSAIDs with proton pump inhibitors Level 2. For individuals with cardiovascular comorbidities or frailty, use of any oral NSAID was not recommended. Intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, IA hyaluronic acid, and aquatic exercise were Level 1B/Level 2 treatments for Knee OA, dependent upon comorbidity status, but were not recommended for individuals with Hip or Polyarticular OA. The use of Acetaminophen/Paracetamol (APAP) was conditionally not recommended (Level 4A and 4B), and the use of oral and transdermal opioids was strongly not recommended (Level 5). A treatment algorithm was constructed in order to guide clinical decision-making for a variety of patient profiles, using recommended treatments as input for each decision node. CONCLUSION: These guidelines offer comprehensive and patient-centered treatment profiles for individuals with Knee, Hip, and Polyarticular OA. The treatment algorithm will facilitate individualized treatment decisions regarding the management of OA.

Non-pharmacologic therapies for systemic lupus erythematosus.

BACKGROUND: Non-pharmacologic therapies have been deemed as potentially beneficial for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. We conducted an updated review to determine the effects of these therapies to inform practice. METHODS: A literature search was performed using PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, Cochrane, PsychINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from inception until August 2018. We included randomized controlled trials of non-pharmacologic therapies in systemic lupus erythematosus patients with sample size ≥10. Systemic lupus erythematosus was defined by 1982 or 1997 American College of Rheumatology criteria. Studies were synthesized separately by patient-reported outcomes and disease activity. Due to the heterogeneity of interventions and comparisons, a meta-analysis was not performed. RESULTS: A total of 15 randomized controlled trials involving 846 participants met the inclusion criteria. Of the 15 trials, eight used exercise interventions, six used psychological interventions (one group psychotherapy, three cognitive behavioral therapies, one psychoeducation, one mindfulness-based cognitive therapy) and one used electro-acupuncture. Five of 15 studies utilized control groups consisting of usual medical care. Other studies included control interventions of relaxation, attention placebo, symptom monitoring support, education, minimal needling, isotonic and resistance exercise. Compared with the control conditions, non-pharmacological interventions were associated with a significant improvement in fatigue in three out of six studies. Three out of eight studies reported improved anxiety and depression, and one study reported improved pain after interventions. Seven out of 11 studies reported improvement in overall quality of life in at least one domain of the Short-Form Health Survey. Of note, no studies demonstrated an improvement in disease activity after 5-52 weeks of non-pharmacological therapies. CONCLUSION: This review showed promising results for physical exercise and psychological interventions as adjuncts to traditional medical therapy for improvement in fatigue, depression, pain and quality of life for systemic lupus erythematosus. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials with longer follow-up periods are warranted.

Are bisphosphonates efficacious in knee osteoarthritis? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To clarify the effects of bisphosphonates in knee osteoarthritis (OA) using an up-to-date meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). DESIGN: The protocol is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017073449). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database from inception until August 2017. We included only RCTs comparing any bisphosphonates vs placebo in knee OA patients and reporting validated pain and function scales, radiographic progression, and adverse events (AEs) outcomes. We excluded studies using active comparators or concomitant medications besides non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen. We calculated standardized mean differences (SMDs) to account for variation in outcome scales. Random effects meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: We included seven RCTs (3013 patients, 69% female); most patients (N = 2767) received oral risedronate. No pain or function outcomes, regardless of dose, route, time point or measuring instrument, revealed statistically significant results (end of trial pain SMD = -0.16 [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.34, 0.02]). Similarly, we found no statistically significant effect on radiographic progression (risk ratio = 0.98 [95% CI: 0.77, 1.26]). One small RCT in patients with bone marrow lesions (BMLs) suggested a reduction in BML size at 6 months. Bisphosphonates displayed good tolerability, with no statistically significant differences in AE outcomes vs placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to prior reviews, our analysis showed that bisphosphonates neither provide symptomatic relief nor defer radiographic progression in knee OA. However, these agents may still be beneficial in certain subsets of patients who display high rates of subchondral bone turnover. Future studies should be directed at defining such OA subsets and investigating the effects of bisphosphonates in those patients.

Pain and functional trajectories in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis over up to 12 weeks of exercise exposure.

OBJECTIVE: Exercise is the recommended treatment for knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, heterogeneous patterns in treatment response are poorly understood. Our purpose was to identify pain and functional trajectories from exercise interventions in knee OA, and to determine their association with baseline factors. METHODS: Prospective cohort of 171 participants (mean age 61 years; BMI 32 kg/m2, 71% female; 57% white) with symptomatic knee OA from a randomized trial comparing 12-week Tai Chi and Physical Therapy. We analyzed weekly Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain (0-500) and function (0-1700) scores using group-based trajectory models. Associations between baseline factors and trajectories were examined using multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: We identified four pain trajectories: Lower-Early Improvement (43%), Moderate-Early Improvement (32%), Higher-Delayed Improvement (15%), and Higher-No Improvement (10%). We found similar trajectories for function, except that the lower function trajectories diverged into gradual (12%) or delayed-improvement (15%). Compared with the Lower-Early Improvement pain trajectory, moderate and higher trajectories were associated with poorer physical and psychosocial health. A similar pattern of associations were found among the function trajectories. CONCLUSIONS: We found four distinct trajectories for pain and function over up to 12-weeks of exercise interventions. While most participants experienced improvements over a short-term exposure, subgroups with greater baseline pain/physical disability had either gradual, delayed, or no improvements. These findings help disentangle the heterogeneity of treatment response and may advance patient-centered care in knee OA.

