737
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: 2014 update of the recommendations of an international task force

      research-article
      1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 3 , 10 , 2 , 11 , 1 , 1 , 12 , 1 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 11 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 11 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 11 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 11 , 3 , 8
      Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
      BMJ Publishing Group
      Rheumatoid Arthritis, Outcomes research, Treatment, Early Rheumatoid Arthritis, Disease Activity

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Reaching the therapeutic target of remission or low-disease activity has improved outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) significantly. The treat-to-target recommendations, formulated in 2010, have provided a basis for implementation of a strategic approach towards this therapeutic goal in routine clinical practice, but these recommendations need to be re-evaluated for appropriateness and practicability in the light of new insights.

          Objective

          To update the 2010 treat-to-target recommendations based on systematic literature reviews (SLR) and expert opinion.

          Methods

          A task force of rheumatologists, patients and a nurse specialist assessed the SLR results and evaluated the individual items of the 2010 recommendations accordingly, reformulating many of the items. These were subsequently discussed, amended and voted upon by >40 experts, including 5 patients, from various regions of the world. Levels of evidence, strengths of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived.

          Results

          The update resulted in 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations. The previous recommendations were partly adapted and their order changed as deemed appropriate in terms of importance in the view of the experts. The SLR had now provided also data for the effectiveness of targeting low-disease activity or remission in established rather than only early disease. The role of comorbidities, including their potential to preclude treatment intensification, was highlighted more strongly than before. The treatment aim was again defined as remission with low-disease activity being an alternative goal especially in patients with long-standing disease. Regular follow-up (every 1–3 months during active disease) with according therapeutic adaptations to reach the desired state was recommended. Follow-up examinations ought to employ composite measures of disease activity that include joint counts. Additional items provide further details for particular aspects of the disease, especially comorbidity and shared decision-making with the patient. Levels of evidence had increased for many items compared with the 2010 recommendations, and levels of agreement were very high for most of the individual recommendations (≥9/10).

          Conclusions

          The 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations are based on stronger evidence than before and are supposed to inform patients, rheumatologists and other stakeholders about strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA.

          Related collections

          Most cited references93

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

          Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may differ among rheumatologists and currently, clear and consensual international recommendations on RA treatment are not available. In this paper recommendations for the treatment of RA with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs) that also account for strategic algorithms and deal with economic aspects, are described. The recommendations are based on evidence from five systematic literature reviews (SLRs) performed for synthetic DMARDs, biological DMARDs, GCs, treatment strategies and economic issues. The SLR-derived evidence was discussed and summarised as an expert opinion in the course of a Delphi-like process. Levels of evidence, strength of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived. Fifteen recommendations were developed covering an area from general aspects such as remission/low disease activity as treatment aim via the preference for methotrexate monotherapy with or without GCs vis-à-vis combination of synthetic DMARDs to the use of biological agents mainly in patients for whom synthetic DMARDs and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors had failed. Cost effectiveness of the treatments was additionally examined. These recommendations are intended to inform rheumatologists, patients and other stakeholders about a European consensus on the management of RA with DMARDs and GCs as well as strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA, based on evidence and expert opinion.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            American College of Rheumatology. Preliminary definition of improvement in rheumatoid arthritis.

            Trials of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatments report the average response in multiple outcome measures for treated patients. It is more clinically relevant to test whether individual patients improve with treatment, and this identifies a single primary efficacy measure. Multiple definitions of improvement are currently in use in different trials. The goal of this study was to promulgate a single definition for use in RA trials. Using the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) core set of outcome measures for RA trials, we tested 40 different definitions of improvement, using a 3-step process. First, we performed a survey of rheumatologists, using actual patient cases from trials, to evaluate which definitions corresponded best to rheumatologists' impressions of improvement, eliminating most candidate definitions of improvement. Second, we tested 20 remaining definitions to determine which maximally discriminated effective treatment from placebo treatment and also minimized placebo response rates. With 8 candidate definitions of improvement remaining, we tested to see which were easiest to use and were best in accord with rheumatologists' impressions of improvement. The following definition of improvement was selected: 20% improvement in tender and swollen joint counts and 20% improvement in 3 of the 5 remaining ACR core set measures: patient and physician global assessments, pain, disability, and an acute-phase reactant. Additional validation of this definition was carried out in a comparative trial, and the results suggest that the definition is statistically powerful and does not identify a large percentage of placebo-treated patients as being improved. We present a definition of improvement which we hope will be used widely in RA trials.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effect of a treatment strategy of tight control for rheumatoid arthritis (the TICORA study): a single-blind randomised controlled trial.

