Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundReaching the therapeutic target of remission or low-disease activity has improved outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) significantly. The treat-to-target recommendations, formulated in 2010, have provided a basis for implementation of a strategic approach towards this therapeutic goal in routine clinical practice, but these recommendations need to be re-evaluated for appropriateness and practicability in the light of new insights.ObjectiveTo update the 2010 treat-to-target recommendations based on systematic literature reviews (SLR) and expert opinion.MethodsA task force of rheumatologists, patients and a nurse specialist assessed the SLR results and evaluated the individual items of the 2010 recommendations accordingly, reformulating many of the items. These were subsequently discussed, amended and voted upon by >40 experts, including 5 patients, from various regions of the world. Levels of evidence, strengths of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived.ResultsThe update resulted in 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations. The previous recommendations were partly adapted and their order changed as deemed appropriate in terms of importance in the view of the experts. The SLR had now provided also data for the effectiveness of targeting low-disease activity or remission in established rather than only early disease. The role of comorbidities, including their potential to preclude treatment intensification, was highlighted more strongly than before. The treatment aim was again defined as remission with low-disease activity being an alternative goal especially in patients with long-standing disease. Regular follow-up (every 1–3 months during active disease) with according therapeutic adaptations to reach the desired state was recommended. Follow-up examinations ought to employ composite measures of disease activity that include joint counts. Additional items provide further details for particular aspects of the disease, especially comorbidity and shared decision-making with the patient. Levels of evidence had increased for many items compared with the 2010 recommendations, and levels of agreement were very high for most of the individual recommendations (≥9/10).ConclusionsThe 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations are based on stronger evidence than before and are supposed to inform patients, rheumatologists and other stakeholders about strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA.

BackgroundTargeting interleukin (IL)-6 has become a major therapeutic strategy in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory disease. Interference with the IL-6 pathway can be directed at the specific receptor using anti-IL-6Rα antibodies or by directly inhibiting the IL-6 cytokine. This paper is an update of a previous consensus document, based on most recent evidence and expert opinion, that aims to inform on the medical use of interfering with the IL-6 pathway.MethodsA systematic literature research was performed that focused on IL-6-pathway inhibitors in inflammatory diseases. Evidence was put in context by a large group of international experts and patients in a subsequent consensus process. All were involved in formulating the consensus statements, and in the preparation of this document.ResultsThe consensus process covered relevant aspects of dosing and populations for different indications of IL-6 pathway inhibitors that are approved across the world, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular-course and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, giant cell arteritis, Takayasu arteritis, adult-onset Still’s disease, Castleman’s disease, chimeric antigen receptor-T-cell-induced cytokine release syndrome, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder and severe COVID-19. Also addressed were other clinical aspects of the use of IL-6 pathway inhibitors, including pretreatment screening, safety, contraindications and monitoring.ConclusionsThe document provides a comprehensive consensus on the use of IL-6 inhibition to treat inflammatory disorders to inform healthcare professionals (including researchers), patients, administrators and payers.

Background Since approval of tocilizumab (TCZ) for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), interleukin 6 (IL-6) pathway inhibition was evaluated in trials of TCZ and other agents targeting the IL-6 receptor and ligand in various RA populations and other inflammatory diseases. This consensus document informs on interference with the IL-6 pathway based on evidence and expert opinion. Methods Preparation of this document involved international experts in RA treatment and RA patients. A systematic literature search was performed that focused on TCZ and other IL6-pathway inhibitors in RA and other diseases. Subsequently, incorporating available published evidence and expert opinion, the steering committee and a broader expert committee (both including RA patients) formulated the current consensus statement. Results The consensus statement covers use of TCZ as combination- or monotherapy in various RA populations and includes clinical, functional and structural aspects. The statement also addresses the second approved indication in Europe JIA and non-approved indications. Also early phase trials involving additional agents that target the IL-6 receptor or IL-6 were evaluated. Safety concerns, including haematological, hepatic and metabolic issues as well as infections, are addressed likewise. Conclusions The consensus statement identifies points to consider when using TCZ, regarding indications, contraindications, screening, dose, comedication, response evaluation and safety. The document is aimed at supporting clinicians and informing patients, administrators and payers on opportunities and limitations of IL-6 pathway inhibition.

Traditionally, musculoskeletal pain management has focused on the use of conventional treatments to relieve pain. However, multi-modal integrative medicine including alternative/complementary treatments is becoming more widely used and integrated into treatment guidelines around the world. The uptake of this approach varies according to country, with generally a higher uptake in developed countries and in females aged more than 40 years. Integral to the concept described here, is that the body has an innate ability to self-heal, which can be optimized by the use of integrative medical strategies. Stress triggers for acute or recurring musculoskeletal pain are diverse and can range from physical to psychological. The mechanism by which the body responds to triggers and initiates the self-healing processes is complex, but five body networks or processes are thought to be integral: the nervous system, microcirculation/vasodilation, immune modulation, muscular relaxation/contraction and psychological balance. Multi-modal integrative medicine approaches include nutritional/dietary modification, postural/muscular training exercises, and cognitive behavioral mind/body techniques. This article will review the self-healing concept and provide plausible scientific evidence where available.

