Maarten Boers

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may differ among rheumatologists and currently, clear and consensual international recommendations on RA treatment are not available. In this paper recommendations for the treatment of RA with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs) that also account for strategic algorithms and deal with economic aspects, are described. The recommendations are based on evidence from five systematic literature reviews (SLRs) performed for synthetic DMARDs, biological DMARDs, GCs, treatment strategies and economic issues. The SLR-derived evidence was discussed and summarised as an expert opinion in the course of a Delphi-like process. Levels of evidence, strength of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived. Fifteen recommendations were developed covering an area from general aspects such as remission/low disease activity as treatment aim via the preference for methotrexate monotherapy with or without GCs vis-à-vis combination of synthetic DMARDs to the use of biological agents mainly in patients for whom synthetic DMARDs and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors had failed. Cost effectiveness of the treatments was additionally examined. These recommendations are intended to inform rheumatologists, patients and other stakeholders about a European consensus on the management of RA with DMARDs and GCs as well as strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA, based on evidence and expert opinion.

The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus.

Most systematic reviews rely substantially on the assessment of the methodological quality of the individual trials. The aim of this study was to obtain consensus among experts about a set of generic core items for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The invited participants were experts in the field of quality assessment of RCTs. The initial item pool contained all items from existing criteria lists. Subsequently, we reduced the number of items by using the Delphi consensus technique. Each Delphi round comprised a questionnaire, an analysis, and a feedback report. The feedback report included staff team decisions made on the basis of the analysis and their justification. A total of 33 international experts agreed to participate, of whom 21 completed all questionnaires. The initial item pool of 206 items was reduced to 9 items in three Delphi rounds. The final criteria list (the Delphi list) was satisfactory to all participants. It is a starting point on the way to a minimum reference standard for RCTs on many different research topics. This list is not intended to replace, but rather to be used alongside, existing criteria lists.

Randomised comparison of combined step-down prednisolone, methotrexate and sulphasalazine with sulphasalazine alone in early rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND The value of intensive combination therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis is unproven. In a multicentre, double-blind, randomised trial (COBRA), we compared the combination of sulphasalazine (2 g/day), methotrexate (7.5 mg/week), and prednisolone (initially 60 mg/day, tapered in 6 weekly steps to 7.5 mg/day) with sulphasalazine alone. METHODS 155 patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (median duration 4 months) were randomly assigned combined treatment (76) or sulphasalazine alone (79). Prednisolone and methotrexate were tapered and stopped after 28 and 40 weeks, respectively. The main outcomes were the pooled index (a weighted change score of five disease activity measures) and the Sharp/Van der Heijde radiographic damage score in hands and feet. Independent health-care professionals assessed the main outcomes without knowledge of treatment allocation. FINDINGS At week 28, the mean pooled index was 1.4 (95% CI 1.2-1.6) in the combined treatment group and 0.8 (0.6-1.0) in the sulphasalazine group (p < 0.0001). At this time, 55 (72%) and 39 (49%) patients, respectively, were improved according to American College of Rheumatology criteria. The clinical difference between the groups decreased and was no longer significant after prednisolone was stopped, and there were no further changes after methotrexate was stopped. At 28 weeks, the radiographic damage score had increased by a median of 1 (range 0-28) in the combined-therapy group and 4 (0-44) in the sulphasalazine group (p < 0.0001). The increases at week 56 (2 [0-43] vs 6 [0-54], p = 0.004), and at week 80 (4 [0-80] vs 12 [0-72], p = 0.01) were also significant. Further analysis suggests that combined therapy immediately suppressed damage progression, whereas sulphasalazine did so less effectively and with a lag of 6 to 12 months. There were fewer withdrawals in the combined therapy than the sulphasalazine group (6 [8%] vs 23 [29%]), and they occurred later. INTERPRETATION This combined-therapy regimen offers additional disease control over and above that of sulphasalazine alone that persists for up to a year after corticosteroids are stopped. Although confirmatory studies and long-term follow-up are needed, this approach may prove useful in the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis.

