2020 recommendations from the French Society of Rheumatology for the management of gout: Urate-lowering therapy

ObjectiveTo develop French Society of Rheumatology-endorsed recommendations for the management of urate-lowering therapy (ULT).MethodsEvidence-based recommendations were developed by 9 rheumatologists (academic or community-based), 3 general practitioners, 1 cardiologist, 1 nephrologist and 1 patient, using a systematic literature search, one physical meeting to draft recommendations and two Delphi rounds to finalize them.ResultsA set of 3 overarching principles and 5 recommendations was elaborated. The overarching principles emphasize the importance of patient education, especially the need for explaining the objective of lowering serum urate (SU) level to obtain crystal dissolution, clinical symptoms disappearance and avoidance of complications. ULT is indicated as soon as the diagnosis of gout is established. SU level must be decreased below 300 μmol/l (50 mg/l) in all gout patients or at least below 360 μmol/l (60 ml/l) when the 300 μmol/l target cannot be reached, and must be maintained at these targets and monitored life-long. The choice of the ULT primarily relies on renal function: in patients whose estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is above 60 ml/min/1.73 m², first-line ULT is allopurinol; in those with eGFR between 30 and 60 ml/min/1.73 m², allopurinol use must be cautious and febuxostat can be considered as an alternative; and in those whose eGFR is below 30 ml/min/1.73 m², allopurinol must be avoided and febuxostat should be preferred. Prophylaxis of ULT-induced gout flares involves progressive increase of ULT dosage and low-dose colchicine for at least 6 months. Cardiovascular risk factors and diseases, the metabolic syndrome and chronic kidney disease must be screened and managed.ConclusionThese recommendations aim to provide simple and clear guidance for the management of ULT in France.     

Musculoskeletal corticosteroid injections: Recommendations of the French Society for Rheumatology (SFR)

Musculoskeletal corticosteroid injections are widely performed, although the exact practice varies greatly due to advances in knowledge and techniques. This justifies updating and drawing up good practice recommendations. Using a consensus model formalized by the French National Authority for Health (HAS) and based on a literature review that resulted in a “white book”, 13 recommendations were developed by a group of experts. These recommendations were then sent online to 48 specialists for evaluation, 27 of whom were rheumatologists and 15 of whom were general practitioners. These recommendations were also presented at the 34th annual meeting of the French Society for Rheumatology (SFR) (Paris, December 2021) at a symposium attended by a hundred or so rheumatologists, who voted on these recommendations in person. The results are presented as an overall score out of 10, a median out of 10 and as tertiles. The agreement was excellent for 10 of these 13 recommendations, with mean values of 8.5 to 9.1 out of 10, median values of 9 or 10 out of 10 and agreement of 91.7% to 97.9%, which corresponds to a consensus. The 3 other recommendations were broadly supported but were the subject of more debate. One relates to patient information (mean 7.3/10, median 8/10, upper tertile 72.9%) with discussion about the waiting period. Another related to the summary report (mean 8.4/10, median 9, upper tertile 91.7%) with discussions about its content and the need to specify the lot number of the injected product. The last one related to periprosthetic injections and the need to consult and get approval from a specialist (mean 8.0/10, median 8, upper tertile 83.3%) with mostly the general practitioners having reservations. In all, there is a very strong consensus among the musculoskeletal corticosteroid injection experts and specialists consulted, which justifies them being taken into consideration to improve our daily practice.     

Recommendations of the French Society for Rheumatology (SFR) on the everyday management of patients with spondyloarthritis

The management of spondyloarthritis is challenging and has changed with the development of new concepts and treatments.ObjectiveTo develop practice guidelines for the everyday management of patients with spondyloarthritis (including psoriatic arthritis), by updating previous national and international recommendations, based on a review of recently published data.MethodsA task force and a multidisciplinary literature review group were established. The task force identified the issues that remained unresolved. Based on existing recommendations and recent publications, the task force developed practice guidelines, which were revised by the literature review group and graded according to AGREE.ResultsPractice guidelines for the management of spondyloarthritis are reported. After a review of the general diagnostic principles, 30 practice guidelines are given: 5 on general principles, 4 on the management strategy, 5 on non-pharmacological treatments, 7 on conventional pharmacological treatments, 6 on biotherapies, and 3 on surgical treatments and follow-up.ConclusionThe updated practice guidelines reported here constitute a global framework that can guide physicians in the everyday management of spondyloarthritis.     