              Present treatment strategies for rheumatoid arthritis include use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, but a minority of patients achieve a good response. We aimed to test the hypothesis that an improved outcome can be achieved by employing a strategy of intensive outpatient management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis--for sustained, tight control of disease activity--compared with routine outpatient care. We designed a single-blind, randomised controlled trial in two teaching hospitals. We screened 183 patients for inclusion. 111 were randomly allocated either intensive management or routine care. Primary outcome measures were mean fall in disease activity score and proportion of patients with a good response (defined as a disease activity score 1.2). Analysis was by intention-to-treat. One patient withdrew after randomisation and seven dropped out during the study. Mean fall in disease activity score was greater in the intensive group than in the routine group (-3.5 vs -1.9, difference 1.6 [95% CI 1.1-2.1], p<0.0001). Compared with routine care, patients treated intensively were more likely to have a good response (definition, 45/55 [82%] vs 24/55 [44%], odds ratio 5.8 [95% CI 2.4-13.9], p<0.0001) or be in remission (disease activity score <1.6; 36/55 [65%] vs 9/55 [16%], 9.7 [3.9-23.9], p<0.0001). Three patients assigned routine care and one allocated intensive management died during the study; none was judged attributable to treatment. A strategy of intensive outpatient management of rheumatoid arthritis substantially improves disease activity, radiographic disease progression, physical function, and quality of life at no additional cost.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ann Rheum Dis
                Ann. Rheum. Dis
                annrheumdis
                ard
                Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                0003-4967
                1468-2060
                January 2016
                12 May 2015
                : 75
                : 1
                : 3-15
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine 3, Medical University of Vienna , Vienna, Austria
                [2 ]2nd Department of Medicine, Hietzing Hospital , Vienna, Austria
                [3 ]Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center , Leiden, The Netherlands
                [4 ]Department of Rheumatology, Clinical Immunology Free University and Humboldt University, Charité-University Medicine , Berlin, Germany
                [5 ]Division of Rheumatology, Hospital for Special Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University , New York, USA
                [6 ]Department of Rheumatology B, Cochin Hospital, René Descartes University , Paris, France
                [7 ]Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, UK
                [8 ]NIHR Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust , Leeds, UK
                [9 ]Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital , Oslo, Norway
                [10 ]Susan Oliver Associates , North Devon, UK
                [11 ]EULAR Standing Committee of People with Arthritis/Rheumatism in Europe (PARE) , Zurich, Switzerland
                [12 ]Division of Rheumatology, Department of internal Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine , Tokyo, Japan
                [13 ]Rheumatology Department, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda , Majadahonda, Spain
                [14 ]Department of Medicine III, University Medical Center TU Dresden , Dresden, Germany
                [15 ]Drexel University College of Medicine , Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
                [16 ]Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, University Medical Center Utrecht, and VU University Medical Center , Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [17 ]Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe University Frankfurt , German
                [18 ]Centro de Investigación Clínica de Morelia , Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico
                [19 ]Service d'Immuno-Rhumatologie, Montpellier University, Lapeyronie Hospital , Montpellier, France
                [20 ]Pôle de Recherche en Rhumatologie, Institut de Recherche Experimentale et Clinique, Université Catholique de Louvain and Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc , Brussels, Belgium
                [21 ]Rheumatology Research Unit, Instituto de de Medicina Molecular, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa , Lisbon, Portugal
                [22 ]Rheumatology Department, Lisbon Academic Medical Centre , Lisbon, Portugal
                [23 ]Weill Medical College, Cornell University Hospital for Special Surgery , New York, USA
                [24 ]Rheumatology Unit, Santiago University Clinical Hospital , Santiago de Compostela, Spain
                [25 ]Division of Rheumatology, Medical University of Graz, Graz , Austria
                [26 ]Department of Medicine, Central Hospital , Jyväskylä, Finland
                [27 ]Institut de Rhumatologie de Montréal , Quebec, Canada
                [28 ]Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, and Atrium Medical Center , Heerlen, The Netherlands
                [29 ]University Hospital La Paz , Madrid, Spain
                [30 ]University of Queensland , Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
                [31 ]Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Copenhagen Center for Arthritis Research, Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet and Glostrup Hospital, University of Copenhagen , Copenhagen, Denmark
                [32 ]Rheumatology Clinical Research Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust , Cambridge, UK
                [33 ]Department of Rheumatology, Central Hospital , Jyväskylä, Finland
                [34 ]Division of Rheumatology, Southlake Regional Health Centre , Newarket, Ontario, Canada
                [35 ]Department of Pathophysiology, School of Medicine , University of Athens , Greece
                [36 ]Rheumatology Clinic, Karolinska University Hospital , Stockholm, Sweden
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Professor Josef S Smolen, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine 3, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, Vienna A-1090, Austria; josef.smolen@ 123456meduniwien.ac.at , josef.smolen@ 123456wienkav.at
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2731-9180
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5781-158X
                Article
                annrheumdis-2015-207524
                10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-207524
                4717393
                25969430
                a53d5287-fbbb-4375-a6f6-2ea999948c74
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 1 March 2015
                : 10 April 2015
                : 13 April 2015
                Categories
                1506
                Recommendation
                Extended report
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Immunology
                rheumatoid arthritis,outcomes research,treatment,early rheumatoid arthritis,disease activity

                Comments

                Comment on this article