Explore the vast range of titles available.

This article describes conceptual advances of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group guidance to evaluate the certainty of evidence (confidence in evidence, quality of evidence) from network meta-analysis (NMA). Application of the original GRADE guidance, published in 2014, in a number of NMAs has resulted in advances that strengthen its conceptual basis and make the process more efficient. This guidance will be useful for systematic review authors who aim to assess the certainty of all pairwise comparisons from an NMA and who are familiar with the basic concepts of NMA and the traditional GRADE approach for pairwise meta-analysis. Two principles of the original GRADE NMA guidance are that we need to rate the certainty of the evidence for each pairwise comparison within a network separately and that in doing so we need to consider both the direct and indirect evidence. We present, discuss, and illustrate four conceptual advances: (1) consideration of imprecision is not necessary when rating the direct and indirect estimates to inform the rating of NMA estimates, (2) there is no need to rate the indirect evidence when the certainty of the direct evidence is high and the contribution of the direct evidence to the network estimate is at least as great as that of the indirect evidence, (3) we should not trust a statistical test of global incoherence of the network to assess incoherence at the pairwise comparison level, and (4) in the presence of incoherence between direct and indirect evidence, the certainty of the evidence of each estimate can help decide which estimate to believe. •The application of the Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development, and Evaluation approach to a number of network meta-analyses in the 3 years since the original guidance publication has led to advances that have strengthened the conceptual basis.•We present, discuss, and illustrate four conceptual advances. These are based on two principles: we need to rate the certainty of the evidence of each pairwise comparison within a network separately and that we need to consider both the direct and indirect evidence contributing to each network estimate.•Although maximizing the efficiency of the process is desirable, as illustrated in the conceptual advances, use of these strategies requires careful judgment.

To quantify patient preferences for maintenance therapy of Crohn's disease and understand the impact on treatment selection. We conducted a discrete-choice experiment in patients with Crohn's disease (n = 155) to measure the importance of attributes relevant to choosing between different medical therapies for maintenance of Crohn's disease. The attributes included efficacy and withdrawals due to adverse events, as well as dosing and other rare risks of treatment. From the discrete-choice experiment we estimated the part-worth (importance) of each attribute level, and explored preference heterogeneity through latent class analysis. We then used the part-worths to apply weights across each outcome from a prior network meta-analysis to estimate patients' preferred treatment in pairwise comparisons and for the overall group of treatments. The discrete-choice experiment revealed that maintaining remission was the most important attribute. Patients would accept a rare risk of infection or cancer for a 14% absolute increased chance of remission. Latent class analysis demonstrated that 45% of the cohort was risk averse, either to adverse events or requiring a course of prednisone. When these preferences were used in modelling studies to compare pairs of treatments, there was a ≥ 78% probability that all biologic treatments were preferred to azathioprine and methotrexate, based on the balance of benefits and harms. When comparing all treatments, adalimumab was preferred by 53% of patients, who were motivated by efficacy, and vedolizumab was preferred by 30% who were driven by the preference to avoid risks. However, amongst biologic treatment options, there was considerable uncertainty regarding the preferred treatment at the individual patient level. Patients with Crohn's disease from our population were, on average, focused on the benefits of treatment, supporting intensive treatment approaches aimed at maintaining remission. Important preference heterogeneity was identified, however, highlighting the importance of shared decision making when selecting treatments.

ObjectiveTo determine the comparative effectiveness of oral versus subcutaneous methotrexate (MTX) as initial therapy for patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA).MethodsPatients with ERA (symptoms ≤1 year) initiating MTX therapy were included from a multicentre, prospective cohort study. We compared the effectiveness between starting with oral versus subcutaneous MTX over the first year. Longitudinal multivariable models, adjusted for potential baseline and time-varying confounders, were used to compare treatment changes due to inefficacy or toxicity and treatment efficacy (Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS-28), DAS-28 remission and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI)).Results666 patients were included (417 oral MTX, 249 subcutaneous MTX). Patients prescribed subcutaneous MTX were prescribed a higher dose of MTX (mean dose over first three months 22.3 mg vs 17.2 mg/week). At 1 year, 49% of patients initially treated with subcutaneous MTX had changed treatment compared with 77% treated with oral MTX. After adjusting for potential confounders, subcutaneous MTX was associated with a lower rate of treatment failure ((HR (95% CI) 0.55 (0.39 to 0.79)). Most treatment failures were due to inefficacy with no difference in failure due to toxicity. In multivariable models, subcutaneous MTX was also associated with lower average DAS-28 scores (mean difference (−0.38 (95% CI −0.64 to −0.10)) and a small difference in DAS-28 remission (OR 1.2 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.3)). There was no significant difference in sustained remission or HAQ-DI (p values 0.43 and 0.75).ConclusionsInitial treatment with subcutaneous MTX was associated with lower rates of treatment changes, no difference in toxicity and some improvements in disease control versus oral MTX over the first year in patients with ERA.