Recommendations of the French Society for Rheumatology for managing rheumatoid arthritis

IntroductionThis article reports the latest recommendations of the French Society for Rheumatology (SFR) regarding the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsNew recommendations were developed by hospital- and community-based rheumatologists having extensive experience with RA and a patient self-help organization representative. They rest on the recently issued EULAR recommendations and a literature review.ResultsPoints emphasized in the 15 recommendations include the need to share treatment decisions between the rheumatologist and the patient, the acquisition by patients of self-management skills, remission or minimal disease activity as the treatment target, the need for initiating disease-modifying drugs as early as possible, and the usefulness of regular disease activity assessments to allow rapid treatment adjustments if needed (i.e., tight disease control). First-line methotrexate monotherapy is recommended, with concomitant short-term glucocorticoid therapy if indicated by the risk/benefit ratio. Patients who fail this approach (no response after 3 months or target not achieved after 6 months) can be considered for another synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD: leflunomide or sulfasalazine), combined synthetic DMARD therapy, or methotrexate plus a biologic, depending on the prognostic factors and patient characteristics. If the first biologic fails, switching to a second biologic is recommended. In the event of a sustained remission, cautious dosage reduction of the biological and/after synthetic DMARDs is in order.ConclusionThese recommendations are designed to improve the management of patients with RA.     

Recommendations of the French Society for Rheumatology. TNFalpha antagonist therapy in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES: To develop recommendations for TNFalpha-antagonist therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) seen in everyday practice, under the aegis of the French Society for Rheumatology. METHOD: We used the methods recommended by the French Agency for Healthcare Accreditation and Evaluation, the AGREE collaboration, and the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR). The recommendations focus on patient selection, monitoring, and treatment adjustments. RESULTS: Criteria for selecting patients eligible for TNFalpha-antagonist treatment of RA include: 1) a definitive diagnosis of RA; 2) disease activity for longer than 1 month, including presence of objective signs of inflammation; or radiographic progression; 3) previous failure of methotrexate in the highest tolerated dosage or of another disease-modifying antirheumatic drug in patients with contraindications to methotrexate; 4) absence of contraindications to TNFalpha-antagonist therapy. When starting TNFalpha-antagonist therapy 1) a thorough baseline evaluation should be conducted; 2) any of the three available agents can be used, as no differences in efficacy have been identified in patient populations; 3) concomitant methotrexate therapy is recommended regardless of the TNFalpha antagonist used; and 4) patients should receive standardized follow-up at regular intervals. Treatment adjustments should be based on the following: 1) the treatment objective is achievement of a EULAR response; 2) when such a response is not achieved, the dosage or dosing interval can be changed, or the patient can be switched to another TNFalpha antagonist; 3) in patients who experience intolerance to a TNFalpha antagonist, another TNFalpha antagonist may be tried, depending on the nature of the adverse event; 4) occurrence of a remission should lead to a reduction in symptomatic medications, most notably glucocorticoids where used; in the event of a prolonged remission, either the TNFalpha antagonist or the concomitant disease-modifying antirheumatic drug may be reduced. CONCLUSION: These recommendations are intended to help physicians use TNFalpha antagonists in their everyday practice with RA patients. They do not constitute regulations.     

