Canadian Rheumatology Association Living Guidelines for Rheumatoid Arthritis: Update #2.

We have updated the Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) guidelines for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with 3 recommendations for the use of glucocorticoids (GCs). The recommendations address the use of short-term GCs for RA flares or as bridging therapy when disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are initiated or changed, and the use of long-term GCs as adjuncts to DMARDs.

Impact of anti-rheumatic treatment on the individual components of the ACR composite score in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: real-world data.

OBJECTIVES: Standard criteria for measuring treatment efficacy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) include American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates, which require meeting a threshold of ≥20/50/70% improvement in several physician- and patient-reported measures. We aimed to evaluate the impact of csDMARDs, TNF inhibitors (TNFi), and tofacitinib (TOFA) on ACR components in real-life practice. METHODS: Clinical data of RA patients with a CDAI >10 at the time they started a treatment were pooled from two registries: Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI) and RHUMADATA. Endpoints included proportions of patients achieving: ACR20/50/70 responses, ≥20/50/70% improvements and mean percentage improvement in individual ACR components at Month 6. We also adjusted for potential confounders to compare impact of these medications on outcomes of interest. RESULTS: A total of 669 patients were included (csDMARD, n=157, TNFi, n=252; TOFA, n=260). An overall higher proportion in all three-medication groups achieved ≥20/50/70% improvement in primary ACR components vs. secondary components. Among secondary components, ≥20/50/70% improvement rates were numerically highest for PhGA and lowest for HAQ-DI and pain. Among ACR20/50/70 responders for all medications, the mean percentage improvement was more than 80% for primary components, and ranged from 30% to 80% for secondary components. A significantly lower proportion of patients in TNFi group achieved to at least 50% improvement in pain compared to TOFA after adjusting. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world practice, physician-reported measures contribute slightly more to overall ACR20/50/70 responses. Pain was the most important factor in achieving an ACR50 TOFA users, possibly reflecting the different effects of JAKi on pain.

Biologics initiation in moderate versus severe rheumatoid arthritis: real-world experience from a Canadian registry.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the treat-to-target experience, and quality of life measures of moderate and severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients initiating a biologic in a real-world setting of a publicly funded payer system. METHODS: Biologic naive RA patients who had initiated their first biologic while enrolled in the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative registry from 2008 to 2020 were selected if they had moderate (DAS28 >3.2 to ≤5.1) or severe (DAS28 >5.1) RA. Remission, LDA, DAS28, HAQ-DI, fatigue, sleep, drug persistence and characteristics associated with remission were assessed at 12 months post biologic initiation. RESULTS: Overall, 838 patients initiated their first biologic, 264 had moderate RA and 219 had severe RA. After 12 months, 44% moderate RA vs. 21% severe RA achieved remission (p<0.0001), and 59% moderate RA vs. 35% severe RA reached LDA (p<0.0001). Mean change (SD) from baseline in DAS28 was 2.2 (1.5) in severe RA vs. 1.4 (1.3) in moderate RA (p<0.0001), in fatigue score was 1.11 (3.2) in severe RA vs. 0.98 (3.2) in moderate RA (p<0.0001). Moderate disease at a biologic initiation was positively associated with remission (p=0.0016). Female gender (p=0.0170), and a higher HAQ-DI score at baseline (p=0.0042) were negatively associated with remission. Biologic persistence was 77% for moderate, and 73% for severe (p=0.2444). CONCLUSIONS: Severe RA patients had higher mean score improvements in DAS28, sleep and fatigue. Moderate RA was more likely to reach remission or LDA. Both groups had similar biologic persistence at 12 months. These findings highlight the importance of the treat-to-target approach and its potential underutilisation in the real-world setting.

Factors affecting the discrepancy between patient and physician global assessment in early rheumatoid arthritis: The Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the prevalence and factors affecting the discrepancy between patient global assessment (PtGA) and physician global assessment of disease activity (PhGA) in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) at enrolment and after one year. METHODS: Patients from the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI) were included. The discrepancy between PtGA and PhGA was calculated by simple subtraction (PtGA-PhGA). An absolute value ≥30 was considered discordant. Linear regression analysis was used to assess factors affecting PtGA, PhGA, and PtGA-PhGA discrepancy at enrolment and 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 531 patients with mean disease duration of 0.3 years were analysed. The discordance prevalence was 22.4% at enrolment and 20.3% after one year. PtGA was higher in the majority of the discordant cases. Multivariable regression analysis showed higher PtGA was significantly associated with higher pain score, tender joint counts (TJC28), ESR, and fatigue at enrolment and 1-year follow-up while PtGA was associated with higher swollen joint counts (SJC28) only at enrolment. Similar associations were found for PhGA, with the exception of fatigue, which was not a significant factor at one year. Multivariable analysis showed that higher discrepancy between PtGA-PhGA was associated with lower SJC28 and higher pain score at enrolment and lower SJC28 and higher pain and fatigue score at 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Significant PtGA-PhGA discrepancy was found in approximately one-quarter of early RA patients. In the majority of these patients, PtGA was higher than PhGA. The main predictors of PtGA and PhGA remained the same after one year.

Medical cannabis use by rheumatology patients in routine clinical care: results from The Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative.

