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.     

EULAR recommendations for the management of early arthritis: report of a task force of the European Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutics (ESCISIT)

OBJECTIVE: To formulate EULAR recommendations for the management of early arthritis. METHODS: In accordance with EULAR's "standardised operating procedures", the task force pursued an evidence based approach and an approach based on expert opinion. A steering group comprised of 14 rheumatologists representing 10 European countries. The group defined the focus of the process, the target population, and formulated an operational definition of "management". Each participant was invited to propose issues of interest regarding the management of early arthritis or early rheumatoid arthritis. Fifteen issues for further research were selected by use of a modified Delphi technique. A systematic literature search was carried out. Evidence was categorised according to usual guidelines. A set of draft recommendations was proposed on the basis of the research questions and the results of the literature search.. The strength of the recommendations was based on the category of evidence and expert opinion. RESULTS: 15 research questions, covering the entire spectrum of "management of early arthritis", were formulated for further research; and 284 studies were identified and evaluated. Twelve recommendations for the management of early arthritis were selected and presented with short sentences. The selected statements included recognition of arthritis, referral, diagnosis, prognosis, classification, and treatment of early arthritis (information, education, non-pharmacological interventions, pharmacological treatments, and monitoring of the disease process). On the basis of expert opinion, 11 items were identified as being important for future research. CONCLUSIONS: 12 key recommendations for the management of early arthritis or early rheumatoid arthritis were developed, based on evidence in the literature and expert consensus.     

EULAR recommendations for the management of knee osteoarthritis: report of a task force of the Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutic Trials (ESCISIT)

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common joint disease encountered throughout Europe. A task force for the EULAR Standing Committee for Clinical Trials met in 1998 to determine the methodological and logistical approach required for the development of evidence based guidelines for treatment of knee OA. The guidelines were restricted to cover all currently available treatments for knee OA diagnosed either clinically and/or radiographically affecting any compartment of the knee. METHODS: The first stage was the selection of treatment modalities to be considered. The second stage comprised a search of the electronic databases Medline and Embase using a combination of subject headings and keywords. All European language publications in the form of systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials, controlled trials, and observational studies were included. During stage three all the relevant studies were quality scored. The summary statistics for validated outcome measures, when available, were recorded and, where practical, the numbers needed to treat and the effect size for each treatment were calculated. In the fourth stage key clinical propositions were determined by expert consensus employing a Delphi approach. The final stage ranked these propositions according to the available evidence. A second set of propositions relating to a future research agenda was determined by expert consensus using a Delphi approach. RESULTS: Over 2400 English language publications and 400 non-English language publications were identified. Seven hundred and forty four studies presented outcome data of the effects of specific treatments on knee OA. Quantitative analysis of treatment effect was possible in only 61 studies. Recommendations for the management of knee OA based on currently available data and expert opinion are presented. Proposals for a future research agenda are highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: These are the first clinical guidelines on knee OA to combine an evidence based approach and a consensus approach across a wide range of treatment modalities. It is apparent that certain clinical propositions are supported by substantial research based evidence, while others are not. There is thus an urgent need for future well designed trials to consider key clinical questions.     

EULAR evidence based recommendations for gout. Part II: Management. 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 gout. METHODS: The multidisciplinary guideline development group comprised 19 rheumatologists and one evidence based medicine expert representing 13 European countries. Key propositions on management were generated using a Delphi consensus approach. Research evidence was searched systematically for each proposition. Where possible, effect size (ES), number needed to treat, relative risk, odds ratio, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated. The quality of evidence was categorised according to the level of evidence. The strength of recommendation (SOR) was assessed using the EULAR visual analogue and ordinal scales. RESULTS: 12 key propositions were generated after three Delphi rounds. Propositions included both non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments and addressed symptomatic control of acute gout, urate lowering therapy (ULT), and prophylaxis of acute attacks. The importance of patient education, modification of adverse lifestyle (weight loss if obese; reduced alcohol consumption; low animal purine diet) and treatment of associated comorbidity and risk factors were emphasised. Recommended drugs for acute attacks were oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), oral colchicine (ES = 0.87 (95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 1.50)), or joint aspiration and injection of corticosteroid. ULT is indicated in patients with recurrent acute attacks, arthropathy, tophi, or radiographic changes of gout. Allopurinol was confirmed as effective long term ULT (ES = 1.39 (0.78 to 2.01)). If allopurinol toxicity occurs, options include other xanthine oxidase inhibitors, allopurinol desensitisation, or a uricosuric. The uricosuric benzbromarone is more effective than allopurinol (ES = 1.50 (0.76 to 2.24)) and can be used in patients with mild to moderate renal insufficiency but may be hepatotoxic. When gout is associated with the use of diuretics, the diuretic should be stopped if possible. For prophylaxis against acute attacks, either colchicine 0.5-1 mg daily or an NSAID (with gastroprotection if indicated) are recommended. CONCLUSIONS: 12 key recommendations for management of gout were developed, using a combination of research based evidence and expert consensus. The evidence was evaluated and the SOR provided for each proposition.     

