Developing multidisciplinary guidelines for the management of early rheumatoid arthritis

Objective: To develop an evidence based guideline, for the multidisciplinary management of early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: Recommendations were developed using both an evidence‐based approach and expert opinion. The scientific committee, composed of key members of the rheumatology multidisciplinary team used a Delphi approach to evaluate topics and standard statements, which formed the basis for developing recommendations for management of RA in the first 2 years of disease. Evidence taken from literature was used to support these recommendations. Results: 24 evidence based recommendations for the management of early RA, with a grade of recommendation from A to C, were developed. In addition an algorithm of care was designed to promote a clear multidisciplinary management pathway. A mechanism for audit was also identified. Conclusion: Involvement of the multidisciplinary rheumatology team has enabled a holistic guideline to be developed for the management of patients presenting with early RA. This guideline is based around best practice that is supported by published literature. Whilst most statements in the guideline are based on strong evidence, others have been formulated by expert consensus in the absence of data and should serve as an opportunity to improve current practice through future research and audit. The development and implementation of such a guideline should improve the care of patients with early RA. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Evidence‐based recommendations for the monitoring and treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: results from the Australian 3E initiative in rheumatology

Aim: To develop a set of Australian recommendations for the monitoring and treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) through systematic literature review combined with the opinion of practicing rheumatologists. Methods: A set of eight questions, four in each domain of monitoring and treatment, were formulated by voting and the Delphi method. The results of a systematic literature review addressing each question were presented to the 23 participants of the Australian 3E meeting. All participants were clinical rheumatologists experienced in the daily management of AS. Results: After three rounds of breakout sessions to discuss the findings of the literature review, a set of recommendations was finalized after discussion and voting. The category of evidence and strength of recommendation were determined for each proposal. The level of agreement among participants was excellent (mean 84%, range 64–100%). Conclusions: The 12 recommendations developed from evidence and expert opinion provide guidance for the daily management of AS patients. For most recommendations, we found a paucity of supportive evidence in the literature highlighting the need for additional clinical studies.     

Recomendaciones SER-SEPAR para el manejo de la enfermedad pulmonar intersticial difusa asociada a la artritis reumatoide. Parte 1: epidemiología,factores de riesgo y pronóstico

ObjectiveTo develop multidisciplinary recommendations to improve the management of rheumatoid arthritis-related interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD).MethodsClinical research questions relevant to the objective of the document were identified by a panel of rheumatologists and pneumologists selected based on their experience in the field. Systematic reviews of the available evidence were conducted, and evidence was graded according to the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria. Specific recommendations were made.ResultsSix PICO questions were selected, three of which analysed the incidence and prevalence of RA-ILD, associated risk factors, and predictors of progression and mortality. A total of 6 specific recommendations on these topics, structured by question, were formulated based on the evidence found and/or expert consensus.ConclusionsWe present the first official SER-SEPAR document with specific recommendations for RA-ILD management developed to resolve some common clinical questions and facilitate decision-making for patients.     

Recomendaciones SER-SEPAR para el manejo de la enfermedad pulmonar intersticial difusa asociada a la artritis reumatoide. Parte 2: tratamiento

ObjectiveTo develop multidisciplinary recommendations to improve the management of rheumatoid arthritis-related interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD).MethodsClinical research questions relevant to the objective of the document were identified by a panel of rheumatologists and pneumologists selected based on their experience in the field. Systematic reviews of the available evidence were conducted, and evidence was graded according to the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria. Specific recommendations were made.ResultsSix PICO questions were selected, three of which analysed the safety and effectiveness of glucocorticoids, classical synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and other immunosuppressants, biological agents, targeted synthetic DMARDs, and antifibrotic therapies in the treatment of this complication. A total specific of 12 recommendations on this topic were formulated based on the evidence found and/or expert consensus.ConclusionsWe present the first official SER-SEPAR document with specific recommendations for RA-ILD management developed to resolve some common clinical questions, reduce clinical healthcare variability, and facilitate decision-making for patients.     