OBJECTIVES: Medical cannabis is often used to alleviate common symptoms in patients with chronic conditions. With cannabis legalisation in Canada and easier access, it is important that rheumatologists understand its potential impact on their practice. Among patients attending rheumatology clinics in Ontario we assessed: the prevalence of medical cannabis use; symptoms treated; rheumatologists' perceptions. METHODS: Eight rheumatology clinics recruited consecutive adult patients in a 3-part medical cannabis survey: the first completed by rheumatologists; the second by all patients; the third by medical cannabis users. Student's t-test and Chi-square test were used to compare medical cannabis users to never users. RESULTS: 799 patients participated, 163 (20.4%) currently using medical cannabis or within <2 years and 636 never users; most had rheumatoid arthritis (37.8%) or osteoarthritis (34.0%). Compared to never users, current/past-users were younger; more likely to be taking opioids/anti-depressants, have psychiatric/gastrointestinal disorders, and have used recreational cannabis (p<0.05); had higher physician (2.9 vs. 2.1) and patient (6.0 vs. 4.2) global scores, and pain (6.2 vs. 4.7) (p<0.0001). Pain (95.5%), sleeping (82.3%) and anxiety (58.9%) were the most commonly treated symptoms; 78.2% of current/past-users reported medical cannabis was at least somewhat effective. Most rheumatologists reported being uncomfortable to authorise medical cannabis, primarily due to lack of evidence, knowledge, and product standardisation. CONCLUSIONS: Medical cannabis use among rheumatology patients in Ontario was two-fold higher than that reported for the general population of similar age. Use was associated with more severe disease, pain, and prior recreational use. Reported lack of research, knowledge, and product standardisation were barriers for rheumatologist use authorisation.

Differential influence of Clinical Disease Activity Index components based on disease state in rheumatoid arthritis patients: real-world results from the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative.

OBJECTIVES: The Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) is routinely used in clinical care when treating-to-target RA patients. Previous validation studies have looked at CDAI's overall performance; this analysis aimed at evaluating its properties by disease state and identifying drivers of variance. METHODS: RA patients enrolled in the OBRI registry, with available follow-up of ≥6 months were included. Construct validity of CDAI was assessed with principal component analysis; internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha (α); correlational validity with Spearman's rho (ρ); agreement in disease state classification with the kappa statistic. Stratification by disease states was performed. RESULTS: CDAI correlation with DAS28 was strong when CDAI>10 (ρ=0.79), moderate when CDAI≤10 (ρ=0.56) or 2.810, CDAI was able to be reduced to a single component with patient global assessment (PtGA) having the lowest loading. When CDAI≤10, two distinct components were identified: (1) PtGA and physician global assessment; (2) SJC28 and TJC28. Moderate levels (α=0.71) of internal consistency were observed when CDAI>10 but low when CDAI≤10 (α=0.23), 2.8

Time to remission in swollen joints is far faster than patient reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: results from the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI).

OBJECTIVES: RA patients are often not in remission due to patient global assessment of disease activity (PtGA) included in disease activity indices. The aim was to assess the lag of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after remission measured by clinical disease activity index (CDAI) or swollen joint count (SJC28). METHODS: RA patients enrolled in the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative registry not in low disease state at baseline with at ≥6 months of follow-up, were included. Low disease state was defined as CDAI ≤ 10, SJC28 ≤ 2, PtGA ≤ 2cm, pain score ≤ 2cm, or fatigue ≤ 2cm. Remission included CDAI ≤ 2.8, SJC28 ≤ 1, PtGA ≤ 1cm, pain score ≤ 1cm, or fatigue ≤ 1cm. Time to first low disease state/remission based on each definition was calculated overall and stratified by early vs established RA. RESULTS: A total of 986 patients were included (age 57.4 (12.9), disease duration 8.3 (9.9) years, 80% women). The median (95% CI) time in months to CDAI ≤ 10 was 12.4 (11.4, 13.6), SJC28 ≤ 2 was 9 (8.2, 10), PtGA ≤ 2cm was 18.9 (16.1, 22), pain ≤ 2cm was 24.5 (19.4, 30.5), and fatigue ≤ 2cm was 30.4 (24.8, 31.7). For remission, the median (95% CI) time in months to CDAI ≤ 2.8 was 46.5 (42, 54.1), SJC28 ≤ 1 was 12.5 (11.4, 13.4), PtGA ≤ 1cm was 39.6 (34.6, 44.8), pain ≤ 1cm was 54.7 (43.6, 57.5) and fatigue ≤ 1cm was 42.6 (36.8, 48). Time to achieving low disease state and remission was generally significantly shorter in early RA compared with established RA with the exception of fatigue. CONCLUSION: Time to achieving low disease state or remission based on PROs was considerably longer compared with swollen joint count. Treating to a composite target in RA could lead to inappropriate changes in DMARDs.

Interventions for tophi in gout.

