Suppressing Inflammation in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Does Patient Global Assessment Blur the Target? A Practice-Based Call for a Paradigm Change

© 2017, American College of Rheumatology Objective: In current management paradigms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), patient global assessment (PGA) is crucial to decide whether a patient has attained remission (target) or needs reinforced therapy. We investigated whether the clinical and psychological determinants of PGA are appropriate to support this important role. Methods: This was a cross-sectional, single-center study including consecutive ambulatory RA patients. Data collection comprised swollen 28-joint count (SJC28), tender 28-joint count (TJC28), C-reactive protein (CRP) level, PGA, pain, fatigue, function, anxiety, depression, happiness, personality traits, and comorbidities. Remission was categorized using American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Boolean-based criteria: remission, near-remission (only PGA >1), and nonremission. A binary definition without PGA (3v-remission) was also studied. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to identify explanatory variables of PGA in each remission state. Results: A total of 309 patients were included (remission 9.4%, near-remission 37.2%, and nonremission 53.4%). Patients in near-remission were indistinguishable from remission regarding disease activity, but described a disease impact similar to those in nonremission. In multivariable analyses, PGA in near-remission was explained (R2adjusted = 0.50) by fatigue, pain, anxiety, and function. Fatigue and pain had no relationship with disease activity measures. Conclusion: In RA, a consensually acceptable level of disease activity (SJC28, TJC28, and CRP level ≤1) does not equate to low disease impact: a large proportion of these patients are considered in nonremission solely due to PGA. PGA mainly reflects fatigue, pain, function, and psychological domains, which are inadequate to define the target for immunosuppressive therapy. This consideration suggests that clinical practice should be guided by 2 separate remission targets: inflammation (3v-remission) and disease impact

Scientific Opinion about the Guidance of the Chemical Regulation Directorate (UK) on how aged sorption studies for pesticides should be conducted, analysed and used in regulatory assessments

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues reviewed the guidance on how aged sorption studies for pesticides should be conducted, analysed and used in regulatory assessment. The inclusion of aged sorption is a higher tier in the groundwater leaching assessment. The Panel based its review on a test with three substances taken from a data set provided by the European Crop Protection Association. Particular points of attention were the quality of the data provided, the proposed fitting procedure of aged sorption experiments and the proposed method for combining results obtained from aged sorption studies and lower‐tier studies on degradation and adsorption. Aged sorption was a relevant process in all cases studied. The test revealed that the guidance could generally be well applied and resulted in robust and plausible results. The Panel considers the guidance suitable for use in the groundwater leaching assessment after the recommendations in this Scientific Opinion have been implemented, with the exception of the use of field data to derive aged sorption parameters. The Panel noted that the draft guidance could only be used by experienced users because there is no software tool that fully supports the work flow in the guidance document. It is therefore recommended that a user‐friendly software tool be developed. Aged sorption lowered the predicted concentration in groundwater. However, because aged sorption experiments may be conducted in different soils than lower‐tier degradation and adsorption experiments, it cannot be guaranteed that the higher tier predicts lower concentrations than the lower tier, while lower tiers should be more conservative than higher tiers. To mitigate this problem, the Panel recommends using all available higher‐ and lower‐tier data in the leaching assessment. The Panel further recommends that aged sorption parameters for metabolites be derived only from metabolite‐dosed studies. The formation fraction can be derived from parent‐dosed degradation studies, provided that the parent and metabolite are fitted with the best‐fit model, which is the double first‐order in parallel model in the case of aged sorption

Potential Economic Viability of Two Proposed Rifapentine-Based Regimens for Treatment of Latent Tuberculosis Infection

Rationale: Rifapentine-based regimens for treating latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) are being considered for future clinical trials, but even if they prove effective, high drug costs may limit their economic viability. Objectives: To inform clinical trial design by estimating the potential costs and effectiveness of rifapentine-based regimens for treatment of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI). Methods: We used a Markov model to estimate cost and societal benefits for three regimens for treating LTBI: Isoniazid/ rifapentine daily for one month, isoniazid/rifapentine weekly for three months (self-administered and directly-observed), and isoniazid daily for nine months; a strategy of ‘‘no treatment’ ’ used for comparison. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years gained, and instances of active tuberculosis averted were calculated for all arms. Results: Both daily isoniazid/rifapentine for one month and weekly isoniazid/rifapentine for three months were less expensive and more effective than other strategies under a wide variety of clinically plausibly parameter estimates. Daily isoniazid/rifapentine for one month was the least expensive and most effective regimen. Conclusions: Daily isoniazid/rifapentine for one month and weekly isoniazid/rifapentine for three months should be studied in a large-scale clinical trial for efficacy. Because both regimens performed well even if their efficacy is somewhat reduced

Guidelines for the Treatment of Latent Tuberculosis Infection: Recommendations from the National Tuberculosis Controllers Association and CDC, 2020.

Comprehensive guidelines for treatment of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) among persons living in the United States were last published in 2000 (American Thoracic Society. CDC targeted tuberculin testing and treatment of latent tuberculosis infection. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000;161:S221-47). Since then, several new regimens have been evaluated in clinical trials. To update previous guidelines, the National Tuberculosis Controllers Association (NTCA) and CDC convened a committee to conduct a systematic literature review and make new recommendations for the most effective and least toxic regimens for treatment of LTBI among persons who live in the United States.The systematic literature review included clinical trials of regimens to treat LTBI. Quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low) from clinical trial comparisons was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. In addition, a network meta-analysis evaluated regimens that had not been compared directly in clinical trials. The effectiveness outcome was tuberculosis disease; the toxicity outcome was hepatotoxicity. Strong GRADE recommendations required at least moderate evidence of effectiveness and that the desirable consequences outweighed the undesirable consequences in the majority of patients. Conditional GRADE recommendations were made when determination of whether desirable consequences outweighed undesirable consequences was uncertain (e.g., with low-quality evidence).These updated 2020 LTBI treatment guidelines include the NTCA- and CDC-recommended treatment regimens that comprise three preferred rifamycin-based regimens and two alternative monotherapy regimens with daily isoniazid. All recommended treatment regimens are intended for persons infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis that is presumed to be susceptible to isoniazid or rifampin. These updated guidelines do not apply when evidence is available that the infecting M. tuberculosis strain is resistant to both isoniazid and rifampin; recommendations for treating contacts exposed to multidrug-resistant tuberculosis were published in 2019 (Nahid P, Mase SR Migliori GB, et al. Treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis. An official ATS/CDC/ERS/IDSA clinical practice guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2019;200:e93-e142). The three rifamycin-based preferred regimens are 3 months of once-weekly isoniazid plus rifapentine, 4 months of daily rifampin, or 3 months of daily isoniazid plus rifampin. Prescribing providers or pharmacists who are unfamiliar with rifampin and rifapentine might confuse the two drugs. They are not interchangeable, and caution should be taken to ensure that patients receive the correct medication for the intended regimen. Preference for these rifamycin-based regimens was made on the basis of effectiveness, safety, and high treatment completion rates. The two alternative treatment regimens are daily isoniazid for 6 or 9 months; isoniazid monotherapy is efficacious but has higher toxicity risk and lower treatment completion rates than shorter rifamycin-based regimens.In summary, short-course (3- to 4-month) rifamycin-based treatment regimens are preferred over longer-course (6-9 month) isoniazid monotherapy for treatment of LTBI. These updated guidelines can be used by clinicians, public health officials, policymakers, health care organizations, and other state and local stakeholders who might need to adapt them to fit individual clinical circumstances