Article

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)

Leiden University, Leyden, South Holland, Netherlands
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (Impact Factor: 10.38). 02/2007; 66(1):34-45. DOI: 10.1136/ard.2005.044354
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To formulate EULAR recommendations for the management of early arthritis.
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.
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.
12 key recommendations for the management of early arthritis or early rheumatoid arthritis were developed, based on evidence in the literature and expert consensus.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Robert Landewé, Aug 28, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
124 Views
  • Source
    • "Clarification of the molecular pathogenesis of RA has led to an increasing number of targeted therapies [4] [5]. Early intervention with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) improves long-term functional outcomes [6] [7] [8] [9]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic systemic inflammatory disease affecting <1% of the population. Incompletely controlled RA results in fatigue, joint and soft tissue pain, progressive joint damage, reduced quality of life, and increased cardiovascular mortality. Despite an increasing range of disease modifying agents which halt disease progression, poor patient adherence with medication is a significant barrier to management. Objective. The goal of this review was to examine the effectiveness of measures to improve patient medication adherence. Methods. Studies addressing treatment adherence in patients with RA were identified by trawling PsycINFO, Medline, Cochrane, Pubmed, and ProQuest for studies published between January 2000 and October 2014. Articles were independently reviewed to identify relevant studies. Results. Current strategies were of limited efficacy in improving patient adherence with medications used to treat RA. Conclusion. Poor medication adherence is a complex issue. Low educational levels and limited health literacy are contributory factors. Psychological models may assist in explaining medication nonadherence. Increasing patient knowledge of their disease seems sensible. Existing educational interventions appear ineffective at improving medication adherence, probably due to an overemphasis on provision of biomedical information. A novel approach to patient education using musculoskeletal ultrasound is proposed
    BioMed Research International 02/2015; 2015. DOI:10.1155/2015/150658 · 2.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Current therapeutic goals are aimed at achieving remission, but allow low disease activity as an alternative goal, recognizing that remission may not be reasonably achievable in most patients with RA, especially in established disease [11,12]. Both of these states provide significant benefit to patients who have gone through the anguish of high disease activity. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease that causes a considerable burden for the patient and society. It is not clear yet whether aiming for remission (REM) is worthwhile, especially when compared to low disease activity (LDA). In 356 consecutive RA patients, we obtained data on physical function (health assessment questionnaire (HAQ)), health related quality of life (HRQoL: Short Form 36 (SF36), Short Form 6 dimensions (SF-6D), Euro Qol 5D (EQ-5D)), work productivity (work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire (WPAI)), as well as estimation of direct and indirect costs. Cross-sectionally, data were compared in patients within different levels of disease activity according to simplified disease activity index (SDAI; remission (REM <=3.3); n = 87; low disease activity (LDA: 3.3 < SDAI <=11); n = 103; moderate to high disease activity (MDA/HDA) >11 n = 119) using analyses of variance (ANOVA). Longitudinal investigations assessed patients who changed from LDA to REM and vice versa. We found differences in patients achieving REM compared to LDA for HAQ (0.39 +/- 0.58 versus 0.72 +/- 68), WPAI (percent impairment while working 11.8 +/- 18.7% versus 26.8 +/- 23.9%; percent of overall activity impairment 10.8 +/- 14.1% versus 29.0 +/- 23.6%)), EQ-5D (0.89 +/- 0.12 versus 0.78 +/- 0.6) and SF-36 (physical component score (PCS): 46.0 +/- 8.6 versus 38.3 +/- 10.5; mental component score (MCS): 49.9 +/- 11.1 versus 47.9 +/- 12.3) (P <0.01 for all, except for SF36 MCS). Regarding costs we found significant differences of direct and indirect costs (P <0.05) within different levels of disease activity, with higher costs in patients with higher states of disease activity. Longitudinal evaluations confirmed the main analyses. Patient within REM show better function, HRQoL and productivity, even when compared to another good state, namely LDA. Also from a cost perspective REM appears superior to all other states.
    Arthritis research & therapy 02/2014; 16(1):R56. DOI:10.1186/ar4491 · 3.75 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies in hip osteoarthritis NA NA Zhang W et al, 2005 (22) Biological and non-biological drug therapies in ankylosing spondylitis NA NA Zochling J et al, 2006 (23) Systemic glucocorticoid therapy in rheumatic diseases NA NA Hoes JN et al, 2007 (24) Drug therapies in hand osteoarthritis NA NA Zhang W et al, 2007 (25) Non-biological drug therapies in early rheumatoid arthritis NA NA Combe B et al, 2007 (26) Biological and non-biological therapies in Behçet disease NA NA Hatemi G et al, 2008 (27) Pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies in fibromyalgia + + Carville SF et al, 2008 (28) Drug therapies in lupus NA NA Bertsias G et al, 2008 (29) Diagnosis of hand osteoarthritis NA NA Zhang W et al, 2009 (30) Biological and non-biological therapies in ankylosing spondylitis NA NA Kiltz U et al, 2009 (31) Biological and non-biological therapies in rheumatoid arthritis + + Smolen JS et al, 2010 (32) Cardiovascular and anti-inflammatory drug therapies in rheumatic diseases NA NA Peters MJ et al, 2010 (33) Biological and non-biological therapies in neuropsychiatric lupus NA NA Bertsias GK et al, 2010 (34) Vaccinations in pediatric patients with rheumatic diseases NA NA Heijstek MW et al, 2011 (35) Vaccinations in adults with rheumatic diseases NA NA van Assen S et al, 2011 (36) Biological and non-biological drug therapies in axial spondyloarthritis NA NA van der Heijde D et al, 2011 (37) Drug therapies in calcium pyrophosphate deposition NA NA Zhang W et al, 2011 (38) Biological and non-biological therapies in ankylosing spondylitis NA NA Braun J et al, 2011 (39) Drug therapies in gout and hyperuricemia + + Hamburger M et al, 2011 (40) Biological and non-biological drug therapies in lupus nephritis NA NA Bertsias GK et al, 2012 (41) Biological and non-biological drug therapies in psoriatic arthritis + + Gossec L et al, 2012 (42) Non-pharmacological management of hip and knee osteoarthritis + NA Fernandes L et al 2013 (43) Diagnostic imaging of joints in the management of rheumatoid arthritis + + Colebatch AN et al, 2013 (44) Glucocorticoid therapy in rheumatic diseases + NA Duru N et al, 2013 (45) Drug therapies in gout and hyperuricemia + + Sivera F et al, 2013 (46) Biological and non-biological therapies in rheumatoid arthritis + + Smolen JS et al, 2013 (47) "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article overviews evidence on common instances of conflict of interest (COI) in research publications from general and specialized fields of biomedicine. Financial COIs are viewed as the most powerful source of bias, which may even distort citation outcomes of sponsored publications. The urge to boost journal citation indicators by stakeholders of science communication is viewed as a new secondary interest, which may compromize the interaction between authors, peer reviewers and editors. Comprehensive policies on disclosure of financial and non-financial COIs in scholarly journals are presented as proxies of their indexing in evidence-based databases, and examples of successful medical journals are discussed in detail. Reports on clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and clinical practice guidelines may be unduly influenced by author-pharmaceutical industry relations, but these publications do not always contain explicit disclosures to allow the readers to judge the reliability of the published conclusions and practice-changing recommendations. The article emphasizes the importance of adhering to the guidance on COI from learned associations such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). It also considers joint efforts of authors, peer reviewers and editors as a foundation for appropriately defining and disclosing potential COIs.
    Croatian Medical Journal 12/2013; 54(6):600-8. DOI:10.3325/cmj.2013.54.600 · 1.37 Impact Factor
Show more