Effectiveness of positron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected non-small-cell lung cancer: the PLUS multicentre randomised trial

BACKGROUND Up to 50% of curative surgery for suspected non-small-cell lung cancer is unsuccessful. Accuracy of positron emission tomography (PET) with 18-fluorodeoxyglucose (18FDG) is thought to be better than conventional staging for diagnosis of this malignancy. Up to now however, there has been no evidence that PET leads to improved management of patients in routine clinical practice. We did a randomised controlled trial in patients with suspected non-small-cell lung cancer, who were scheduled for surgery after conventional workup, to test whether PET with 18FDG reduces number of futile thoracotomies. METHODS Before surgery (mediastinoscopy or thoracotomy), 188 patients from nine hospitals were randomly assigned to either conventional workup (CWU) or conventional workup and PET (CWU+PET). Patients were followed up for 1 year. Thoracotomy was regarded as futile if the patient had benign disease, explorative thoracotomy, pathological stage IIIA-N2/IIIB, or postoperative relapse or death within 12 months of randomisation. The primary outcome measure was futile thoracotomy. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS 96 patients were randomly assigned CWU and 92 CWU+PET. Two patients in the CWU+PET group did not undergo PET. 18 patients in the CWU group and 32 in the CWU+PET group did not have thoracotomy. In the CWU group, 39 (41%) patients had a futile thoracotomy, compared with 19 (21%) in the CWU+PET group (relative reduction 51%, 95% CI 32-80%; p=0.003). INTERPRETATION Addition of PET to conventional workup prevented unnecessary surgery in one out of five patients with suspected non-small-cell lung cancer.

American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Provisional Definition of Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis for Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE Remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an increasingly attainable goal, but there is no widely used definition of remission that is stringent but achievable and could be applied uniformly as an outcome measure in clinical trials. This work was undertaken to develop such a definition. METHODS A committee consisting of members of the American College of Rheumatology, the European League Against Rheumatism, and the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Initiative met to guide the process and review prespecified analyses from RA clinical trials. The committee requested a stringent definition (little, if any, active disease) and decided to use core set measures including, as a minimum, joint counts and levels of an acute-phase reactant to define remission. Members were surveyed to select the level of each core set measure that would be consistent with remission. Candidate definitions of remission were tested, including those that constituted a number of individual measures of remission (Boolean approach) as well as definitions using disease activity indexes. To select a definition of remission, trial data were analyzed to examine the added contribution of patient-reported outcomes and the ability of candidate measures to predict later good radiographic and functional outcomes. RESULTS Survey results for the definition of remission suggested indexes at published thresholds and a count of core set measures, with each measure scored as 1 or less (e.g., tender and swollen joint counts, C-reactive protein [CRP] level, and global assessments on a 0-10 scale). Analyses suggested the need to include a patient-reported measure. Examination of 2-year followup data suggested that many candidate definitions performed comparably in terms of predicting later good radiographic and functional outcomes, although 28-joint Disease Activity Score-based measures of remission did not predict good radiographic outcomes as well as the other candidate definitions did. Given these and other considerations, we propose that a patients RA can be defined as being in remission based on one of two definitions: (a) when scores on the tender joint count, swollen joint count, CRP (in mg/dl), and patient global assessment (0-10 scale) are all ≤ 1, or (b) when the score on the Simplified Disease Activity Index is ≤ 3.3. CONCLUSION We propose two new definitions of remission, both of which can be uniformly applied and widely used in RA clinical trials. We recommend that one of these be selected as an outcome measure in each trial and that the results on both be reported for each trial.

American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism provisional definition of remission in rheumatoid arthritis for clinical trials

Objective Remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an increasingly attainable goal, but there is no widely used definition of remission that is stringent but achievable and could be applied uniformly as an outcome measure in clinical trials. This work was undertaken to develop such a definition. Methods A committee consisting of members of the American College of Rheumatology, the European League Against Rheumatism, and the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Initiative met to guide the process and review prespecified analyses from RA clinical trials. The committee requested a stringent definition (little, if any, active disease) and decided to use core set measures including, as a minimum, joint counts and levels of an acute-phase reactant to define remission. Members were surveyed to select the level of each core set measure that would be consistent with remission. Candidate definitions of remission were tested, including those that constituted a number of individual measures of remission (Boolean approach) as well as definitions using disease activity indexes. To select a definition of remission, trial data were analysed to examine the added contribution of patient-reported outcomes and the ability of candidate measures to predict later good radiographic and functional outcomes. Results Survey results for the definition of remission suggested indexes at published thresholds and a count of core set measures, with each measure scored as 1 or less (eg, tender and swollen joint counts, C reactive protein (CRP) level, and global assessments on a 0–10 scale). Analyses suggested the need to include a patient-reported measure. Examination of 2-year follow-up data suggested that many candidate definitions performed comparably in terms of predicting later good radiographic and functional outcomes, although 28-joint Disease Activity Score–based measures of remission did not predict good radiographic outcomes as well as the other candidate definitions did. Given these and other considerations, we propose that a patients RA can be defined as being in remission based on one of two definitions: (1) when scores on the tender joint count, swollen joint count, CRP (in mg/dl), and patient global assessment (0–10 scale) are all ≤1, or (2) when the score on the Simplified Disease Activity Index is ≤3.3. Conclusion We propose two new definitions of remission, both of which can be uniformly applied and widely used in RA clinical trials. The authors recommend that one of these be selected as an outcome measure in each trial and that the results on both be reported for each trial.