Methotrexate treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: management in clinical remission,common infection and tuberculosis. Results from a systematic literature review

This work was performed as part of the Portuguese participation in the 3E Initiative 2007–2008, dedicated to the use of methotrexate (MTX) in rheumatic conditions. Three questions raised by Portuguese rheumatologists and considered relevant to clinical practice remained out of the selection of a set of ten key questions formulated to further establish multinational recommendations on the use of MTX in rheumatic diseases. The authors collected and analyzed all the evidence available by using a systematic literature search methodology and selection criteria concerning the following issues in rheumatoid arthritis (RA): (1) the management of MTX after clinical remission; (2) the management of MTX during infections and (3) the screening and treatment of tuberculosis in patients on MTX treatment. A total of 1,862 references were identified, of which 163 were selected for detailed analysis and 12 included in the final review. The evidence was appraised according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine (EBM) levels of evidence. Although with limited evidence, the authors concluded that: (1) extending the interval for MTX therapy may be a valid alternative regimen in a subset of RA patients in clinical remission (EBM level 2b); (2) MTX may be safe during some common infections in RA patients (EBM level 3b/4); (3) screening and treatment of TB in patients on MTX should be similar to the general population (EBM level 4). The evidence available to support clinical decisions in this area is very limited in number and quality. There is a need for further research and while that is unavailable, practical decisions have to rely on experience and expert opinion.     

EULAR Recommendations 2003: an evidence based approach to the management of knee osteoarthritis: Report of a Task Force of the Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutic Trials (ESCISIT)

OBJECTIVES: To update the EULAR recommendations for management of knee osteoarthritis (OA) by an evidence based medicine and expert opinion approach. METHODS: The literature search and guidelines were restricted to treatments for knee OA pertaining to clinical and/or radiological OA of any compartment of the knee. Papers for combined treatment of knee and other types of OA were excluded. Medline and Embase were searched using a combination of subject headings and key words. Searches for those treatments previously investigated were conducted for January 1999 to February 2002 and for those treatments not previously investigated for 1966 to February 2002. The level of evidence found for each treatment was documented. Quality scores were determined for each paper, an effect size comparing the treatment with placebo was calculated, where possible, and a toxicity profile was determined for each treatment modality. RESULTS: 497 new publications were identified by the search. Of these, 103 were intervention trials and included in the overall analysis, and 33 treatment modalities were identified. Previously identified publications which were not exclusively knee OA in the initial analysis were rejected. In total, 545 publications were included. Based on the results of the literature search and expert opinion, 10 recommendations for the treatment of knee OA were devised using a five stage Delphi technique. Based on expert opinion, a further set of 10 items was identified by a five stage Delphi technique as important for future research. CONCLUSION: The updated recommendations support some of the previous propositions published in 2000 but also include modified statements and new propositions. Although a large number of treatment options for knee OA exist, the evidence based format of the EULAR Recommendations continues to identify key clinical questions that currently are unanswered.     

EULAR recommendations for conducting clinical studies and/or clinical trials in systemic vasculitis: focus on anti-neutrophil cytoplasm antibody-associated vasculitis

OBJECTIVES: To develop the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for conducting clinical studies and/or clinical trials in systemic vasculitis. METHODS: An expert consensus group was formed consisting of rheumatologists, nephrologists and specialists in internal medicine representing five European countries and the USA, a clinical epidemiologist and representatives from regulatory agencies. Using an evidence-based and expert opinion-based approach in accordance with the standardised EULAR operating procedures, the group identified nine topics for a systematic literature search through a modified Delphi technique. On the basis of research questions posed by the group, recommendations were derived for conducting clinical studies and/or clinical trials in systemic vasculitis. RESULTS: Based on the results of the literature research, the expert committee concluded that sufficient evidence to formulate guidelines on conducting clinical trials was available only for anti-neutrophil cytoplasm antibody-associated vasculitides (AAV). It was therefore decided to focus the recommendations on these diseases. Recommendations for conducting clinical trials in AAV were elaborated and are presented in this summary document. It was decided to consider vasculitis-specific issues rather than general issues of trial methodology. The recommendations deal with the following areas related to clinical studies of vasculitis: definitions of disease, activity states, outcome measures, eligibility criteria, trial design including relevant end points, and biomarkers. A number of aspects of trial methodology were deemed important for future research. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of expert opinion, recommendations for conducting clinical trials in AAV were formulated. Furthermore, the expert committee identified a strong need for well-designed research in non-AAV systemic vasculitides.     