BACKGROUND: Tophi develop in untreated or uncontrolled gout. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of non-surgical and surgical treatments for the management of tophi in gout. SEARCH METHODS: We updated the search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase databases to 28 August 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials examining interventions for tophi in gout in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included one trial in our original review. We added four more trials (1796 participants) in this update. One had three arms; pegloticase infusion every two weeks (biweekly), monthly pegloticase infusion (pegloticase infusion alternating with placebo infusion every two weeks) and placebo. Two studies looked at lesinurad 200 mg or 400 mg in combination with allopurinol. One trial studied lesinurad 200 mg or 400 mg in combination with febuxostat. One trial compared febuxostat 80 mg and 120 mg to allopurinol. Two trials were at unclear risk of performance and detection bias due to lack of information on blinding of participants and personnel. All other trials were at low risk of bias. Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision; one study; 79 participants) showed that biweekly pegloticase resolved tophi in 21/52 participants compared with 2/27 on placebo (risk ratio (RR) 5.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.38 to 21.54; number needed to treat for a benefit (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 2 to 6). Similar proportions of participants receiving biweekly pegloticase (80/85) had an adverse event compared to placebo (41/43) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.07). However, more participants on biweekly pegloticase (15/85) withdrew due to an adverse event compared to placebo (1/43) (RR 7.59, 95% CI 1.04 to 55.55; number needed to treat for a harm (NNTH) 7, 95% CI 4 to 16). More participants on monthly pegloticase (11/52) showed complete resolution of tophi compared with placebo (2/27) (RR 2.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 11.97; NNTB 8, 95% CI 4 to 91). Similar numbers of participants on monthly pegloticase (84/84) had an adverse event compared to placebo (41/43) (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.14). More participants on monthly pegloticase (16/84) withdrew due to adverse events compared to placebo (1/43) (RR 8.19, 95% CI 1.12 to 59.71; NNTH 6, 95% CI 4 to 14). Infusion reaction was the most common reason for withdrawal. Moderate-certainty evidence (2 studies; 103 participants; downgraded for imprecision) showed no clinically significant difference for complete resolution of target tophus in the lesinurad 200 mg plus allopurinol arm (11/53) compared to the placebo plus allopurinol arm (16/50) (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.57), or in the lesinurad 400 mg plus allopurinol arm (12/48) compared to the placebo plus allopurinol arm (16/50) (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.49). An extension study examined lesinurad 200 mg or 400 mg in combination with febuxostat, or placebo (low-certainty evidence, downgraded for indirectness and imprecision). Participants on lesinurad in the original study continued (CONT) on the same dose. Lesinurad 400 mg plus febuxostat may be beneficial for tophi resolution; 43/65 in the lesinurad 400 mg CONT arm compared to 38/64 in the lesinurad 200 mg CONT arm had tophi resolution (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.46). Lesinurad 400 mg plus febuxostat may result in no difference in adverse events; 57/65 in the lesinurad 400 mg CONT arm had an adverse event compared to 50/64 in lesinurad 200 mg CONT arm (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.32). Lesinurad 400 mg plus febuxostat may result in no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events; 10/65 participants in the lesinurad 400 mg CONT arm withdrew due to an adverse event compared to 10/64 participants in the lesinurad 200 mg CONT arm (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.20). Lesinurad 400 mg plus febuxostat may result in no difference in mean serum uric acid (sUA), which was 3 mg/dl in the lesinurad 400 mg CONT group compared to 3.9 mg/dl in the lesinurad 200 mg CONT group (mean difference -0.90, 95% CI -1.51 to -0.29). Participants who were not on lesinurad in the original study were randomised (CROSS) to lesinurad 200 mg or 400 mg, both in combination with febuxostat. Low-certainty evidence downgraded for indirectness and imprecision showed that lesinurad 400 mg (CROSS) may result in tophi resolution (17/34) compared to lesinurad 200 mg (CROSS) (14/33) (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.98). Lesinurad 400 mg in combination with febuxostat may result in no difference in adverse events (33/34 in the lesinurad 400 mg CROSS arm compared to 27/33 in the lesinurad 200 mg (CROSS); RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41). Lesinurad 400 mg plus febuxostat may result in no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events, 5/34 in the lesinurad 400 mg CROSS arm withdrew compared to 2/33 in the lesinurad 200 mg CROSS arm (RR 2.43, 95% CI 0.51 to 11.64). Lesinurad 400 mg plus febuxostat results in no difference in sUA (4.2 mg/dl in lesinurad 400 mg CROSS) compared to lesinurad 200 mg (3.8 mg/dl in lesinurad 200 mg CROSS), mean difference 0.40 mg/dl, 95% CI -0.75 to 1.55. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-certainty evidence showed that pegloticase is probably beneficial for resolution of tophi in gout. Although there was little difference in adverse events when compared to placebo, participants on pegloticase had more withdrawals due to adverse events. Lesinurad 400 mg plus febuxostat may be beneficial for tophi resolution compared with lesinurad 200 mg plus febuxostat; there was no difference in adverse events between these groups. We were unable to determine whether lesinurad plus febuxostat is more effective than placebo. Lesinurad (400 mg or 200 mg) plus allopurinol is probably not beneficial for tophi resolution, and there was no difference in adverse events between these groups. RCTs on interventions for managing tophi in gout are needed, and the lack of trial data is surprising given that allopurinol is a well-established treatment for gout.

Treatment patterns in rheumatoid arthritis after discontinuation of methotrexate: data from the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI).