EULAR evidence based recommendations for gout. Part I: Diagnosis. Report of a task force of the Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutics (ESCISIT)

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence based recommendations for the diagnosis of gout. METHODS: The multidisciplinary guideline development group comprised 19 rheumatologists and one evidence based medicine expert, representing 13 European countries. Ten key propositions regarding diagnosis were generated using a Delphi consensus approach. Research evidence was searched systematically for each proposition. Wherever possible the sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio (LR), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated for diagnostic tests. Relative risk and odds ratios were estimated for risk factors and co-morbidities associated with gout. The quality of evidence was categorised according to the evidence hierarchy. The strength of recommendation (SOR) was assessed using the EULAR visual analogue and ordinal scales. RESULTS: 10 key propositions were generated though three Delphi rounds including diagnostic topics in clinical manifestations, urate crystal identification, biochemical tests, radiographs, and risk factors/co-morbidities. Urate crystal identification varies according to symptoms and observer skill but is very likely to be positive in symptomatic gout (LR = 567 (95% confidence interval (CI), 35.5 to 9053)). Classic podagra and presence of tophi have the highest clinical diagnostic value for gout (LR = 30.64 (95% CI, 20.51 to 45.77), and LR = 39.95 (21.06 to 75.79), respectively). Hyperuricaemia is a major risk factor for gout and may be a useful diagnostic marker when defined by the normal range of the local population (LR = 9.74 (7.45 to 12.72)), although some gouty patients may have normal serum uric acid concentrations at the time of investigation. Radiographs have little role in diagnosis, though in late or severe gout radiographic changes of asymmetrical swelling (LR = 4.13 (2.97 to 5.74)) and subcortical cysts without erosion (LR = 6.39 (3.00 to 13.57)) may be useful to differentiate chronic gout from other joint conditions. In addition, risk factors (sex, diuretics, purine-rich foods, alcohol, lead) and co-morbidities (cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and chronic renal failure) are associated with gout. SOR for each proposition varied according to both the research evidence and expert opinion. CONCLUSIONS: 10 key recommendations for diagnosis of gout were developed using a combination of research based evidence and expert consensus. The evidence for diagnostic tests, risk factors, and co-morbidities was evaluated and the strength of recommendation was provided.     

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.     

Incomplete lupus erythematosus: results of a multicentre study under the supervision of the EULAR Standing Committee on International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutic Trials (ESCISIT)

OBJECTIVE: Patients characterized with antinuclear antibodies (ANA) and disease symptoms related to one organ system can be described as having incomplete systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The aim of this multicentre study was to describe the outcome of these so-called incomplete SLE patients. Two aspects of the outcome were studied: (i) the disease course, defined by the presence or absence of clinical symptoms; and (ii) the number of patients that eventually developed full SLE. METHODS: Outcome parameters were the ACR criteria, the SLE disease Activity Index (SLEDAI), the European Consensus Lupus Activity Measure (ECLAM) and the requirement for treatment. In 10 European rheumatology centres, patients who had been evaluated in the last 3 months of 1994 and had been diagnosed as having incomplete SLE on clinical grounds for at least 1 yr were included in the study. All 122 patients who were included in the study were evaluated annually during 3 yr of follow-up. RESULTS: Our results are confined to a patient cohort defined by disease duration of at least 1 yr, being under clinical care at the different centres in Europe. These patients showed disease activity that was related mostly to symptoms of the skin and the musculoskeletal system, and leucocytopenia. During the follow-up, low doses of prednisolone were still being prescribed in 43% of the patients. On recruitment to the study, 22 of the 122 incomplete SLE patients already fulfilled the ACR criteria for the diagnosis of SLE. In the 3 yr of follow-up only three patients developed SLE. CONCLUSIONS: A high proportion of patients in our cohort defined on clinical grounds as having incomplete SLE eventually showed disease activity defined by the SLEDAI as well as ECLAM. However, only three cases developed to SLE during the follow-up. This suggests that incomplete SLE forms a subgroup of SLE that has a good prognosis.     