The new 2012 German recommendations for treating rheumatoid arthritis

The German Society for Rheumatology recently published guidelines for the sequential therapy of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). These recommendations were developed as a transition from the 2010 EULAR (EUropean League Against Rheumatism) recommendations to the national clinical practice and are based on an updated systematic literature research and expert discussion. While most EULAR recommendations have remained unchanged, some were modified based on new evidence from randomized, controlled trials, current clinical practice, or national drug approval status. The guidelines also include a treatment algorithm for sequential therapy of RA with disease-modifying agents including biologics.     

2011 Portuguese recommendations for the use of biological therapies in patients with psoriatic arthritis

Objective: To develop recommendations for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with biological therapies, endorsed by the Portuguese Society of Rheumatology. Methods: These treatment recommendations were formulated by Portuguese rheumatologists based on literature evidence and consensus opinion. A draft of the recommendations was first circulated to all Portuguese rheumatologists and their suggestions were incorporated in the draft. At a national meeting the recommendations were discussed and all attending rheumatologists voted on the level of agreement for each recommendation. A second draft was again circulated before publication. Results: A consensus was achieved regarding the initiation, assessment of response and switching biological therapies in patients with PsA. Specific recommendations were developed for several disease domains: peripheral arthritis, axial disease, enthesitis and dactylitis. Conclusion: These recommendations may be used for guidance in deciding which patients with PsA should be treated with biological therapies. They cover a rapidly evolving area of therapeutic intervention. As more evidence becomes available and more biological therapies are licensed, these recommendations will have to be updated.     

EULAR evidence based recommendations for the management of hip osteoarthritis: report of a task force of the EULAR Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutics (ESCISIT)

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence based recommendations for the management of hip osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: The multidisciplinary guideline development group comprised 18 rheumatologists, 4 orthopaedic surgeons, and 1 epidemiologist, representing 14 European countries. Each participant contributed up to 10 propositions describing key clinical aspects of hip OA management. Ten final recommendations were agreed using a Delphi consensus approach. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and HTA reports were searched systematically to obtain research evidence for each proposition. Where possible, outcome data for efficacy, adverse effects, and cost effectiveness were abstracted. Effect size, rate ratio, number needed to treat, and incremental cost effectiveness ratio were calculated. The quality of evidence was categorised according to the evidence hierarchy. The strength of recommendation was assessed using the traditional A-D grading scale and a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: Ten key treatment propositions were generated through three Delphi rounds. They included 21 interventions, such as paracetamol, NSAIDs, symptomatic slow acting disease modifying drugs, opioids, intra-articular steroids, non-pharmacological treatment, total hip replacement, osteotomy, and two general propositions. 461 studies were identified from the literature search for the proposed interventions of efficacy, side effects, and cost effectiveness. Research evidence supported 15 interventions in the treatment of hip OA. Evidence specific for the hip was strikingly lacking. Strength of recommendation varied according to category of research evidence and expert opinion. CONCLUSION: Ten key recommendations for the treatment of hip OA were developed based on research evidence and expert consensus. The effectiveness and cost effectiveness of these recommendations were evaluated and the strength of recommendation was scored.     

Evidence-based recommendations for the role of exercise in the management of osteoarthritis of the hip or knee--the MOVE consensus