OBJECTIVES: In active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX), guidelines support adding or switching to another conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (csDMARD) and/or a biologic DMARD (bDMARD). The purpose of this analysis was to describe treatment practices in routine care and to evaluate determinants of regimen selection after MTX discontinuation. METHODS: Biologic-naïve patients in the Ontario Best Practice Research Initiatives registry discontinuing MTX due to primary/secondary failure, adverse events, or patient/physician decision were included. RESULTS: Of 313 patients discontinuing MTX, 102 (32.6%) were on MTX monotherapy, 156 (49.8%) on double, and 55 (17.6%) on multiple csDMARDs. Patients on MTX monotherapy were older than patients on double or multiple csDMARDs (p=0.013), less likely to have joint erosions (p=0.009) and had lower patient global assessment (p=0.046) at MTX discontinuation. Post-MTX discontinuation, 169 (54.0%) transitioned to, or added new DMARD(s) (new csDMARD(s): 139 [44.4%]; bDMARD: 30 [9.6%]), and 144 (46.0%) opted for no new DMARD treatment. Patients on MTX monotherapy transitioning monotherapy, whereas patients on combination csDMARDs switched more to new csDMARDs and bDMARD combination therapy. Early RA (adjOR [95%CI]: 3.07 [1.40-6.72]) and treatment with multiple csDMARDs vs. MTX monotherapy (4.15 [1.35-12.8]) at MTX discontinuation were significant predictors of transitioning to or adding new csDMARD(s)/bDMARD treatment versus opting for no new DMARD treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in subsequent treatment patterns exist between patients discontinuing MTX when used as monotherapy versus in combination with other csDMARDs where the former are more likely to use a subsequent monotherapy treatment.

Comprehensive Nonsurgical Treatment Versus Self-directed Care to Improve Walking Ability in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of a comprehensive nonsurgical training program to a self-directed approach in improving walking ability in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Academic hospital outpatient clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Participants (N=104) with neurogenic claudication and imaging confirmed LSS were randomized. The mean age was 70.6 years, 57% were women, 84% had leg symptoms for >12 months, and the mean maximum walking capacity was 328.7 m. INTERVENTIONS: A 6-week structured comprehensive training program or a 6-week self-directed program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Continuous walking distance in meters measured by the Self-Paced Walk Test (SPWT) and proportion of participants achieving at least 30% improvement (minimally clinically important difference [MCID]) in the SPWT at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), ODI walk score, and the Short-Form General Health Survey subscales. RESULTS: A total of 48 versus 51 participants who were randomized to comprehensive (n=51) or self-directed (n=53) treatment, respectively, received the intervention and 89% of the total study sample completed the study. At 6 months, the adjusted mean difference in walking distance from baseline was 421.0 m (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 181.4-660.6), favoring the comprehensive program and 82% of participants in the comprehensive group and 63% in the self-directed group achieved the MCID (adjusted relative risk, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.7; P=.03). Both primary treatment effects persisted at 12 months favoring the comprehensive program. At 6 months, the ODI walk score and at 12 months the ZCQ, Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey-physical function and -bodily pain scores showed greater improvements favoring the comprehensive program. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive conservative program demonstrated superior, large, and sustained improvements in walking ability and can be a safe nonsurgical treatment option for patients with neurogenic claudication due to LSS.

Treatment preferences of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: a discrete-choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the preferences of patients with early RA (ERA) with the benefits and harms of DMARDs. METHODS: We assessed patients' preferences using a discrete-choice experiment, an experimentally designed survey to measure trade-offs. Consecutive adult patients with ERA (<2 years since diagnosis) were presented 13 different sets of three treatment options described by eight attributes (clinical outcomes, risks and dosing regimens) and asked to choose one. From patients' responses we estimated the average importance of each attribute and explored preference heterogeneity through latent-class analysis. RESULTS: A total of 152 patients completed the survey (86% response rate): mean age 52 years, 63% female, disease duration 7.8 months. Treatment benefits (increasing the chance of a major symptom improvement and reducing the chance of serious joint damage) were most important. Of potential adverse events, a small risk of serious infections/possible increased risk of cancer was most important. Patients were willing to accept this risk for a 15% absolute increase in the chance of a major symptom improvement. Patients had an aversion to i.v. therapy, but were relatively indifferent to other dosing regimens. Through latent-class analysis, we identified two patient groups: 54% who were more risk averse, particularly to a possible risk of cancer/infection, and others who were highly benefit-driven. CONCLUSION: On average, patients with ERA were risk tolerant, but important differences in preferences were identified. In particular, a subgroup of patients may prefer to avoid treatments with a possible increased risk of cancer/infection if other effective options are available.

Methotrexate monotherapy and methotrexate combination therapy with traditional and biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: A network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Methotrexate is considered the preferred disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, but controversy exists on the additional benefits and harms of combining methotrexate with other DMARDs. OBJECTIVES: To compare methotrexate and methotrexate-based DMARD combinations for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naïve to or with an inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate. METHODS: We systematically identified all randomised controlled trials with methotrexate monotherapy or in combination with any currently used conventional synthetic DMARD , biologic DMARDs, or tofacitinib. Three major outcomes (ACR50 response, radiographic progression and withdrawals due to adverse events) and multiple minor outcomes were evaluated. Treatment effects were summarized using Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses, separately for methotrexate-naïve and methotrexate-IR trials. Heterogeneity was explored through meta-regression and subgroup analyses. The risk of bias of each trial was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and trials at high risk of bias were excluded from the main analysis. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. A comparison between two treatments was considered statistically significant if its credible interval excluded the null effect, indicating >97.5% probability that one treatment was superior. MAIN RESULTS: 158 trials with over 37,000 patients were included. Methotrexate-naïve: Several treatment combinations with methotrexate were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: methotrexate + sulfasalazine + hydroxychloroquine ("triple therapy"), methotrexate + several biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab), and tofacitinib. The estimated probability of ACR50 response was similar between these treatments (range 56-67%, moderate to high quality evidence), compared with 41% for methotrexate. Methotrexate combined with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, or infliximab was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression (moderate to high quality evidence) but the estimated mean change over one year with all treatments was less than the minimal clinically important difference of five units on the Sharp-van der Heijde scale. Methotrexate + azathioprine had statistically more withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate, and triple therapy had statistically fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than methotrexate + infliximab (rate ratio 0.26, 95% credible interval: 0.06 to 0.91). Methotrexate-inadequate response: In patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate, several treatments were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: triple therapy (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + hydroxychloroquine (low quality evidence), methotrexate + leflunomide (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + intramuscular gold (very low quality evidence), methotrexate + most biologics (moderate to high quality evidence), and methotrexate + tofacitinib (high quality evidence). There was a 61% probability of an ACR50 response with triple therapy, compared to a range of 27% to 64% for the combinations of methotrexate + biologic DMARDs that were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate. No treatment was statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression. Methotrexate + cyclosporine and methotrexate + tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) had a statistically higher rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate and methotrexate + abatacept had a statistically lower rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than several treatments. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate to high quality evidence that combination therapy with methotrexate + sulfasalazine+ hydroxychloroquine (triple therapy) or methotrexate + most biologic DMARDs or tofacitinib were similarly effective in controlling disease activity and generally well tolerated in methotrexate-naïve patients or after an inadequate response to methotrexate. Methotrexate + some biologic DMARDs were superior to methotrexate in preventing joint damage in methotrexate-naïve patients, but the magnitude of these effects was small over one year.