Recommendations of the French Society of Rheumatology on pharmacological treatment of knee osteoarthritis

ObjectivesTo establish recommendations for pharmacological treatment of knee osteoarthritis specific to France.MethodsOn behalf of the French Society of Rheumatology (SFR), a bibliography group analyzed the literature on the efficacy and safety of each pharmacological treatment for knee osteoarthritis. This group joined a multidisciplinary working group to draw up recommendations. Strength of recommendation and quality of evidence level were assigned to each recommendation. A review committee gave its level of agreement.ResultsFive general principles were established: 1) need to combine pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments, 2) personalization of treatment, 3) symptomatic and/or functional aim of pharmacological treatments, 4) need to regularly re-assess the treatments and 5) discussion about arthroplasty if medical treatment fails.Six recommendations involved oral treatments: 1) paracetamol should not necessarily be prescribed systematically and/or continuously, 2) NSAIDs, possibly as first-line, 3) weak opioids, 4) strong opioids, 5) symptomatic slow-acting drugs of osteoarthritis, and 6) duloxetine (off-label use). Two recommendations involved topical agents (NSAIDs and capsaicin < 1%). Three recommendations involved intra-articular treatments: corticosteroid or hyaluronic acid injections that can be proposed to patients. The experts did not draw a conclusion about the benefits of platelet-rich plasma injections.ConclusionThese are the first recommendations of the SFR on the pharmacological treatment of knee osteoarthritis.     

2018 update of French Society for Rheumatology (SFR) recommendations about the everyday management of patients with spondyloarthritis

Objective

To update French Society for Rheumatology recommendations about the management in clinical practice of patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA). SpA is considered across the range of clinical phenotypes (axial, peripheral, and entheseal) and concomitant manifestations. Psoriatic arthritis is included among the SpA phenotypes.

Particulate matter (PM10) as a newly identified environmental risk factor for acute gout flares: A time-series study

ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate the effect of short-term exposure to ambient particulate matter less than 10 μm in diameter (PM₁₀) on occurrence of acute gout flares in the general population and identify susceptible groups accordingly.MethodsThe data of emergency department (ED) cases with acute gout flare in Incheon city, Korea between January 1st 2008 and December 31st 2015 were collected from the National Health Insurance Service claims data. The levels of PM₁₀ and meterological measurements were provided by the Ministry of Environment and the National Meterological Office, respectively. To estimate the risk of daily ED visits due to acute gout flare, these time-series data set were analyzed using generalized additive models with Poisson distribution, including daily average PM₁₀ level, temperature, relative humidity, day of the week, national holiday, season, and date.ResultsThe risk of daily ED visits for acute gout flares per interquartile range increment of the average daily PM₁₀ levels significantly increased in the cumulative lag 0–7 model (relative risk, 1.018; 95% confidence interval, 1.008–1.027, P < 0.001). In particular, men aged ≥ 40 years and those with a history of diabetes mellitus or gout were significantly at a high risk of acute gout flares by subgroup analysis.ConclusionsOur time-series study demonstrated a modest, but significant effect of short-term exposure to PM₁₀ on ED visits for acute gout flares. Ambient PM₁₀ may be a newly identified environmental risk factor for acute gout flares.     

Recommendations of the French Society for Rheumatology regarding TNFalpha antagonist therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