OBJECTIVES: Exercise is an effective and commonly prescribed intervention for lower limb osteoarthritis (OA). Many unanswered questions remain, however, concerning the practical delivery of exercise therapy. We have produced evidence-based recommendations to guide health-care practitioners. METHODS: A multidisciplinary guideline development group was formed from representatives of professional bodies to which OA is of relevance and other interested parties. Each participant contributed up to 10 propositions describing key clinical points regarding exercise therapy for OA of the hip or knee. Ten final recommendations were agreed by the Delphi technique. The research evidence for each was determined. A literature search was undertaken in the Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, PEDro, CINAHL and Cochrane databases. The methodological quality of each retrieved publication was assessed. Outcome data were abstracted and effect sizes calculated. The evidence for each recommendation was assessed and expert consensus highlighted by the allocation of two categories: (1) strength of evidence and (2) strength of recommendation. RESULTS: The first round of the Delphi process produced 123 propositions. This was reduced to 10 after four rounds. These related to aerobic and strengthening exercise, group versus home exercise, adherence, contraindications and predictors of response. The literature search identified 910 articles; 57 intervention trials relating to knee OA, 9 to hip OA and 73 to adherence. The evidence to support each proposition is presented. CONCLUSION: These are the first recommendations for exercise in hip and knee OA to clearly differentiate research evidence and expert opinion. Gaps in the literature are identified and issues requiring further study highlighted.     

Asian consensus statements on endoscopic management of walled‐off necrosis Part 1: Epidemiology,diagnosis, and treatment

Walled‐off necrosis (WON) is a relatively new term for encapsulated necrotic tissue after severe acute pancreatitis. Various terminologies such as pseudocyst, necroma, pancreatic abscess, and infected necrosis were previously used in the literature, resulting in confusion. The current and past terminologies must be reconciled to meaningfully interpret past data. Recently, endoscopic necrosectomy was introduced as a treatment option and is now preferred over surgical necrosectomy when the expertise is available. However, high‐quality evidence is still lacking, and there is no standard management strategy for WON. The consensus meeting aimed to clarify the diagnostic criteria for WON and the role of endoscopic interventions in its management. In the Consensus Conference, 27 experts from eight Asian countries took an active role and examined key clinical aspects of WON diagnosis and endoscopic management. Statements were crafted based on literature review and expert opinion, employing the modified Delphi method. All statements were substantiated by the level of evidence and the strength of the recommendation. We created 27 consensus statements for WON diagnosis and management, including details of endoscopic procedures. When there was not enough solid evidence to support the statements, this was clearly acknowledged to facilitate future research. Proposed management strategies were formulated and are illustrated using flow charts. These recommendations, which are based on the best current scientific evidence and expert opinion, will be useful for guiding endoscopic management of WON. Part 1 of this statement focused on the epidemiology, diagnosis, and timing of intervention.     

International clinical guideline for the management of classical galactosemia: diagnosis,treatment, and follow-up

Classical galactosemia (CG) is an inborn error of galactose metabolism. Evidence-based guidelines for the treatment and follow-up of CG are currently lacking, and treatment and follow-up have been demonstrated to vary worldwide. To provide patients around the world the same state-of-the-art in care, members of The Galactosemia Network (GalNet) developed an evidence-based and internationally applicable guideline for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of CG. The guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. A systematic review of the literature was performed, after key questions were formulated during an initial GalNet meeting. The first author and one of the working group experts conducted data-extraction. All experts were involved in data-extraction. Quality of the body of evidence was evaluated and recommendations were formulated. Whenever possible recommendations were evidence-based, if not they were based on expert opinion. Consensus was reached by multiple conference calls, consensus rounds via e-mail and a final consensus meeting. Recommendations addressing diagnosis, dietary treatment, biochemical monitoring, and follow-up of clinical complications were formulated. For all recommendations but one, full consensus was reached. A 93 % consensus was reached on the recommendation addressing age at start of bone density screening. During the development of this guideline, gaps of knowledge were identified in most fields of interest, foremost in the fields of treatment and follow-up.     

Asian consensus statements on endoscopic management of walled‐off necrosis. Part 2: Endoscopic management