IntroductionDespite the profound burden of disease, a strategic global response to optimise musculoskeletal (MSK) health and guide national-level health systems strengthening priorities remains absent. Auspiced by the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health (G-MUSC), we aimed to empirically derive requisite priorities and components of a strategic response to guide global and national-level action on MSK health.MethodsDesign: mixed-methods, three-phase design.Phase 1: qualitative study with international key informants (KIs), including patient representatives and people with lived experience. KIs characterised the contemporary landscape for MSK health and priorities for a global strategic response.Phase 2: scoping review of national health policies to identify contemporary MSK policy trends and foci.Phase 3: informed by phases 1–2, was a global eDelphi where multisectoral panellists rated and iterated a framework of priorities and detailed components/actions.ResultsPhase 1: 31 KIs representing 25 organisations were sampled from 20 countries (40% low and middle income (LMIC)). Inductively derived themes were used to construct a logic model to underpin latter phases, consisting of five guiding principles, eight strategic priority areas and seven accelerators for action.Phase 2: of the 165 documents identified, 41 (24.8%) from 22 countries (88% high-income countries) and 2 regions met the inclusion criteria. Eight overarching policy themes, supported by 47 subthemes, were derived, aligning closely with the logic model.Phase 3: 674 panellists from 72 countries (46% LMICs) participated in round 1 and 439 (65%) in round 2 of the eDelphi. Fifty-nine components were retained with 10 (17%) identified as essential for health systems. 97.6% and 94.8% agreed or strongly agreed the framework was valuable and credible, respectively, for health systems strengthening.ConclusionAn empirically derived framework, co-designed and strongly supported by multisectoral stakeholders, can now be used as a blueprint for global and country-level responses to improve MSK health and prioritise system strengthening initiatives.

To summarise the evidence on effectiveness of non-pharmacological (ie, non-drug, non-surgical) interventions on work participation (sick leave, work status and presenteeism) in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal observational studies (LOS) was performed. Qualitative (RCTs/LOS) and quantitative (RCTs) evidence syntheses were conducted. Mixed-effects restricted maximum likelihood models were used to combine effect estimates, using standardised mean differences (SMDs) as the summary measure for each outcome domain separately, with a negative SMD favouring the intervention over comparator. Subgroup analyses were performed for type of RMD, risk status at baseline regarding adverse work outcomes and intervention characteristics. Of 10 153 records, 64 studies (37 RCTs and 27 LOS; corresponding to =71 treatment comparisons) were included. Interventions were mostly conducted in clinical settings (44 of 71, 62%). Qualitative synthesis suggested clear beneficial effects of 7 of 64 (11%) interventions for sick leave, 1 of 18 (6%) for work status and 1 of 17 (6%) for presenteeism. Quantitative synthesis (37 RCTs; 43 treatment comparisons) suggested statistically significant but only small clinical effects on each outcome (SMD (95% CI)=-0.23 (-0.33 to -0.13; =42); SMD =-0.38 (-0.63 to -0.12; =9); SMD =-0.25 (-0.39 to -0.12; =13)). In people with RMDs, empirical evidence shows that non-pharmacological interventions have small effects on work participation. Effectiveness depends on contextual factors such as disease, population risk status, intervention characteristics and outcome of interest, highlighting the importance of tailoring interventions.

Current knowledge of the reasons for patients' preference for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment modes is limited. This study was designed to identify preferences for four treatment modes, and to obtain in-depth information on the reasons for these preferences. In this multi-national, cross-sectional, qualitative study, in-depth interviews were conducted with adult patients with RA in the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Brazil. Patients' strength of preference was evaluated using a 100-point allocation task (0-100; 100=strongest) across four treatment modes: oral, self-injection, clinic-injection, and infusion. Qualitative descriptive analysis methods were used to identify, characterize, and summarize patterns found in the interview data relating to reasons for these preferences. 100 patients were interviewed (female, 75.0%; mean age, 53.9 years; mean 11.6 years since diagnosis). Among the four treatment modes, oral administration was allocated the highest mean (standard deviation) preference points (47.3 [33.1]) and was ranked first choice by the greatest percentage of patients (57.0%), followed by self-injection (29.7 [27.7]; 29.0%), infusion (15.4 [24.6]; 16.0%), and clinic-injection (7.5 [14.1]; 2.0%). Overall, 56.0% of patients had a \"strong\" first-choice preference (ie, point allocation ≥70); most of these patients chose oral (62.5%) vs self-injection (23.2%), infusion (10.7%), or clinic-injection (3.6%). Speed and/or ease of administration were the most commonly reported reasons for patients choosing oral (52.6%) or self-injection (55.2%). The most common reasons for patients not choosing oral or self-injection were not wanting to take another pill (37.2%) and avoiding pain due to needles (46.5%), respectively. These data report factors important to patients regarding preferences for RA treatment modes. Patients may benefit from discussions with their healthcare professionals and/or patient support groups, regarding RA treatment modes, to facilitate shared decision-making.

ObjectiveRheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune inflammatory disorder with a global prevalence of approximately 0.5–1%. Patients with RA are at an increased risk of developing comorbidities (eg, cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, diabetes and depression). Despite this, there are limited recommendations for the management and implementation of associated comorbidities. This study aimed to identify good practice interventions in the care of RA and associated comorbidities.MethodsA combination of primary research (180+ interviews with specialists across 12 European rheumatology centres) and secondary research (literature review of existing publications and guidelines/recommendations) were used to identify challenges in management and corresponding good practice interventions. Findings were prioritised and reviewed by a group of 18 rheumatology experts including rheumatologists, comorbidity experts, a patient representative and a highly specialised nurse.ResultsChallenges throughout the patient pathway (including delays in diagnosis and referral, shortage of rheumatologists, limited awareness of primary care professionals) and 18 good practice interventions were identified in the study. The expert group segmented and prioritised interventions according to three distinct stages of the disease: (1) suspected RA, (2) recent diagnosis of RA and (3) established RA. Examples of good practice interventions included enabling self-management (self-monitoring and disease management support, for example, lifestyle adaptations); early arthritis clinic; rapid access to care (online referral, triage, ultrasound-guided diagnosis); dedicated comorbidity specialists; enhanced communication with primary care (hotline, education sessions); and integrating patient registries into daily clinical practice.ConclusionLearning from implementation of good practice interventions in centres across Europe provides an opportunity to more widely improved care for patients with RA and associated comorbidities.

In this article, the 2010 European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs and bDMARDs, respectively) have been updated. The 2013 update has been developed by an international task force, which based its decisions mostly on evidence from three systematic literature reviews (one each on sDMARDs, including glucocorticoids, bDMARDs and safety aspects of DMARD therapy); treatment strategies were also covered by the searches. The evidence presented was discussed and summarised by the experts in the course of a consensus finding and voting process. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were derived and levels of agreement (strengths of recommendations) were determined. Fourteen recommendations were developed (instead of 15 in 2010). Some of the 2010 recommendations were deleted, and others were amended or split. The recommendations cover general aspects, such as attainment of remission or low disease activity using a treat-to-target approach, and the need for shared decision-making between rheumatologists and patients. The more specific items relate to starting DMARD therapy using a conventional sDMARD (csDMARD) strategy in combination with glucocorticoids, followed by the addition of a bDMARD or another csDMARD strategy (after stratification by presence or absence of adverse risk factors) if the treatment target is not reached within 6 months (or improvement not seen at 3 months). Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, biosimilars), abatacept, tocilizumab and, under certain circumstances, rituximab are essentially considered to have similar efficacy and safety. If the first bDMARD strategy fails, any other bDMARD may be used. The recommendations also address tofacitinib as a targeted sDMARD (tsDMARD), which is recommended, where licensed, after use of at least one bDMARD. Biosimilars are also addressed. These recommendations are intended to inform rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies and other stakeholders about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA with sDMARDs, glucocorticoids and bDMARDs. They are based on evidence and expert opinion and intended to improve outcome in patients with RA.

Therapeutic targets have been defined for axial and peripheral spondyloarthritis (SpA) in 2012, but the evidence for these recommendations was only of indirect nature. These recommendations were re-evaluated in light of new insights. Based on the results of a systematic literature review and expert opinion, a task force of rheumatologists, dermatologists, patients and a health professional developed an update of the 2012 recommendations. These underwent intensive discussions, on site voting and subsequent anonymous electronic voting on levels of agreement with each item. A set of 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations were developed and voted on. Some items were present in the previous recommendations, while others were significantly changed or newly formulated. The 2017 task force arrived at a single set of recommendations for axial and peripheral SpA, including psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The most exhaustive discussions related to whether PsA should be assessed using unidimensional composite scores for its different domains or multidimensional scores that comprise multiple domains. This question was not resolved and constitutes an important research agenda. There was broad agreement, now better supported by data than in 2012, that remission/inactive disease and, alternatively, low/minimal disease activity are the principal targets for the treatment of PsA. As instruments to assess the patients on the path to the target, the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) for axial SpA and the Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) and Minimal Disease Activity (MDA) for PsA were recommended, although not supported by all. Shared decision-making between the clinician and the patient was seen as pivotal to the process. The task force defined the treatment target for SpA as remission or low disease activity and developed a large research agenda to further advance the field.