Nivedita M. Patkar

2012 Update of the 2008 American College of Rheumatology recommendations for the use of disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) most recently published recommendations for use of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologics in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in 2008 (1). These recommendations covered indications for use, monitoring of side-effects, assessment of the clinical response to DMARDs and biologics, screening for tuberculosis (TB), and assessment of the roles of cost and patient preference in decision-making for biologic agents (1). Recognizing the rapidly evolving knowledge in RA management and the accumulation of new evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of existing and newer therapies, the ACR commissioned an update of the 2008 recommendations in select topic areas. The 2012 revision updates the 2008 ACR recommendations in the following areas: (1) indications for DMARDs and biologics; (2) switching between DMARD and biologic therapies; (3) use of biologics in high-risk patients (those with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, and malignancy); (4) screening for TB in patients starting or currently receiving biologics; and (5) vaccination in patients starting or currently receiving DMARDs or biologics (Table 1). Table 1 Overview Comparison of Topics and Medications Included in the 2008 and 2012 ACR RA Recommendations METHODS We utilized the same methodology as described in detail in the 2008 guidelines (1) to maintain consistency and to allow cumulative evidence to inform this 2012 recommendation update. These recommendations were developed by two expert panels: (1) a non-voting working group and Core Expert Panel (CEP) of clinicians and methodologists responsible for the selection of the relevant topic areas to be considered, the systematic literature review, and the evidence synthesis and creation of “clinical scenarios”; and (2) a Task Force Panel (TFP) of 11 internationally-recognized expert clinicians, patient representatives and methodologists with expertise in RA treatment, evidence-based medicine and patient preferences who were tasked with rating the scenarios created using an ordinal scale specified in the Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) Appropriateness method (2–4). This method solicited formal input from a multi-disciplinary TFP panel to make recommendations informed by the evidence. The methods used to develop the updated ACR recommendations are described briefly below. Systematic Literature Review – Sources, Databases and Domains Literature searches for both DMARDs and biologics relied predominantly on PubMed searches) with medical subject headings (MeSH) and relevant keywords similar to those used for the 2008 ACR RA recommendations (see Appendices 1 and 2). We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), quasi-experimental designs, cohort studies (prospective or retrospective), and case-control studies, with no restrictions on sample size. More details about inclusion criteria are listed below and in Appendix 3. The 2008 recommendations were based on a literature search that ended on February 14, 2007. The literature search end date for the 2012 Update was February 26, 2010 for the efficacy and safety studies and September 22, 2010 for additional qualitative reviews related to TB screening, immunization and hepatitis (similar to the 2008 methodology). Studies published subsequent to that date were not included. For biologics, we also reviewed the Cochrane systematic reviews and overviews (published and in press) in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify additional studies (5–8) and further supplemented by hand-checking the bibliographies of all included articles. Finally, the CEP and TFP confirmed that relevant literature was included for evidence synthesis. Unless they were identified by the literature search and met the article inclusion criteria (see Appendix 3), we did not review any unpublished data from product manufacturers, investigators, or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System. We searched the literature for the eight DMARDs and nine biologics most commonly used for the treatment of RA. Literature was searched for eight DMARDS including azathioprine, cyclosporine, hydroxychloroquine, leflunomide, methotrexate, minocycline, organic gold compounds and sulfasalazine. As in 2008, azathioprine, cyclosporine and gold were not included in the recommendations based on infrequent use and lack of new data (Table 1). Literature was searched for nine biologics including abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab and tocilizumab; anakinra was not included in the recommendations due to infrequent use and lack of new data. Details of the bibliographic search strategy are listed in Appendix 1.

American College of Rheumatology 2008 Recommendations for the Use of Nonbiologic and Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Guidelines and recommendations developed and/or endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) are intended to provide guidance for particular patterns of practice and not to dictate the care of a particular patient. The ACR considers adherence to these guidelines and recommendations to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in light of each patient’s individual circumstances. Guidelines and recommendations are intended to promote beneficial or desirable outcomes but cannot guarantee any specific outcome. Guidelines and recommendations developed or endorsed by the ACR are subject to periodic revision as warranted by the evolution of medical knowledge, technology, and practice.

American College of Rheumatology 2010 recommendations for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid‐induced osteoporosis

Guidelines and recommendations developed and/or endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) are intended to provide guidance for particular patterns of practice and not to dictate the care of a particular patient. The ACR considers adherence to these guidelines and recommendations to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in light of each patient’s individual circumstances. Guidelines and recommendations are intended to promote beneficial or desirable outcomes but cannot guarantee any specific outcome. Guidelines and recommendations developed or endorsed by the ACR are subject to periodic revision as warranted by the evolution of medical knowledge, technology, and practice.