Increased risk of mycobacterial infections associated with anti-rheumatic medications.

RATIONALE: Anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents and other anti-rheumatic medications increase the risk of TB in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Whether they increase the risk of infections with nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of anti-TNF therapy and other anti-rheumatic drugs on the risk of NTM disease and TB in older patients with RA. METHODS: Population-based nested case-control study among Ontario seniors aged ≥67 years with RA who were prescribed at least one anti-rheumatic medication between 2001 and 2011. We identified cases of TB and NTM disease microbiologically and identified drug exposures using linked prescription drug claims. We estimated ORs using conditional logistic regression, controlling for several potential confounders. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 56 269 older adults with RA, we identified 37 cases of TB and 211 cases of NTM disease; each case was matched to up to 10 controls. Individuals with TB or NTM disease were both more likely to be using anti-TNF therapy (compared with non-use); adjusted ORs (95% CIs) were 5.04 (1.27 to 20.0) and 2.19 (1.10 to 4.37), respectively. Exposure to leflunomide and other anti-rheumatic drugs with high immunosuppressing potential also were associated with both TB and NTM disease, while oral corticosteroids and hydroxychloroquine were associated with NTM disease. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-TNF use is associated with increased risk of both TB and NTM disease, but appears to be a relatively greater risk for TB. Several other anti-rheumatic drugs were also associated with mycobacterial infections.

Rheumatoid Arthritis Surveillance in Ontario: Monitoring the Burden, Quality of Care and Patient Outcomes through Linkage of Administrative Health Data.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is the most common chronic inflammatory joint disease. Using the Ontario administrative health data housed at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, researchers have quantified the population-level burden and epidemiology of RA, mapped its geographic distribution in relation to rheumatologist supply, studied trends in access to rheumatology care and treatment and evaluated patient outcomes. The findings highlight the excess morbidity and mortality associated with the growing burden of RA in the face of a strained rheumatology supply, and raise urgent questions about how best to meet the needs of Ontarians with RA.

Multinational evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of gout: integrating systematic literature review and expert opinion of a broad panel of rheumatologists in the 3e initiative.

We aimed to develop evidence-based multinational recommendations for the diagnosis and management of gout. Using a formal voting process, a panel of 78 international rheumatologists developed 10 key clinical questions pertinent to the diagnosis and management of gout. Each question was investigated with a systematic literature review. Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and abstracts from 2010-2011 European League Against Rheumatism and American College of Rheumatology meetings were searched in each review. Relevant studies were independently reviewed by two individuals for data extraction and synthesis and risk of bias assessment. Using this evidence, rheumatologists from 14 countries (Europe, South America and Australasia) developed national recommendations. After rounds of discussion and voting, multinational recommendations were formulated. Each recommendation was graded according to the level of evidence. Agreement and potential impact on clinical practice were assessed. Combining evidence and clinical expertise, 10 recommendations were produced. One recommendation referred to the diagnosis of gout, two referred to cardiovascular and renal comorbidities, six focused on different aspects of the management of gout (including drug treatment and monitoring), and the last recommendation referred to the management of asymptomatic hyperuricaemia. The level of agreement with the recommendations ranged from 8.1 to 9.2 (mean 8.7) on a 1-10 scale, with 10 representing full agreement. Ten recommendations on the diagnosis and management of gout were established. They are evidence-based and supported by a large panel of rheumatologists from 14 countries, enhancing their utility in clinical practice.

Interventions for tophi in gout.