Italian consensus on EULAR recommendations 2005 for the management of hip osteoarthritis

The recommendations for the management of osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip were proposed by EULAR in 2005. Among the most important objectives of the expert charged to provide these recommendations were their wide dissemination and implementation. Thus, the information generated can be used by each individual country to produce their own set of management guidelines and algorithms for treatment in primary care. According with that previously executed for the EU-LAR recommendation 2003 for the knee, the Italian Society of Rheumatology (SIR) has organised a Consensus on the EULAR recommendations 2005 for the management of hip OA. To obtain an acceptability as large as possible, the group of experts was composed by many physicians interested in the management of hip OA, including Orthopaedics, Rheumatologists, Physiatrists, and General Practitioners. Main aim of the Consensus was to analyse the acceptability and applicability of the recommendations according to own experience and local situations in the Italy. The results of this Consensus have demonstrated that a large majority of the EULAR recommendations are endorsed by the Italian experts. Furthermore, the final document of the Italian Consensus clearly indicated the need that the specialists involved in the management of hip OA strongly encourage the dissemination of the EULAR 2005 recommendations also in Italy.     

Recommendations of EULAR on treatment of gonarthrosis. Report of a committee of the "Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutic Trials (ESCIST)"

Zusammenfassung Einleitung Die Arthrose (Osteoarthritis, OA) ist in ganz Europa die h?ufigste Gelenkerkrankung. Eine Kommission des „EULAR Standing Committee for Clinical Trials” traf sich erstmals 1998, um die methodischen und logistischen Voraussetzungen zur Erstellung evidenz-basierter Richtlinien für die Behandlung der Gonarthrose zu erarbeiten. Diese Richtlinien sollten alle zu diesem Zeitpunkt verfügbaren Behandlungsm?glichkeiten der Gonarthrose umfassen unabh?ngig davon, ob eine Gonarthrose klinisch und/oder radiologisch diagnostiziert war und unabh?ngig davon, welches Kompartiment betroffen ist. Methoden Der erste Schritt war die Auswahl der Behandlungsm?glichkeiten, die bewertet werden sollten. Als n?chstes folgte eine Literatursuche in den Datenbanken Medline und Embase mit Hilfe einer Kombination von themenbezogenen Begriffen sowie Schlüsselw?rtern. Alle europ?ischsprachigen Ver?ffentlichungen (übersichtsarbeiten, Metaanalysen, randomisiert-kontrollierte Studien, kontrollierte Studien und Beobachtungsstudien) wurden berücksichtigt. Drittens wurden alle relevanten Studien entsprechend ihrer Qualit?t beurteilt. Die Statistiken zu den Behandlungsergebnissen wurden, wenn m?glich, erfasst und die notwendigen Fallzahlen (numbers needed to treat, NNT) und der Therapieeffekt (effect size, ES) wurden für jede Behandlungsalternative errechnet. Viertens erarbeitete das Expertengremium mit dem Delphi-Verfahren eine Liste klinisch relevanter Behandlungsvorschl?ge. Diese Behandlungsvorschl?ge wurden entsprechend verfügbarer Evidenzen gewichtet. Als letztes wurden ebenfalls mit Hilfe des Delphi-Verfahrens von dem Expertengremium Vorschl?ge für eine künftige Forschungsagenda verfasst. Ergebnisse Mehr als 2400 englischsprachige und 400 nicht-englischsprachige Ver?ffentlichungen wurden identifiziert. 744 Studien pr?sentierten Ergebnisse zum Effekt spezifischer Behandlungsma?nahmen bei Gonarthrose. Eine quantitative Analyse des Behandlungseffektes war nur bei 61 Studien m?glich. Pr?sentiert werden Empfehlungen zur Behandlung der Gonarthrose basierend auf ver?ffentlichten Daten sowie der Expertenmeinung. Weiterhin werden Vorschl?ge für eine künftige Forschungsagenda pr?sentiert. Schlussfolgerung Dies sind die ersten Behandlungsrichtlinien zur Gonarthrose, die kombiniert aufgrund evidenz-basierter Erkenntnisse und einem Expertenkonsens für ein breites Spektrum an Behandlungsm?glichkeiten erstellt worden sind. Es zeigt sich, dass nur bestimmte Behandlungsvorschl?ge evidenz-basiert abgesichert sind. Gut geplante klinische Studien zu wichtigen klinischen Fragestellungen sind daher dringend erforderlich. Summary Background Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common joint disease encountered throughout Europe. A task force for the EULAR standing committee for clinical trials met in 1998 to determine the methodological and logistical approach required for the development of evidence-based guidelines for treatment of knee OA. The guidelines were restricted to cover all currently available therapies for knee OA diagnosed either clinically and/or radiographically affecting any compartment of the knee. Methods The first stage was the selection of treatment modalities to be considered. The second stage comprised a search of the electronic databases Medline and Embase using a combination of subject headings and key words. All European language publications in the form of systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized-controlled trials, controlled trials and observational studies were included. During stage three all of the relevant studies were quality scored. The summary statistics for validated outcome measures, when available, were recorded and where practical the numbers needed to treat (NNT) and the effect size (ES) for each therapy was calculated. The fourth stage involved determination of key clinical propositions by expert consensus employing a Delphi approach. The final stage involved ranking of these propositions according to the available evidence. A second set of propositions relating to a future research agenda was determined by expert consensus using a Delphi approach. Results Over 2400 English language publications and 400 non-English language publications were identified. Seven hundred and forty four studies presented outcome data of the effects of specific treatments on knee OA. Quantitative analysis of treatment effect was possible in only 61 studies. Recommendations for the management of knee OA based on currently available data and expert opinion are presented. Proposals for a future research agenda are highlighted. Conclusions These are the first clinical guidelines on knee OA to combine an evidence-based approach and a consensus approach across a wide range of treatment modalities. It is apparent that only certain clinical propositions are supported by substantial research-based evidence, while others are not. There is thus an urgent need for future well designed trials to address key clinical questions.      