ObjectivesTo update French Society for Rheumatology guidelines regarding the use of TNFα antagonists for treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsExisting guidelines were updated using the AGREE instrument. Items that required updating were selected by a task force, the relevant literature was critically appraised, and new wording was suggested by a limited committee of experts then validated by the task force and subsequently by a panel of external reviewers. The three-topic structure of the recommendations (indication, initiation, and adjustment) and the final algorithm format were maintained.ResultsOf the 12 items, five were selected for updating; one pertained to the indication for treatment with TNFα antagonists, two to treatment initiation, and two to treatment adjustment. Of the four initially recommended criteria for determining that TNFα antagonist therapy is indicated, the first three were left unchanged (confirmed diagnosis of RA; active disease for more than 1 month with objective evidence of inflammation or progressive structural damage, or dependency on glucocorticoid therapy, or progressive radiographic damage; and failure to respond adequately to methotrexate – or another agent when methotrexate is contraindicated – in the optimal tolerated dosage). The fourth and last criterion was modified as follows: co-morbidities should be evaluated in order to distinguish absolute contraindications from relative contraindications that require referral to a specialist. Of the four initial recommendations about TNFα antagonist initiation, the first and fourth were left unchanged (a workup should be performed prior to treatment initiation, and the patient should receive regular standardized follow-up); the second and third recommendations were modified as follows: there is no evidence that one TNFα antagonist is more effective than the others, and concomitant methotrexate therapy is generally advisable, regardless of the TNFα antagonist used. Of the four recommendations about treatment adjustment, the first two were modified as follows: the goal of treatment is to achieve the EULAR response criteria or better; and in non-responders, the dosage or dosing interval can be modified when infliximab is used, methotrexate should be added when the TNFα antagonist is used alone, and in all other situations the patient should be switched to a different TNFα antagonist. The other two recommendations about treatment adjustment were left unchanged (patients who fail to tolerate one TNFα antagonist can be switched to another TNFα antagonist if allowed by the nature of the adverse event; and when a remission is achieved, reduction or discontinuation of symptomatic drugs – most notably glucocorticoids – is appropriate, followed in the event of a prolonged remission by changes in the dosage and/or dosing interval of the TNFα antagonist or concomitant disease-modifying drug).ConclusionThese recommendations are designed to help practitioners optimize the use of TNFα antagonists in patients with RA seen in everyday practice. They do not constitute regulations.     

Recommendations of the French Society for Rheumatology regarding TNFalpha antagonist therapy in patients with ankylosing spondylitis or psoriatic arthritis: 2007 update

ObjectiveTo update French Society for Rheumatology guidelines regarding the use of tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) antagonists for treating patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA).MethodsWe used the method recommended by Shekelle et al. to update the original recommendations: a limited group of experts selected the items that required updating, the relevant literature was critically appraised, and the experts developed new wording for the recommendations, which was then subjected to internal and external validation. As with the original recommendations, three topics were addressed, namely, indications of TNFα antagonist therapy, treatment initiation, and treatment adjustment and follow-up.ResultsFour criteria should be used to evaluate the indication of TNFα antagonist therapy. First, the patient must have a definitive diagnosis of AS or PsA. Thus, patients with AS must meet modified New York criteria or exhibit characteristic involvement of the sacroiliac joints, spine, or peripheral sites documented by radiographs or computed tomography (structural damage) or by magnetic resonance imaging (inflammation). Patients with PsA must meet validated criteria such as the Moll and Wright or CASPAR criteria. The second criterion is active disease for more than 1 month, with a BASDAI ≥4 in patients with predominantly axial disease or a tender/swollen joint count ≥3, and with a physician assessment of disease activity of ≥4/10. The third criterion is failure of at least three non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with axial disease or of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy (methotrexate, salazopyrine, or leflunomide) in patients with peripheral disease. Fourth, the patient must be free of contraindications to TNFα antagonist therapy. Four recommendations pertain to the initiation of TNFα antagonist therapy: a workup should be performed prior to treatment initiation; there is no evidence that one TNFα antagonist is more effective than the others, so decisions about drug selection should be shared with the patient and guided by available safety data and the patient's profile; there is no proof that greater effectiveness can be achieved by routinely combining a conventional DMARD; and patients should receive regular standardized follow-up. The last four recommendations deal with adjusting TNFα antagonist therapy: the treatment objective is a 2-point or greater improvement in the BASDAI in patients with axial disease and a 30% or greater improvement in the tender/swollen joint counts in patients with peripheral disease; there is no evidence to support the introduction of DMARD therapy in non-responders, who can be switched to another TNFα antagonist or, when on infliximab, given higher dosages or more closely spaced injections; patients who fail to tolerate one TNFα antagonist can be switched to another TNFα antagonist if allowed by the nature of the adverse event; and when a remission is achieved, reduction or discontinuation of concomitant anti-inflammatory therapy should be considered, followed in the event of a prolonged remission by a reduction in the dosage of the TNFα antagonist.     