BACKGROUND: Tophi develop in untreated or uncontrolled gout. Their presence can lead to severe and potentially fatal complications. To date there have been no systematic reviews focused on the management of tophi in gout. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of non-surgical and surgical treatments for the management of tophi in gout. SEARCH METHODS: We searched three databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE. We handsearched American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) abstracts from 2010 to 2011, references from included studies and trial registries. We completed the most recent search on 20 May 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials with quasi-randomised methods of allocating participants to treatment examining interventions for tophi in gout in adults. Possible interventions included urate-lowering pharmacological treatment (e.g. benzbromarone, probenecid, allopurinol, febuxostat, pegloticase), surgical removal or other interventions such as haemodialysis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data from titles, abstracts and selected studies for detailed review, and extracted data and risk of bias independently. Major outcomes were number of participants with complete resolution of tophi, number of study participant withdrawals due to adverse events, joint pain reduction, function, quality of life, serum urate normalisation and total adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: Only one study, at low risk of all biases, met the inclusion criteria. This was the pooled results from two RCTs (225 participants, 145 with tophi at baseline) randomised to one of three arms; pegloticase infusion every two weeks (biweekly), monthly pegloticase infusion (pegloticase infusion alternating with placebo infusion every two weeks) and placebo. Moderate-quality evidence from one study indicated that biweekly pegloticase 8 mg infusion reduced tophi in the subset of participants with tophi, but increased withdrawals due to adverse events in all participants, and monthly infusion appeared to result in less benefit.Biweekly pegloticase treatment resulted in resolution of tophi in 21/52 participants compared with 2/27 who received placebo (risk ratio (RR) 5.45, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.38 to 21.54; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3 (95% CI 2 to 6).Eleven of 52 participants with monthly pegloticase treatment had complete resolution of one or more tophi compared with 2/27 who received placebo (RR 2.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 11.97).Participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater, function, quality of life, serum urate normalisation, were reported for all participants but not separately for those with tophi; therefore, we did not include the results.Pegloticase administered biweekly resulted in more withdrawals due to adverse events compared with placebo (15/85 participants with pegloticase versus 1/43 participants with placebo; RR 7.59, 95% CI 1.04 to 55.55; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 7, 95% CI 4 to 17). Pegloticase administered monthly also resulted in more withdrawals due to adverse events than placebo (16/84 participants with pegloticase versus 1/43 participants with placebo; RR 8.19, 95% CI 1.12 to 59.71; NNTH 6, 95% CI 4 to 14). Most withdrawals were due to infusion reactions.Total adverse events were high in all treatment groups: 80/85 participants administered pegloticase biweekly reported an adverse event compared with 41/43 from the placebo group (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.07); 84/84 participants administered pegloticase monthly reported an adverse event versus 41/43 in the placebo group (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.14). As 80% of adverse events were due to flares of gout, probably unrelated to the drug treatment per se, this may explain the high rate of adverse events in the placebo group - who were essentially untreated. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This study showed pegloticase is probably beneficial in the management of tophi in gout, in terms of resolution of tophi, but with a high risk of adverse infusion reactions. However, there is a need for more RCT data considering other interventions, including surgical removal of tophi.

Uricosuric medications for chronic gout.

BACKGROUND: Uricosuric agents have long been used in the treatment of gout but there is little evidence regarding their benefit and safety in this condition. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of uricosuric medications in the treatment of chronic gout. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 4, 2013), Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid EMBASE for studies to the 13 May 2013. We also searched the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov and the 2011 to 2012 American College of Rheumatology and European League against Rheumatism abstracts. WE considered black box warnings and searched drug safety databases to identify and describe rare adverse events. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials (controlled clinical trials (CCTs)) that compared uricosuric medications (benzbromarone, probenecid or sulphinpyrazone) alone or in combination with another therapy (placebo or other active uric acid-lowering medication, or non-pharmacological treatment) in adults with chronic gout for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the studies for inclusion, extracted data and performed a risk of bias assessment. Main outcomes were frequency of acute gout attacks, serum urate normalisation, study participant withdrawal due to adverse events, total adverse events, pain reduction, function and tophus regression. MAIN RESULTS: The search identified four RCTs and one CCT that evaluated the benefit and safety of uricosurics for gout. One study (65 participants) compared benzbromarone with allopurinol for a duration of four months; one compared benzbromarone with allopurinol (36 participants) for a duration of nine to 24 months; one study (62 participants) compared benzbromarone with probenecid for two months and one study (74 participants) compared benzbromarone with probenecid. One study (37 participants) compared allopurinol with probenecid. No study was completely free from bias.Low-quality evidence from one study (55 participants) comparing benzbromarone with allopurinol indicated uncertain effects in terms of frequency of acute gout attacks (4% with benzbromarone versus 0% with allopurinol; risk ratio (RR) 3.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 84.13), while moderate-quality evidence from two studies (101 participants; treated for four to nine months) indicated similar proportions of participants achieving serum urate normalisation (73.9% with benzbromarone versus 60% with allopurinol; pooled RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.79). Low-quality evidence indicated uncertain differences in withdrawals due to adverse events (7.1% with benzbromarone versus 6.1% with allopurinol; pooled RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.28 to 5.62), and total adverse events (20% with benzbromarone versus 6.7% with allopurinol; RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.64 to 14.16). The study did not measure pain reduction, function and tophus regression.When comparing benzbromarone with probenecid, there was moderate-quality evidence based on one study (62 participants) that participants taking benzbromarone were more likely to achieve serum urate normalisation after two months (81.5% with benzbromarone versus 57.1% with probenecid; RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.00). This indicated that when compared with probenecid, five participants needed to be treated with benzbromarone in order to have one additional person achieve serum urate normalisation (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5). However, the second study reported no difference in the absolute decrease in serum urate between these groups after 12 weeks. Low-quality evidence from two studies (129 participants) indicated uncertain differences between treatments in the frequency of acute gout attacks (6.3% with benzbromarone versus 10.6% with probenecid; pooled RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.09 to 5.83); fewer withdrawals due to adverse events with benzbromarone (2% with benzbromarone versus 17% with probenecid; pooled RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.79, NNTB 7) and fewer total adverse events (21% with benzbromarone versus 47% with probenecid; pooled RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.74; NNTB 4). The studies did not measure pain reduction, function and tophus regression.Low-quality evidence based on one small CCT (37 participants) indicated uncertainty around the difference in the incidence of acute gout attacks between probenecid and allopurinol after 18 to 20 months' treatment (53% with probenecid versus 55% with allopurinol; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.75). The study did not measure or report the proportion achieving serum urate normalisation, pain reduction, function, tophus regression, withdrawal due to adverse events and total adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was moderate-quality evidence that there is probably no important difference between benzbromarone and allopurinol at achieving serum urate normalisation, but that benzbromarone is probably more successful than probenecid at achieving serum urate normalisation in people with gout. There is some uncertainty around the effect estimates, based on low-quality evidence from only one or two trials, on the number of acute gout attacks, the number of withdrawals due to adverse events or the total number of participants experiencing adverse events when comparing benzbromarone with allopurinol. However, when compared with probenecid, benzbromarone resulted in fewer withdrawals due to adverse events and fewer participants experiencing adverse events. Low-quality evidence from one small study indicated uncertain effects in the incidence of acute gout attacks when comparing probenecid with allopurinol therapy. We downgraded the evidence because of a possible risk of performance and other biases and imprecision.