Objective To compare methotrexate based disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatments for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naive to or with an inadequate response to methotrexate.Design Systematic review and Bayesian random effects network meta-analysis of trials assessing methotrexate used alone or in combination with other conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic drugs, or tofacitinib in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis.Data sources Trials were identified from Medline, Embase, and Central databases from inception to 19 January 2016; abstracts from two major rheumatology meetings from 2009 to 2015; two trial registers; and hand searches of Cochrane reviews.Study selection criteria Randomized or quasi-randomized trials that compared methotrexate with any other DMARD or combination of DMARDs and contributed to the network of evidence between the treatments of interest.Main outcomes American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response (major clinical improvement), radiographic progression, and withdrawals due to adverse events. A comparison between two treatments was considered statistically significant if its credible interval excluded the null effect, indicating >97.5% probability that one treatment was superior.Results 158 trials were included, with between 10 and 53 trials available for each outcome. In methotrexate naive patients, several treatments were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine (“triple therapy”), several biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab), and tofacitinib. The estimated probability of ACR50 response was similar between these treatments (range 56-67%), compared with 41% with methotrexate. Methotrexate combined with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, or infliximab was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression, but the estimated mean change over one year with all treatments was less than the minimal clinically important difference of 5 units on the Sharp-van der Heijde scale. Triple therapy had statistically fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than methotrexate plus infliximab. After an inadequate response to methotrexate, several treatments were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: triple therapy, methotrexate plus hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate plus leflunomide, methotrexate plus intramuscular gold, methotrexate plus most biologics, and methotrexate plus tofacitinib. The probability of response was 61% with triple therapy and ranged widely (27-70%) with other treatments. No treatment was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression. Methotrexate plus abatacept had a statistically lower rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than several treatments.Conclusions Triple therapy (methotrexate plus sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine) and most regimens combining biologic DMARDs with methotrexate were effective in controlling disease activity, and all were generally well tolerated in both methotrexate naive and methotrexate exposed patients.

Objective Patient self‐assessed joint counts, if accurate and reliable, could potentially serve as a useful clinical assessment tool in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This systematic review examines the effect of patient training on the inter‐rater reliability of joint counts between patients and clinicians. Methods The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL for articles that incorporated patient training and measured the reliability of patient self‐assessed joint counts in RA. Articles were included if they reported on the inter‐rater reliability between patient and clinician joint counts in both trained and untrained patients with RA. Data were extracted on characteristics of patients, structure and components of the training interventions, joint count reliability of patients with and without training, and patient feedback on training interventions. The relevant data were summarized and described. Results Multiple training methods have been studied (n = 5), including in‐person sessions run by rheumatologists and instructional videos on the joint examination. Overall, training improved the reliability of patient self–joint counts, with more marked improvement in reliability of swollen joint counts than tender joint counts. Patients had positive feedback when surveyed on their experiences with training. Conclusion Various training modalities (in‐person and video‐based) may be effective at improving reliability of patient self–joint counts. More research is needed on this topic, with potential areas for future research including 1) comparison between the efficacy of different modalities of training, and 2) impact of patient factors (education level and disease severity) on the efficacy of training.