2011 American College of Rheumatology Recommendations for the Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Initiation and Safety Monitoring of Therapeutic Agents for the Treatment of Arthritis and Systemic Features

Guidelines and recommendations developed and/or endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) are intended to provide guidance for particular patterns of practice and not to dictate the care of a particular patient. The ACR considers adherence to these guidelines and recommendations to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in light of each patient’s individual circumstances. Guidelines and recommendations are intended to promote beneficial or desirable outcomes but cannot guarantee any specific outcome. Guidelines and recommendations developed or endorsed by the ACR are subject to periodic revision as warranted by the evolution of medical knowledge, technology, and practice.

Initiation of Tumor Necrosis Factor-α Antagonists and the Risk of Hospitalization for Infection in Patients With Autoimmune Diseases

CONTEXT Although tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α antagonists are increasingly used in place of nonbiologic comparator medications, their safety profile remains incomplete. OBJECTIVES To determine whether initiation of TNF-α antagonists compared with nonbiologic comparators is associated with an increased risk of serious infections requiring hospitalization. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS Within a US multi-institutional collaboration, we assembled retrospective cohorts (1998-2007) of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis (psoriasis and spondyloarthropathies) combining data from Kaiser Permanente Northern California, New Jersey and Pennsylvania Pharmaceutical Assistance programs, Tennessee Medicaid, and national Medicaid/Medicare. TNF-α antagonists and nonbiologic regimens were compared in disease-specific propensity score (PS)-matched cohorts using Cox regression models with nonbiologics as the reference. Baseline glucocorticoid use was evaluated as a separate covariate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Infections requiring hospitalization (serious infections) during the first 12 months after initiation of TNF-α antagonists or nonbiologic regimens. RESULTS Study cohorts included 10,484 RA, 2323 IBD, and 3215 psoriasis and spondyloarthropathies matched pairs using TNF-α antagonists and comparator medications. Overall, we identified 1172 serious infections, most of which (53%) were pneumonia and skin and soft tissue infections. Among patients with RA, serious infection hospitalization rates were 8.16 (TNF-α antagonists) and 7.78 (comparator regimens) per 100 person-years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.05 [95% CI, 0.91-1.21]). Among patients with IBD, rates were 10.91 (TNF-α antagonists) and 9.60 (comparator) per 100 person-years (aHR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.83-1.46]). Among patients with psoriasis and spondyloarthropathies, rates were 5.41 (TNF-α antagonists) and 5.37 (comparator) per 100 person-years (aHR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.76-1.45]). Among patients with RA, infliximab was associated with a significant increase in serious infections compared with etanercept (aHR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.07-1.47]) and adalimumab (aHR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.02-1.48]). Baseline glucocorticoid use was associated with a dose-dependent increase in infections. CONCLUSION Among patients with autoimmune diseases, compared with treatment with nonbiologic regimens, initiation of TNF-α antagonists was not associated with an increased risk of hospitalizations for serious infections.

Association Between the Initiation of Anti–Tumor Necrosis Factor Therapy and the Risk of Herpes Zoster

IMPORTANCE Herpes zoster reactivation disproportionately affects patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It is unclear whether anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy elevates herpes zoster risk. OBJECTIVES To ascertain whether initiation of anti-TNF therapy compared with nonbiologic comparators is associated with increased herpes zoster risk. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS We identified new users of anti-TNF therapy among cohorts of patients with RA, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis from 1998 through 2007 within a large US multi-institutional collaboration combining data from Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Pharmaceutical Assistance Contract for the Elderly, Tennessee Medicaid, and national Medicaid/Medicare programs. We compared herpes zoster incidence between new anti-TNF users (n=33,324) and patients initiating nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (n=25,742) within each inflammatory disease cohort (last participant follow-up December 31, 2007). Within these cohorts, we used Cox regression models to compare propensity score-adjusted herpes zoster incidence between new anti-TNF and nonbiologic DMARD users while controlling for baseline corticosteroid use. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Incidence of herpes zoster cases occurring after initiation of new anti-TNF or nonbiologic DMARD therapy. RESULTS Among 33,324 new users of anti-TNF therapy, we identified 310 herpes zoster cases. Crude incidence rates among anti-TNF users were 12.1 per 1000 patient-years (95% CI, 10.7-13.6) for RA, 11.3 per 1000 patient-years (95% CI, 7.7-16.7) for inflammatory bowel disease, and 4.4 per 1000 patient-years (95% CI, 2.8-7.0) for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis. Baseline use of corticosteroids of 10 mg/d or greater among all disease indications was associated with elevated risk (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.13 [95% CI, 1.64-2.75]) compared with no baseline use. For patients with RA, adjusted incidence rates were similar between anti-TNF and nonbiologic DMARD initiators (adjusted HR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.77-1.29]) and comparable between all 3 anti-TNF therapies studied. Across all disease indications, the adjusted HR was 1.09 (95% CI, 0.88-1.36). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE Among patients with RA and other inflammatory diseases, those who initiated anti-TNF therapies were not at higher risk of herpes zoster compared with patients who initiated nonbiologic treatment regimens.