Allopurinol for chronic gout.

BACKGROUND: Allopurinol, a xanthine oxidase inhibitor, is considered one of the most effective urate-lowering drugs and is frequently used in the treatment of chronic gout. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of allopurinol compared with placebo and other urate-lowering therapies for treating chronic gout. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE on 14 January 2014. We also handsearched the 2011 to 2012 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) abstracts, trial registers and regulatory agency drug safety databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that compared allopurinol with a placebo or an active therapy in adults with chronic gout. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted and analysed data using standard methods for Cochrane reviews. The major outcomes of interest were frequency of acute gout attacks, serum urate normalisation, pain, function, tophus regression, study participant withdrawal due to adverse events (AE) and serious adverse events (SAE). We assessed the quality of the body of evidence for these outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 trials (4531 participants) that compared allopurinol (various doses) with placebo (two trials); febuxostat (four trials); benzbromarone (two trials); colchicine (one trial); probenecid (one trial); continuous versus intermittent allopurinol (one trial) and different doses of allopurinol (one trial). Only one trial was at low risk of bias in all domains. We deemed allopurinol versus placebo the main comparison, and allopurinol versus febuxostat and versus benzbromarone as the most clinically relevant active comparisons and restricted reporting to these comparisons here.Moderate-quality evidence from one trial (57 participants) indicated allopurinol 300 mg daily probably does not reduce the rate of gout attacks (2/26 with allopurinol versus 3/25 with placebo; risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 3.52) but increases the proportion of participants achieving a target serum urate over 30 days (25/26 with allopurinol versus 0/25 with placebo, RR 49.11, 95% CI 3.15 to 765.58; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 1). In two studies (453 participants), there was no significant increase in withdrawals due to AE (6% with allopurinol versus 4% with placebo, RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.61 to 3.08) or SAE (2% with allopurinol versus 1% with placebo, RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.48 to 7.80). One trial reported no difference in pain reduction or tophus regression, but did not report outcome data or measures of variance sufficiently and we could not calculate the differences between groups. Neither trial reported function.Low-quality evidence from three trials (1136 participants) indicated there may be no difference in the incidence of acute gout attacks with allopurinol up to 300 mg daily versus febuxostat 80 mg daily over eight to 24 weeks (21% with allopurinol versus 23% with febuxostat, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.1); however more participants may achieve target serum urate level (four trials; 2618 participants) with febuxostat 80 mg daily versus allopurinol 300 mg daily (38% with allopurinol versus 70% with febuxostat, RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.65, NNTB with febuxostat 4). Two trials reported no difference in tophus regression between allopurinol and febuxostat over a 28- to 52-week period; but as the trialists did not provide variance, we could not calculate the mean difference between groups. The trials did not report pain reduction or function. Moderate-quality evidence from pooled data from three trials (2555 participants) comparing allopurinol up to 300 mg daily versus febuxostat 80 mg daily indicated no difference in the number of withdrawals due to AE (7% with allopurinol versus 8% with febuxostat, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.26) or SAE (4% with allopurinol versus 4% with febuxostat, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.82) over a 24- to 52-week period.Low-quality evidence from one trial (65 participants) indicated there may be no difference in the incidence of acute gout attacks with allopurinol up to 600 mg daily compared with benzbromarone up to 200 mg daily over a four-month period (0/30 with allopurinol versus 1/25 with benzbromarone, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.58). Based on the pooled results of two trials (102 participants), there was moderate-quality evidence of no probable difference in the proportion of participants achieving a target serum urate level with allopurinol versus benzbromarone (58% with allopurinol versus 74% with benzbromarone, RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.11). Low-quality evidence from two studies indicated there may be no difference in the number of participants who withdrew due to AE with allopurinol versus benzbromarone over a four- to nine-month period (6% with allopurinol versus 7% with benzbromarone, pooled RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.58). There were no SAEs. They did not report tophi regression, pain and function.All other comparisons were supported by small, single studies only, limiting conclusions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review found low- to moderate-quality evidence indicating similar effects on withdrawals due to AEs and SAEs and incidence of acute gout attacks when allopurinol (100 to 600 mg daily) was compared with placebo, benzbromarone (100 to 200 mg daily) or febuxostat (80 mg daily). There was moderate-quality evidence of little or no difference in the proportion of participants achieving target serum urate when allopurinol was compared with benzbromarone. However, allopurinol seemed more successful than placebo and may be less successful than febuxostat (80 mg daily) in achieving a target serum urate level (6 mg/dL or less; 0.36 mmol/L or less) based on moderate- to low-quality evidence. Single studies reported no difference in pain reduction when allopurinol (300 mg daily) was compared with placebo over 10 days, and no difference in tophus regression when allopurinol (200 to 300 mg daily) was compared with febuxostat (80 mg daily). None of the trials reported on function, health-related quality of life or participant global assessment of treatment success, where further research would be useful.