Background The study evaluates Performance Measures (PMs) for Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA): The percentage of patients with new onset JIA with at least one visit to a pediatric rheumatologist in the first year of diagnosis (PM1); and the percentage of patients with JIA under rheumatology care seen in follow-up at least once per year (PM2). Methods Validated JIA case ascertainment algorithms were used to identify cases from provincial health administrative databases in Manitoba, Canada in patients < 16 years between 01/04/2005 and 31/03/2015. PM1: Using a 3-year washout period, the percentage of incident JIA patients with ≥1 visit to a pediatric rheumatologist in the first year was calculated. For each fiscal year, the proportion of patients expected to be seen in follow-up who had a visit were calculated (PM2). The proportion of patients with gaps in care of > 12 and > 14 months between consecutive visits were also calculated. Results One hundred ninety-four incident JIA cases were diagnosed between 01/04/2008 and 03/31/2015. The median age at diagnosis was 9.1 years and 71% were female. PM1: Across the years, 51–81% of JIA cases saw a pediatric rheumatologist within 1 year. PM2: Between 58 and 78% of patients were seen in yearly follow-up. Gaps > 12, and > 14, months were observed once during follow-up in 52, and 34%, of cases, and ≥ twice in 11, and 5%, respectively. Conclusions Suboptimal access to pediatric rheumatologist care was observed which could lead to diagnostic and treatment delays and lack of consistent follow-up, potentially negatively impacting patient outcomes.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is commonly characterized by joint space narrowing. High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) provides unparalleled visualization and quantification of joint space in extremity joints commonly affected by RA, such as the 2nd and 3rd metacarpophalangeal joints. However, age, sex, and obesity can also influence joint space narrowing. Thus, this study aimed to determine whether HR-pQCT joint space metrics could distinguish between RA patients and controls, and determine the effects of age, sex and body mass index (BMI) on these joint space metrics. HR-pQCT joint space metrics (volume, width, standard deviation of width, maximum/minimum width, and asymmetry) were acquired from RA patients and age-and sex-matched healthy control participants 2nd and 3rd MCP joints. Joint health and functionality were assessed with ultrasound (i.e., effusion and inflammation), hand function tests, and questionnaires. HR-pQCT-derived 3D joint space metrics were not significantly different between RA and control groups (  > 0.05), despite significant differences in inflammation and joint function (  < 0.05). Joint space volume, mean joint space width (JSW), maximum JSW, minimum JSW were larger in males than females (  < 0.05), while maximum JSW decreased with age. No significant association between joint space metrics and BMI were found. HR-pQCT did not detect group level differences between RA and age-and sex-matched controls. Further research is necessary to determine whether this is due to a true lack of group level differences due to well-controlled RA, or the inability of HR-pQCT to detect a difference.

Background To develop an interdisciplinary care pathway for early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) including referral triage, diagnosis, and management. Methods Our process was a four-phase approach. In Phase 1, an anonymous survey was electronically distributed to division rheumatologists. This provided data to a small interprofessional working group of rheumatology team members who drafted an initial care pathway informed by evidence-based practice in Phase 2. In Phase 3, an education day was held with approximately 40 physicians (rheumatologists and rheumatology residents), members of our interprofessional team, and two clinic managers to review the proposed care elements through presentations and small group discussions. The care pathway was revised for content and implementation considerations based on feedback received. Implementation of the care pathway and development of strategies for evaluation is ongoing across multiple practice sites (Phase 4). Results Our care pathway promotes an approach to patient-centered early RA care using an interdisciplinary approach. Care pathway elements include triage processes, critical diagnostics, pre-treatment screening and vaccinations, and uptake of suggested RA pharmacologic treatment using shared decision-making strategies. Pathway implementation has been facilitated by nursing protocols and evaluation includes continuous monitoring of key indicators. Conclusion The ‘ Calgary Early RA Care Pathway ’ emphasizes a patient-centered and interdisciplinary approach to early RA identification and treatment. Implementation and evaluation of this care pathway is ongoing to support, highest quality care for patients.

Objective Decision aids are being developed to support guideline‐based rheumatology care in Canada. The study objective was to identify barriers to decision aid use in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) within a behavior change model to inform an implementation strategy. Methods Perspectives from Canadian health care providers (HCPs) and patients living with RA were obtained on an early RA decision aid and on perceived facilitators and barriers to decision aid implementation. Data were collected through semistructured interviews, transcribed, and then analyzed by inductive thematic analysis. The lessons learned were then mapped to the behavior change wheel COM‐B system (C = capability, O = opportunity, and M = motivation interact to influence B = behavior) to inform key elements of a national implementation strategy. Results Fifteen HCPs and fifteen patients participated. The analysis resulted in five lessons learned: 1) paternalistic decision‐making is a dominant practice in early RA, 2) patients need emotional support and access to educational tools to facilitate participation in shared decision‐making (SDM), 3) there are many logistical barriers to decision aid implementation in current care models, 4) flexibility is necessary for successful implementation, and 5) HCPs have limited interest in further training opportunities about decision aids. Implementation recommendations included the following: 1) making the decision aids directly available to patients (O) and providing SDM education (C/M), 2) creating an SDM rheumatology curriculum (C/O/M), 3) using “decision coaches” or patient partners as peer support (C/O/M), 4) linking decision aids to “living” rheumatology guidelines (M), and 5) designing trials of patient decision aid/SDM interventions to evaluate patient‐important outcomes (O/M). Conclusion A multifaceted strategy is suggested to improve uptake of decision aids.