Current evidence for the management of ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic literature review for the ASAS/EULAR management recommendations in ankylosing spondylitis

OBJECTIVE: To assess available management strategies in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) using a systematic approach, as a part of the development of evidence based recommendations for the management of AS. METHODS: A systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify relevant interventions for the management of AS. Evidence for each intervention was categorised by study type, and outcome data for efficacy, adverse effects, and cost effectiveness were abstracted. The effect size, rate ratio, number needed to treat, and incremental cost effectiveness ratio were calculated for each intervention where possible. Results from randomised controlled trials were pooled where appropriate. RESULTS: Both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions considered to be of interest to clinicians involved in the management of AS were identified. Good evidence (level Ib) exists supporting the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and coxibs for symptomatic treatment. Non-pharmacological treatments are also supported for maintaining function in AS. The use of conventional antirheumatoid arthritis drugs is not well supported by high level research evidence. Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (infliximab and etanercept) have level Ib evidence supporting large treatment effects for spinal pain and function in AS over at least 6 months. Level IV evidence supports surgical interventions in specific patients. CONCLUSION: This extensive literature review forms the evidence base considered in the development of the new ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of AS.     

Level of acceptability of EULAR recommendations for the management of knee osteoarthritis by practitioners in different European countries

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the level of acceptability of the EULAR recommendations for the management of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) in practice. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to general practitioners, rheumatologists, rehabilitators, and orthopaedic surgeons in five European countries (France, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy). Practitioners were asked to give their opinion on the 10 EULAR recommendations and on 23 treatment modes for KOA. Practitioners' opinions were compared with those of the expert task force involved in the development of these recommendations. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 10.4% (4204 replies). Results were similar across countries and specialties. Of the 23 treatment modes proposed, only joint lavage and intra-articular (IA) corticosteroid injections were more strongly recommended by the expert task force than by the responders as a whole, while the opposite was true for spa therapy. Principal component analysis showed: (1) some practitioners preferred "hard line" treatments (surgery, IA injections, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)); (2) there was a difference between those prescribing pharmacological (paracetamol) or non-pharmacological measures with low iatrogenicity (exercises, sticks, education), and those prescribing less well validated treatments closer to "alternative" medicine; (3) each specialist tended to advocate modes that they were most familiar with: rheumatologists were more likely to recommend IA injections and NSAIDs; orthopaedic surgeons, surgical procedures; rehabilitators, education and all non-pharmacological modes; general practitioners, spa therapy and opioids. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary approach is optimal in the management of this chronic disease with its variable course.     

Evidence-based recommendations for the prevention and long-term management of thrombosis in antiphospholipid antibody-positive patients: report of a task force at the 13th International Congress on antiphospholipid antibodies

The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is defined by the presence of thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity in combination with the persistent presence of circulating antiphospholipid antibodies: lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin antibodies and/or anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibodies in medium to high titers. The management of thrombosis in patients with APS is a subject of controversy. This set of recommendations is the result of an effort to produce guidelines for therapy within a group of specialist physicians in Cardiology, Neurology, Hematology, Rheumatology and Internal Medicine, with a clinical and research focus on APS.