Herbal medicine for low-back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low-back pain (LBP) is a common condition and imposes a substantial economic burden upon people living in industrialized societies. A large proportion of people with chronic LBP use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), visit CAM practitioners, or both. Several herbal medicines have been purported for use in treating people with LBP. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of herbal medicine for non-specific LBP. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases up to September 2014: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Clinical Trials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Portal and PubMed; checked reference lists in review articles, guidelines and retrieved trials; and personally contacted individuals with expertise in this area. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining adults (over 18 years of age) suffering from acute, sub-acute, or chronic non-specific LBP. The interventions were herbal medicines which we defined as plants used for medicinal purposes in any form. Primary outcome measures were pain and function. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A library scientist with the Cochrane Back Review Group conducted the database searches. One review author contacted content experts and acquired relevant citations. We downloaded full references and abstracts of the identified studies and retrieved a hard copy of each study for final inclusion decisions. Two review authors assessed risk of bias, GRADE criteria (GRADE 2004), and CONSORT compliance and a random subset were compared to assessments by a third individual. Two review authors assessed clinical relevance and resolved any disagreements by consensus. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 RCTs (2050 participants) in this review. One trial on Solidago chilensis M. (Brazilian arnica) (20 participants) found very low quality evidence of reduction in perception of pain and improved flexibility with application of Brazilian arnica-containing gel twice daily as compared to placebo gel. Capsicum frutescens cream or plaster probably produces more favourable results than placebo in people with chronic LBP (three trials, 755 participants, moderate quality evidence). Based on current evidence, it is not clear whether topical capsicum cream is more beneficial for treating people with acute LBP compared to placebo (one trial, 40 participants, low quality evidence). Another trial found equivalence of C. frutescens cream to a homeopathic ointment (one trial, 161 participants, very low quality evidence). Daily doses of Harpagophytum procumbens (devil's claw), standardized to 50 mg or 100 mg harpagoside, may be better than placebo for short-term improvements in pain and may reduce use of rescue medication (two trials, 315 participants, low quality evidence). Another H. procumbens trial demonstrated relative equivalence to 12.5 mg per day of rofecoxib (Vioxx®) but was of very low quality (one trial, 88 participants, very low quality). Daily doses of Salix alba (white willow bark), standardized to 120 mg or 240 mg salicin, are probably better than placebo for short-term improvements in pain and rescue medication (two trials, 261 participants, moderate quality evidence). An additional trial demonstrated relative equivalence to 12.5 mg per day of rofecoxib (one trial, 228 participants) but was graded as very low quality evidence. S. alba minimally affected platelet thrombosis versus a cardioprotective dose of acetylsalicylate (one trial, 51 participants). One trial (120 participants) examining Symphytum officinale L. (comfrey root extract) found low quality evidence that a Kytta-Salbe comfrey extract ointment is better than placebo ointment for short-term improvements in pain as assessed by VAS. Aromatic lavender essential oil applied by acupressure may reduce subjective pain intensity and improve lateral spine flexion and walking time compared to untreated participants (one trial, 61 participants,very low quality evidence). No significant adverse events were noted within the included trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: C. frutescens (Cayenne) reduces pain more than placebo. Although H. procumbens, S. alba, S. officinale L., S. chilensis, and lavender essential oil also seem to reduce pain more than placebo, evidence for these substances was of moderate quality at best. Additional well-designed large trials are needed to test these herbal medicines against standard treatments. In general, the completeness of reporting in these trials was poor. Trialists should refer to the CONSORT statement extension for reporting trials of herbal medicine interventions.

Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors.

Previous work has identified 6 important areas to consider when evaluating validity and bias in studies of prognostic factors: participation, attrition, prognostic factor measurement, confounding measurement and account, outcome measurement, and analysis and reporting. This article describes the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool, which includes questions related to these areas that can inform judgments of risk of bias in prognostic research.A working group comprising epidemiologists, statisticians, and clinicians developed the tool as they considered prognosis studies of low back pain. Forty-three groups reviewing studies addressing prognosis in other topic areas used the tool and provided feedback. Most reviewers (74%) reported that reaching consensus on judgments was easy. Median completion time per study was 20 minutes; interrater agreement (κ statistic) reported by 9 review teams varied from 0.56 to 0.82 (median, 0.75). Some reviewers reported challenges making judgments across prompting items, which were addressed by providing comprehensive guidance and examples. The refined Quality In Prognosis Studies tool may be useful to assess the risk of bias in studies of prognostic factors.