Comparative safety profile of hyaluronic acid products for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Intra-articular (IA) hyaluronic acid (HA) is considered a safer alternative to oral Non-Steroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids for knee osteoarthritis (OA). A recent review raised potential safety concerns about HA, warranting further review of safety outcomes. We examined the risks of HA compared with IA placebo and investigated whether the risks vary among individual HA preparations. METHODS: We searched all relevant databases from inception to October 2015 and sought unpublished data. We included all knee OA trials which compared any of the 18 HA products and reported on adverse events (AEs) and withdrawals. We calculated odds ratios for safety data reported at the longest follow-up. Network meta-analysis was performed using a Bayesian hierarchical random effects model for mixed multiple treatment comparisons. RESULTS: We identified 74 studies involving 13,032 participants aged between 45 and 75 years. The proportion of women ranged from 28% to 100%. The overall incidence of local reactions reported across all products was 8.5%. Commonly reported AEs were transient local reactions, such as pain, swelling and arthralgia, which subsided rapidly. None of the HA products were statistically significantly different from IA placebo or from each other with regard to incidence of AEs. Three treatment-related serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported among 9214 participants. CONCLUSIONS: Given the very low incidence of any particular AEs, we conclude that HA products are relatively well tolerated. These products have a similar safety profile compared to each other. This information along with the comparative effectiveness profile and relative cost would be helpful for clinicians in delivering individualized patient care.

OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop concise, up-to-date, patient-focused, evidence-based, expert consensus guidelines for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA), intended to inform patients, physicians, and allied healthcare professionals worldwide. METHOD: Thirteen experts from relevant medical disciplines (primary care, rheumatology, orthopedics, physical therapy, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and evidence-based medicine), three continents and ten countries (USA, UK, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, Japan, and Canada) and a patient representative comprised the Osteoarthritis Guidelines Development Group (OAGDG). Based on previous OA guidelines and a systematic review of the OA literature, 29 treatment modalities were considered for recommendation. Evidence published subsequent to the 2010 OARSI guidelines was based on a systematic review conducted by the OA Research Society International (OARSI) evidence team at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, USA. Medline, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were initially searched in first quarter 2012 and last searched in March 2013. Included evidence was assessed for quality using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) criteria, and published criticism of included evidence was also considered. To provide recommendations for individuals with a range of health profiles and OA burden, treatment recommendations were stratified into four clinical sub-phenotypes. Consensus recommendations were produced using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Delphi voting process. Treatments were recommended as Appropriate, Uncertain, or Not Appropriate, for each of four clinical sub-phenotypes and accompanied by 1-10 risk and benefit scores. RESULTS: Appropriate treatment modalities for all individuals with knee OA included biomechanical interventions, intra-articular corticosteroids, exercise (land-based and water-based), self-management and education, strength training, and weight management. Treatments appropriate for specific clinical sub-phenotypes included acetaminophen (paracetamol), balneotherapy, capsaicin, cane (walking stick), duloxetine, oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; COX-2 selective and non-selective), and topical NSAIDs. Treatments of uncertain appropriateness for specific clinical sub-phenotypes included acupuncture, avocado soybean unsaponfiables, chondroitin, crutches, diacerein, glucosamine, intra-articular hyaluronic acid, opioids (oral and transdermal), rosehip, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and ultrasound. Treatments voted not appropriate included risedronate and electrotherapy (neuromuscular electrical stimulation). CONCLUSION: These evidence-based consensus recommendations provide guidance to patients and practitioners on treatments applicable to all individuals with knee OA, as well as therapies that can be considered according to individualized patient needs and preferences.

