64
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      2015 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To develop a new evidence‐based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

          Methods

          We conducted systematic reviews to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatment options. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence. We employed a group consensus process to grade the strength of recommendations (either strong or conditional). A strong recommendation indicates that clinicians are certain that the benefits of an intervention far outweigh the harms (or vice versa). A conditional recommendation denotes uncertainty over the balance of benefits and harms and/or more significant variability in patient values and preferences.

          Results

          The guideline covers the use of traditional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in early (<6 months) and established (≥6 months) RA. In addition, it provides recommendations on using a treat‐to‐target approach, tapering and discontinuing medications, and the use of biologic agents and DMARDs in patients with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, malignancy, and serious infections. The guideline addresses the use of vaccines in patients starting/receiving DMARDs or biologic agents, screening for tuberculosis in patients starting/receiving biologic agents or tofacitinib, and laboratory monitoring for traditional DMARDs. The guideline includes 74 recommendations: 23% are strong and 77% are conditional.

          Conclusion

          This RA guideline should serve as a tool for clinicians and patients (our two target audiences) for pharmacologic treatment decisions in commonly encountered clinical situations. These recommendations are not prescriptive, and the treatment decisions should be made by physicians and patients through a shared decision‐making process taking into account patients’ values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references154

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The american rheumatism association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis

            The revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were formulated from a computerized analysis of 262 contemporary, consecutively studied patients with RA and 262 control subjects with rheumatic diseases other than RA (non-RA). The new criteria are as follows: 1) morning stiffness in and around joints lasting at least 1 hour before maximal improvement; 2) soft tissue swelling (arthritis) of 3 or more joint areas observed by a physician; 3) swelling (arthritis) of the proximal interphalangeal, metacarpophalangeal, or wrist joints; 4) symmetric swelling (arthritis); 5) rheumatoid nodules; 6) the presence of rheumatoid factor; and 7) radiographic erosions and/or periarticular osteopenia in hand and/or wrist joints. Criteria 1 through 4 must have been present for at least 6 weeks. Rheumatoid arthritis is defined by the presence of 4 or more criteria, and no further qualifications (classic, definite, or probable) or list of exclusions are required. In addition, a "classification tree" schema is presented which performs equally as well as the traditional (4 of 7) format. The new criteria demonstrated 91-94% sensitivity and 89% specificity for RA when compared with non-RA rheumatic disease control subjects.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes.

              GRADE requires a clear specification of the relevant setting, population, intervention, and comparator. It also requires specification of all important outcomes--whether evidence from research studies is, or is not, available. For a particular management question, the population, intervention, and outcome should be sufficiently similar across studies that a similar magnitude of effect is plausible. Guideline developers should specify the relative importance of the outcomes before gathering the evidence and again when evidence summaries are complete. In considering the importance of a surrogate outcome, authors should rate the importance of the patient-important outcome for which the surrogate is a substitute and subsequently rate down the quality of evidence for indirectness of outcome. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Arthritis & Rheumatology
                Arthritis & Rheumatology
                Wiley
                2326-5191
                2326-5205
                January 2016
                November 06 2015
                January 2016
                : 68
                : 1
                : 1-26
                Affiliations
                [1 ] University of Alabama at Birmingham
                [2 ] American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon, and McMaster University Hamilton Ontario Canada
                [3 ] Tufts Medical Center Boston Massachusetts
                [4 ] Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Boston Massachusetts
                [5 ] University of California Los Angeles
                [6 ] Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis Missouri
                [7 ] University of California San Diego
                [8 ] University of Nebraska Medical Center Omaha
                [9 ] North Mississippi Medical Center Tupelo
                [10 ] Healthy Motivation Santa Barbara California
                [11 ] Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota
                [12 ] University of Minnesota and Park Nicollet Clinic St. Louis Park
                [13 ] NorthShore University Health System Evanston Illinois
                [14 ] Global Healthy Living Foundation New York, New York
                [15 ] Duke University Medical Center Durham North Carolina
                [16 ] Rheumatology Consultants of Oregon West Linn
                [17 ] American College of Rheumatology Atlanta Georgia
                Article
                10.1002/art.39480
                26545940
                26e12702-922c-472e-bad2-63e39c0617a7
                © 2016

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Cited by484

                Most referenced authors2,802