Article

for the T2T Expert Committee: Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: recommendations of an international task force

Department of Internal Medicine 3, Division of Rheumatology, Medical University of Vienna,Waehringer Guertel 18-20, Vienna, Austria.
Annals of the rheumatic diseases (Impact Factor: 10.38). 03/2010; 69(4):631-7. DOI: 10.1136/ard.2009.123919
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Aiming at therapeutic targets has reduced the risk of organ failure in many diseases such as diabetes or hypertension. Such targets have not been defined for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
/st> To develop recommendations for achieving optimal therapeutic outcomes in RA.
A task force of rheumatologists and a patient developed a set of recommendations on the basis of evidence derived from a systematic literature review and expert opinion; these were subsequently discussed, amended and voted upon by >60 experts from various regions of the world in a Delphi-like procedure. Levels of evidence, strength of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived.
The treat-to-target activity resulted in 10 recommendations. The treatment aim was defined as remission with low disease activity being an alternative goal in patients with long-standing disease. Regular follow-up (every 1-3 months during active disease) with appropriate therapeutic adaptation to reach the desired state within 3 to a maximum of 6 months was recommended. Follow-up examinations ought to employ composite measures of disease activity which include joint counts. Additional items provide further details for particular aspects of the disease. Levels of agreement were very high for many of these recommendations (> or =9/10).
The 10 recommendations are supposed to inform patients, rheumatologists and other stakeholders about strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA based on evidence and expert opinion.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Johannes W J Bijlsma, Sep 02, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
482 Views
 · 
98 Downloads
  • Source
    • "It goes beyond just information-giving and can be defined as an interactive process between patients and health professionals aimed at supporting and enabling patients to manage their life with arthritis and optimising their health and well being (Zangi 2014). The current European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 'treat to target' recommendations and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for RA, emphasise the importance of patient education and shared decision-making between the patient and the health professional (NICE 2009, Smolen et al. 2010). The NICE guidelines (NICE 2009) also acknowledge the contribution of the clinical nurse specialists (CNS) in coordinating patient care and provision of patient education. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aims and objectivesTo evaluate the usability of the educational needs assessment tool in clinical practice, from a practitioner and patient perspective and to establish whether patients perceive that they are getting an equally good or equally inadequate education service for their needs.Background The educational needs assessment tool was developed to enable patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis to assess their education needs prior to a consultation with a health professional. The educational needs assessment tool has been translated into nine languages and measurement properties have been established, however, its usability in clinical practice has not been studied.DesignA qualitative study embedded into a multicentre RCT in which patients had been randomised into either educational needs assessment tool-focused education (Experimental Group) or usual care (control group).Methods Both groups were seen by a clinical nurse specialist. Sixteen patients and four clinical nurse specialists were recruited from the Rheumatology Outpatient Departments of three Acute Hospitals within the U K. Data were collected by interviews with patients and clinical nurse specialist. Analysis followed the Framework approach.ResultsPatients and clinical nurse specialist found completion of the educational needs assessment tool straightforward, comprehensive and easy to use. Completing the educational needs assessment tool helped patients to focus on what they needed to know from the clinical nurse specialist. Patients in both the control group and the experimental group felt supported and reassured by their clinical nurse specialist and perceived that they received a good and adequate education provision.Conclusion This study provides useful insights into the ability of the educational needs assessment tool to assess the educational needs of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in routine clinical practice.Relevance to clinical practiceThe educational needs assessment tool would be useful as a structured guide for nurses when assessing and meeting individual patient educational needs. This has the potential to improve patient-centred care, involve patients more actively in their care and enhance the long-term effects of patient education provision.
    Journal of Clinical Nursing 11/2014; 24(7-8). DOI:10.1111/jocn.12733 · 1.26 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Medications include traditional non-biologic and biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (tDMARDs and bDMARDs). Over the past two decades, there has been a major shift in treatment strategy, with emphasis on early introduction of DMARDs, especially the use of biologic agents including anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNFα) agents (Adalimumab, Etanercept, Infliximab etc.) [2–6]. Other classes of bDMARDs comprise B-Cell depleting therapy (Rituximab), Il-6 blocking therapy (Tocilizumab) and T-cell co-stimulatory inhibitor therapy (Abatacept) [7–9]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Biologic drugs are expensive treatments used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Switching among them is common practice in patients who have had an inadequate response or intolerable adverse events. The National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) UK, which aims to curtail postcode prescribing, has provided guidance on the sequential prescription of these drugs. This study sought to evaluate the extent to which rheumatology centres across the Midlands were complying with NICE guidance on the switching of biologic drugs in RA, as well as analyse the various prescribing patterns of these drugs. Methods Data was collected via a web-based tool on RA patients who had undergone at least one switch of a biologic drug during 2011. The standards specified in NICE technology appraisals (TA130, TA186, TA195, TA198, and TA225) were used to assess compliance with NICE guidance. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed. Results There were 335 biologic drug switches in 317 patients. The most common reason given for switching to a drug was NICE guidelines (242, 72.2%), followed by Physician's choice (122, 33.4%). Lack of effect was the most common reason for discontinuing a drug (224, 67%). For patients on Rituximab, Methotrexate was used in 133 switches (76.9% of the time). Overall NICE compliance for all units was 65% (range 50 to 100%), with anti-TNFα to anti-TNFα switches for inefficacy making up the majority of non-compliant switches. Conclusion This study draws attention to the enigma and disparity of commissioning and prescribing of biologic drugs in RA. Currently the evidence would not support switching of a biologic drug for non-clinical purposes such as economic pressures. Flexibility in prescribing should be encouraged: biologic therapy should be individualised based on the mode of action and likely tolerability of these drugs. Further work should focus on the evidence for using particular sequences of biologic drugs.
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 09/2014; 15(1):290. DOI:10.1186/1471-2474-15-290 · 1.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "During the last 10–15 years the importance of treating RA patients towards remission or low disease activity using outcome measures has been well documented and become the recommended treatment strategy [7]. In the same time period new potent anti-inflammatory drugs the biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) has become available for clinical use [8]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Osteoporosis is a well-known extra articular manifestation in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Biologic disease modifying anti rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) has been shown to be superior to synthetic DMARDs to reduce bone destruction including generalized bone loss in RA. Our aim was to study short- and long term changes in hip and spine bone mineral density (BMD) in early RA patients treated during the first decade with available biologic DMARDs. Methods RA patients diagnosed at an out-patient clinic between 1999 and 2001 were consecutively enrolled. Demographic, disease and treatment data were collected and BMD was assessed by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry at baseline and after 2, 5 and 10 years. Results The 92 included RA patients had a baseline mean age (SD) of 50.9 (13.3) years and symptom duration of 12.4 (6.7) months, 62.0% were women and 66.3% were RF positive. In the first 2 years ever use of biologic DMARDs was 18.5%, synthetic DMARDs 91.3% and prednisolone 62.0% whereas the figures for the subsequent 8 years were 62.6%, 89.2% and 51.4%, respectively. The annual rate of BMD loss in the first 2 years and the subsequent 8 years was at femoral neck −1.00% vs. −0.56%, at total hip −0.96% vs. −0.41% and at spine L1−4 -0.42% vs. 0.00%. Conclusions Our study adds evidence that aggressive anti-inflammatory treatment including biologic DMARDs reduces the rate of bone loss in RA. Indicating that the burden of osteoporosis is reduced in RA patients treated in clinical practice in the new millennium.
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 09/2014; 15(1):289. DOI:10.1186/1471-2474-15-289 · 1.90 Impact Factor
Show more