Rates of hospitalized bacterial infection associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis and its treatment

OBJECTIVE To compare the incidence of hospitalized bacterial infections among children with and children without juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and to examine the effects of selected medications. METHODS Using national Medicaid data from 2000 through 2005, we identified a cohort of children with JIA and a comparator cohort of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Exposures to methotrexate (MTX), TNF inhibitors, and oral glucocorticoids (GCs) were determined using pharmacy claims. Patients hospitalized with bacterial infections were identified using coded discharge diagnoses. We calculated adjusted hazard ratios (HR(adj) ) to compare infection incidence rates while adjusting for relevant covariates. RESULTS We identified 8,479 JIA patients with 13,003 person-years of followup; 36% took MTX and 16% took TNF inhibitors. Compared with ADHD patients, JIA patients who were not currently taking MTX or TNF inhibitors had an increased rate of infection (HR(adj) 2.0 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.5, 2.5]). Among JIA patients not receiving TNF inhibitor therapy, MTX users had a similar rate of infection as those not currently taking MTX (HR(adj) 1.2 [95% CI 0.9, 1.7]). TNF inhibitor use (irrespective of MTX) resulted in a similar rate of infection as use of MTX without a TNF inhibitor (HR(adj) 1.2 [95% CI 0.8, 1.8]). Use of high-dose GCs (≥10 mg/day of prednisone or equivalent) increased the rate of infection as compared with no GC use, after adjustment for MTX and TNF inhibitor use (HR(adj) 3.1 [95% CI 2.0, 4.7]). CONCLUSION Children with JIA had an increased rate of infection compared to children with ADHD. Among children with JIA, the rate of infection was not increased with MTX or TNF inhibitor use, but was significantly increased with high-dose GC use.

Which fractures are most attributable to osteoporosis

BACKGROUND Determining anatomic sites and circumstances under which a fracture may be a consequence of osteoporosis is a topic of ongoing debate and controversy that is important to both clinicians and researchers. METHODS We conducted a systematic literature review and generated an evidence report on fracture risk based on specific anatomic bone sites and fracture diagnosis codes. Using the Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles appropriateness process, we convened a multidisciplinary panel of 11 experts who rated fractures according to their likelihood of being because of osteoporosis based on the evidence report. Fracture sites (as determined by International Classification of Diseases Clinical Modification codes) were stratified by four clinical risk factor categories based on age, sex, race/ethnicity (African American and Caucasian), and presence or absence of trauma. RESULTS Consistent with current clinical experience, the fractures rated most likely because of osteoporosis were the femoral neck, pathologic fractures of the vertebrae, and lumbar and thoracic vertebral fractures. The fractures rated least likely because of osteoporosis were open proximal humerus fractures, skull, and facial bones. The expert panel rated open fractures of the arm (except proximal humerus) and fractures of the tibia/fibula, patella, ribs, and sacrum as being highly likely because of osteoporosis in older Caucasian women but a lower likelihood in younger African American men. CONCLUSION Osteoporosis attribution scores for all fracture sites were determined by a multidisciplinary expert panel to provide an evidence-based continuum of the likelihood of a fracture being associated with osteoporosis.

Geographic Distribution of Endemic Fungal Infections among Older Persons, United States

TOC summary: Incidence was highest for histoplasmosis and blastomycosis in the Midwest and for coccidioidomycosis in the West.

Risk of hospitalized bacterial infections associated with biologic treatment among US veterans with rheumatoid arthritis

The comparative risk of infection associated with non–anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti‐TNF) biologic agents is not well established. Our objective was to compare risk for hospitalized infections between anti‐TNF and non–anti‐TNF biologic agents in US veterans with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).