Therapeutic trajectory following intra-articular hyaluronic acid injection in knee osteoarthritis--meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the therapeutic trajectory of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IAHA) vs placebo for knee osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: Our data sources include Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, BIOSIS, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Cochrane database; hand searched reviews, manuscripts, and, supplements; author contacts for unpublished data. Randomized trials that reported effects of IAHA vs placebo on knee OA were selected based on inclusion criteria. We computed effect sizes for change from baseline at 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24 weeks, using Bayesian random effects model. We performed multivariate analyses adjusting for correlation between time points. Meta-regressions were performed adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: The 54 eligible trials included 7545 participants. The conduct and quality of these trials varied in number of aspects. The effect size (ES) favored IAHA by week 4 (0.31; 95% CI 0.17, 0.45), reaching peak at week 8 (0.46; 0.28, 0.65), and then trending downwards, with a residual detectable effect at week 24 (0.21; 0.10, 0.31). This therapeutic trajectory was consistent among the subset of high quality trials and on multivariate analysis adjusting for correlation between time points. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis highlights a therapeutic trajectory of IAHA for knee OA pain over 6 months post-intervention. With this additional perspective, we are able to infer that IAHA is efficacious by 4 weeks, reaches its peak effectiveness at 8 weeks and exerts a residual detectable at 24 weeks. On the other hand, the peak effect size (0.46; 0.28, 0.65), is greater than published effects from other OA analgesics [acetaminophen (ES=0.13; 0.04, 0.22); NSAIDs (ES=0.29; 0.22, 0.35); COX-2 inhibitors (ES=0.44; 0.33, 0.55)]. An effect size above 0.20 is considered to be clinically relevant on an individual patient basis in chronic pain conditions such as knee OA. Thus, its properties could have utility for certain clinical situations, or in combination with other therapies.

It Is the Time to Think About a Treat-to-Target Strategy for Knee Osteoarthritis.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a rheumatic disease that affects the well-being of the patient, compromises physical and mental function, and affects other quality of life aspects. In the literature, several evidence-based guidelines and recommendations for the management of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) are available. These recommendations list the different therapeutic options rather than addressing a hierarchy between the treatments and defining the real target. Therefore, a question arises: are patients and physicians satisfied with the current management of KOA? Actually, the answer may be negative, thus suggesting a change in our therapeutic strategies. In this article, we address this challenge by suggesting that it is time to develop a "treat to target strategy" for KOA.

OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee, hip, and polyarticular osteoarthritis

To update and expand upon prior Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) guidelines by developing patient-focused treatment recommendations for individuals with Knee, Hip, and Polyarticular osteoarthritis (OA) that are derived from expert consensus and based on objective review of high-quality meta-analytic data. We sought evidence for 60 unique interventions. A systematic search of all relevant databases was conducted from inception through July 2018. After abstract and full-text screening by two independent reviewers, eligible studies were matched to PICO questions. Data were extracted and meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan software. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence Profiles were compiled using the GRADEpro web application. Voting for Core Treatments took place first. Four subsequent voting sessions took place via anonymous online survey, during which Panel members were tasked with voting to produce recommendations for all joint locations and comorbidity classes. We designated non-Core treatments to Level 1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, or 5, based on the percentage of votes in favor, in addition to the strength of the recommendation. Core Treatments for Knee OA included arthritis education and structured land-based exercise programs with or without dietary weight management. Core Treatments for Hip and Polyarticular OA included arthritis education and structured land-based exercise programs. Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were strongly recommended for individuals with Knee OA (Level 1A). For individuals with gastrointestinal comorbidities, COX-2 inhibitors were Level 1B and NSAIDs with proton pump inhibitors Level 2. For individuals with cardiovascular comorbidities or frailty, use of any oral NSAID was not recommended. Intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, IA hyaluronic acid, and aquatic exercise were Level 1B/Level 2 treatments for Knee OA, dependent upon comorbidity status, but were not recommended for individuals with Hip or Polyarticular OA. The use of Acetaminophen/Paracetamol (APAP) was conditionally not recommended (Level 4A and 4B), and the use of oral and transdermal opioids was strongly not recommended (Level 5). A treatment algorithm was constructed in order to guide clinical decision-making for a variety of patient profiles, using recommended treatments as input for each decision node. These guidelines offer comprehensive and patient-centered treatment profiles for individuals with Knee, Hip, and Polyarticular OA. The treatment algorithm will facilitate individualized treatment decisions regarding the management of OA.

2015 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE: To develop a new evidence-based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We conducted systematic reviews to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatment options. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence. We employed a group consensus process to grade the strength of recommendations (either strong or conditional). A strong recommendation indicates that clinicians are certain that the benefits of an intervention far outweigh the harms (or vice versa). A conditional recommendation denotes uncertainty over the balance of benefits and harms and/or more significant variability in patient values and preferences. RESULTS: The guideline covers the use of traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in early (<6 months) and established (≥6 months) RA. In addition, it provides recommendations on using a treat-to-target approach, tapering and discontinuing medications, and the use of biologic agents and DMARDs in patients with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, malignancy, and serious infections. The guideline addresses the use of vaccines in patients starting/receiving DMARDs or biologic agents, screening for tuberculosis in patients starting/receiving biologic agents or tofacitinib, and laboratory monitoring for traditional DMARDs. The guideline includes 74 recommendations: 23% are strong and 77% are conditional. CONCLUSION: This RA guideline should serve as a tool for clinicians and patients (our two target audiences) for pharmacologic treatment decisions in commonly encountered clinical situations. These recommendations are not prescriptive, and the treatment decisions should be made by physicians and patients through a shared decision-making process taking into account patients' values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.