Walled‐off necrosis (WON) is a new term for encapsulated necrotic tissue after severe acute pancreatitis. Various terminologies such as pseudocyst, necroma, pancreatic abscess, and infected necrosis were previously used in the literature, resulting in confusion. The current and past terminologies must be reconciled to meaningfully interpret past data. Recently, endoscopic necrosectomy was introduced as a treatment option and is now preferred over surgical necrosectomy when the expertise is available. However, high‐quality evidence is still lacking, and there is no standard management strategy for WON. The consensus meeting aimed to clarify the diagnostic criteria for WON and the role of endoscopic interventions in its management. In the Consensus Conference, 27 experts from eight Asian countries took an active role and examined key clinical aspects of WON diagnosis and endoscopic management. Statements were crafted based on literature review and expert opinion, employing the modified Delphi method. All statements were substantiated by the level of evidence and the strength of the recommendation. We created 27 consensus statements for WON diagnosis and management, including details of endoscopic procedures. When there was not enough solid evidence to support the statements, this was clearly acknowledged to facilitate future research. Proposed management strategies were formulated and are illustrated using flow charts. These recommendations, which are based on the best current scientific evidence and expert opinion, will be useful for guiding endoscopic management of WON. Part 2 of this statement focused on the endoscopic management of WON.     

EULAR-Empfehlungen für die Behandlung des Morbus Beh?et

Objectives

The aim of the EULAR/ESCISIT initiative was to develop evidence-based recommendations for the management of Behçet’s disease (BD), supplemented where necessary by expert opinions and taking already published data into consideration. The current article briefly summarises the results in German and comments on them.

Methods

The multidisciplinary expert committee consisted of nine rheumatologists, three ophthalmologists, one internist, one dermatologist, and one neurologist, representing six European countries, Tunisia and Korea. One patient representative was also present. Problem areas and related keywords for a systematic literature search were identified. A systematic literature research was performed using MedLine and the Cochrane library up to December 2006. Consequently, 40 initial statements were generated based on the literature research. These yielded the final recommendations which resulted from two blind Delphi rounds of voting.

Results

Nine recommendations were developed for the management of different aspects of BD. The strength of each recommendation was determined by the level of evidence and the expert‘s opinions. The level of agreement for each recommendation was determined using a visual analogue scale for both the whole committee and for each individual viewpoint of the subgroup, who considered themselves experts in that field of BD. There was excellent concordance between the level of agreement of the whole group and the “experts in the field”.

Conclusion

Recommendations relating to eye, skin, and mucosal disease, as well as arthritis are mainly evidence-based, while recommendations on vascular disease and neurological and gastrointestinal involvement are based largely on expert opinions and uncontrolled evidence from open trials and observational studies. The need for further properly designed controlled clinical trials is apparent.     

EULAR evidence based recommendations for the management of hand osteoarthritis: report of a Task Force of the EULAR Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutics (ESCISIT)

OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence based recommendations for the management of hand osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: The multidisciplinary guideline development group comprised 16 rheumatologists, one physiatrist, one orthopaedic surgeon, two allied health professionals, and one evidence based medicine expert, representing 15 different European countries. Each participant contributed up to 10 propositions describing key clinical points for management of hand OA. Final recommendations were agreed using a Delphi consensus approach. A systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Science Citation Index, AMED, Cochrane Library, HTA, and NICE reports was used to identify the best available research evidence to support each proposition. Where possible, the effect size and number needed to treat were calculated for efficacy. Relative risk or odds ratio was estimated for safety, and incremental cost effectiveness ratio was used for cost effectiveness. The strength of recommendation was provided according to research evidence, clinical expertise, and perceived patient preference. RESULTS: Eleven key propositions involving 17 treatment modalities were generated through three Delphi rounds. Treatment topics included general considerations (for example, clinical features, risk factors, comorbidities), non-pharmacological (for example, education plus exercise, local heat, and splint), pharmacological (for example, paracetamol, NSAIDs, NSAIDs plus gastroprotective agents, COX-2 inhibitors, systemic slow acting disease modifying drugs, intra-articular corticosteroids), and surgery. Of 17 treatment modalities, only six were supported by research evidence (education plus exercise, NSAIDs, COX-2 inhibitors, topical NSAIDs, topical capsaicin, and chondroitin sulphate). Others were supported either by evidence extrapolated from studies of OA affecting other joint sites or by expert opinion. Strength of recommendation varied according to level of evidence, benefits and harms/costs of the treatment, and clinical expertise. CONCLUSION: Eleven key recommendations for treatment of hand OA were developed using a combination of research based evidence and expert consensus. The evidence was evaluated and the strength of recommendation was provided.