Safety of low dose glucocorticoid treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: published evidence and prospective trial data

Adverse effects of glucocorticoids have been abundantly reported. Published reports on low dose glucocorticoid treatment show that few of the commonly held beliefs about their incidence, prevalence, and impact are supported by clear scientific evidence. Safety data from recent randomised controlled clinical trials of low dose glucocorticoid treatment in RA suggest that adverse effects associated with this drug are modest, and often not statistically different from those of placebo.

External Validation of a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)

Background Thousands of systematic reviews have been conducted in all areas of health care. However, the methodological quality of these reviews is variable and should routinely be appraised. AMSTAR is a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews. Methodology AMSTAR was used to appraise 42 reviews focusing on therapies to treat gastro-esophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer disease, and other acid-related diseases. Two assessors applied the AMSTAR to each review. Two other assessors, plus a clinician and/or methodologist applied a global assessment to each review independently. Conclusions The sample of 42 reviews covered a wide range of methodological quality. The overall scores on AMSTAR ranged from 0 to 10 (out of a maximum of 11) with a mean of 4.6 (95% CI: 3.7 to 5.6) and median 4.0 (range 2.0 to 6.0). The inter-observer agreement of the individual items ranged from moderate to almost perfect agreement. Nine items scored a kappa of >0.75 (95% CI: 0.55 to 0.96). The reliability of the total AMSTAR score was excellent: kappa 0.84 (95% CI: 0.67 to 1.00) and Pearsons R 0.96 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.98). The overall scores for the global assessment ranged from 2 to 7 (out of a maximum score of 7) with a mean of 4.43 (95% CI: 3.6 to 5.3) and median 4.0 (range 2.25 to 5.75). The agreement was lower with a kappa of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.40 to 0.88). Construct validity was shown by AMSTAR convergence with the results of the global assessment: Pearsons R 0.72 (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.84). For the AMSTAR total score, the limits of agreement were −0.19±1.38. This translates to a minimum detectable difference between reviews of 0.64 ‘AMSTAR points’. Further validation of AMSTAR is needed to assess its validity, reliability and perceived utility by appraisers and end users of reviews across a broader range of systematic reviews.

OMERACT : An international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology

OMERACT is the acronym for an international, informally organized network initiated in 1992 aimed at improving outcome measurement in rheumatology. Chaired by an executive committee, it organizes consensus conferences in a 2-yearly cycle that circles the globe. Data driven recommendations are prepared and updated by expert working groups. Recommendations include core sets of measures for most of the major rheumatologic conditions. Since 2002 patients have been actively engaged in the process.

EULAR evidence-based recommendations on the management of systemic glucocorticoid therapy in rheumatic diseases

Objective: To develop evidence-based recommendations for the management of systemic glucocorticoid (GC) therapy in rheumatic diseases. Methods: The multidisciplinary guideline development group from 11 European countries, Canada and the USA consisted of 15 rheumatologists, 1 internist, 1 rheumatologist–epidemiologist, 1 health professional, 1 patient and 1 research fellow. The Delphi method was used to agree on 10 key propositions related to the safe use of GCs. A systematic literature search of PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library was then used to identify the best available research evidence to support each of the 10 propositions. The strength of recommendation was given according to research evidence, clinical expertise and perceived patient preference. Results: The 10 propositions were generated through three Delphi rounds and included patient education, risk factors, adverse effects, concomitant therapy (ie, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, gastroprotection and cyclo-oxygenase-2 selective inhibitors, calcium and vitamin D, bisphosphonates) and special safety advice (ie, adrenal insufficiency, pregnancy, growth impairment). Conclusion: Ten key recommendations for the management of systemic GC-therapy were formulated using a combination of systematically retrieved research evidence and expert consensus. There are areas of importance that have little evidence (ie, dosing and tapering strategies, timing, risk factors and monitoring for adverse effects, perioperative GC-replacement) and need further research; therefore also a research agenda was composed.