Non-pharmacologic measures for gout management in the prospective GOSPEL cohort: Physicians’ practice and patients’ compliance profiles

Objectives

Gout management includes non-pharmacological measures (NPM). The main objective of this study was to describe the NPM proposed by physicians and their implementation by patients after 3–6 months. The secondary objective was to identify NPM compliance profiles among these patients.

Dietary recommendations of the French Society for Rheumatology for patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases

This article presents the 1st set of dietary recommendations of the French Society for Rheumatology for patients suffering from chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) made by a working group consisting of 12 rheumatology experts, 3 physician nutrition specialists, 1 internal medicine specialist, 1 registered dietician and 3 representatives from patient associations. This group relied on a systematic literature review and on expert opinions, while taking into consideration not only the joint effects of diet in IRD but also the extra-articular ones. Eight general principles and nine recommendations were established. The general principles emphasize that nutritional advice is not a substitute for pharmacological treatment of IRD and that it is an integral part of the patients’ overall care, which could help the patient actively participate in their care. The recommendations propose supporting weight loss in subjects who are overweight or obese, a Mediterranean-type diet and supplementation in polyunsaturated fatty acids, mainly omega-3. Conversely, gluten-free diets (in the absence of celiac disease), vegetarian/vegan diets, fasting and elimination of dairy products should not be proposed. Supplementation with vitamins or trace elements is not indicated for controlling chronic IRD activity, while the use of probiotics or spices is not recommended given the limited or disparate data.     

2022 French Society for Rheumatology (SFR) recommendations on the everyday management of patients with spondyloarthritis,including psoriatic arthritis

ObjectiveUpdate the French Society for Rheumatology (SFR) recommendations on the everyday management of patients with spondyloarthritis, including psoriatic arthritis.MethodsFollowing standardized procedures, a systematic literature review was done by four supervised rheumatology residents based on questions defined by a task force of 16 attending rheumatologists. The findings were reviewed during three working meetings that culminated in each recommendation receiving a grade and the level of agreement among experts being determined.ResultsFive general principles and 15 recommendations were developed. They take into account pharmacological and non-pharmacological measures along with treatment methods based on the dominant phenotype present (axial, articular, enthesitis/dactylitis) and the extra-articular manifestations (psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, uveitis). NSAIDs are the first-line pharmacological treatment in the various presentations. Conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) are not indicated in the axial and isolated entheseal forms. If the response to conventional treatment is not adequate, targeted therapies (biologics, synthetics) should be considered; the indications depend on the clinical phenotype and presence of extra-articular manifestations.ConclusionThis update incorporates recent data (published since the prior update in 2018) and the predominant clinical phenotype concept. It aims to help physicians with the everyday management of patients affected by spondyloarthritis, including psoriatic arthritis.     

Managing patients with rheumatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic: The French Society of Rheumatology answers to most frequently asked questions up to May 2020

BackgroundRheumatologists must contend with COVID-19 pandemic in the management of their patients and many questions have been raised on the use of both anti-inflammatory drugs and disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD). The French Society of Rheumatology (SFR) selected the most critical ones to the daily practice of a rheumatologist and a group of 10 experts from SFR and Club Rheumatism and Inflammation (CRI) boards proposed responses based on the current knowledge of May 2020.MethodsFollowing the availability of the first 18 questions and statements, 1400 individuals consulted the frequently asked questions between the March 31, 2020 and April 12, 2020. As a result, 16 additional questions were forwarded to the SFR, and answered by the board. An additional round of review by email and video conference was organized, which included updates of the previous statements. The scientific relevance of 5 of the questions led to their inclusion in this document. Each response received a final assessment on a scale of 0–10 with 0 meaning no agreement whatsoever and 10 being in complete agreement. The mean values of these votes for each question are presented as the levels of agreement (LoA) at the end of each response. This document was last updated on April 17, 2020.ResultsBased on current scientific literature already published, in most circumstances, there is no contraindication to the initiation or continuation of anti-inflammatory drugs as well as DMARDs. If signs suggestive of infection (coronavirus or other) occur, treatments should be discontinued and resumed, if necessary, after 2 weeks without any symptoms. Only, some signals suggest that people taking an immunosuppressive dose of corticosteroid therapy are at greater risk of developing severe COVID-19. Intra-articular injections of glucocorticoids are allowed when there is no reasonable therapeutic alternative, and providing that precautions to protect the patient and the practitioner from viral contamination are adopted, included appropriate information to the patient.conclusionsCurrently available data on managing patients with rheumatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic are reassuring and support continuing or initiating symptomatic as well as specific treatments of these diseases, the main target of their management remaining their appropriate control, even during this pandemic.     

Guidelines for the treatment of latent tuberculosis infection: Recommendations from the National Tuberculosis Controllers Association and CDC, 2020

Comprehensive guidelines for treatment of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) among persons living in the United States were last published in 2000 (American Thoracic Society. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 161:S221‐S247, 2000). Since then, several new regimens have been evaluated in clinical trials. To update previous guidelines, the National Tuberculosis Controllers Association (NTCA) and CDC convened a committee to conduct a systematic literature review and make new recommendations for the most effective and least toxic regimens for treatment of LTBI among persons who live in the United States. The systematic literature review included clinical trials of regimens to treat LTBI. Quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low) from clinical trial comparisons was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. In addition, a network meta‐analysis evaluated regimens that had not been compared directly in clinical trials. The effectiveness outcome was tuberculosis disease; the toxicity outcome was hepatotoxicity. Strong GRADE recommendations required at least moderate evidence of effectiveness and that the desirable consequences outweighed the undesirable consequences in the majority of patients. Conditional GRADE recommendations were made when determination of whether desirable consequences outweighed undesirable consequences was uncertain (eg with low‐quality evidence). These updated 2020 LTBI treatment guidelines include the NTCA‐ and CDC‐recommended treatment regimens that comprise three preferred rifamycin‐based regimens and two alternative monotherapy regimens with daily isoniazid. All recommended treatment regimens are intended for persons infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis that is presumed to be susceptible to isoniazid or rifampin. These updated guidelines do not apply when evidence is available that the infecting M tuberculosis strain is resistant to both isoniazid and rifampin; recommendations for treating contacts exposed to multidrug‐resistant tuberculosis were published in 2019 (Nahid P, Mase SR Migliori GB, et al Treatment of drug‐resistant tuberculosis. An official ATS/CDC/ERS/IDSA clinical practice guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2019;200:e93‐e142). The three rifamycin‐based preferred regimens are 3 months of once‐weekly isoniazid plus rifapentine, 4 months of daily rifampin, or 3 months of daily isoniazid plus rifampin. Prescribing providers or pharmacists who are unfamiliar with rifampin and rifapentine might confuse the two drugs. They are not interchangeable, and caution should be taken to ensure that patients receive the correct medication for the intended regimen. Preference for these rifamycin‐based regimens was made on the basis of effectiveness, safety, and high treatment completion rates. The two alternative treatment regimens are daily isoniazid for 6 or 9 months; isoniazid monotherapy is efficacious but has higher toxicity risk and lower treatment completion rates than shorter rifamycin‐based regimens. In summary, short‐course (3‐ to 4‐month) rifamycin‐based treatment regimens are preferred over longer‐course (6‐9 month) isoniazid monotherapy for treatment of LTBI. These updated guidelines can be used by clinicians, public health officials, policymakers, health care organizations, and other state and local stakeholders who might need to adapt them to fit individual clinical circumstances.