35 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
2021 EULAR recommendations for the implementation of self-management strategies in patients with inflammatory arthritis
© 2021 The Authors. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence.
The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220249Background: An important but often insufficient aspect of care in people with inflammatory arthritis (IA) is empowering patients to acquire a good understanding of their disease and building their ability to deal effectively with the practical, physical and psychological impacts of it. Self-management skills can be helpful in this regard. Objectives: To develop recommendations for the implementation of self-management strategies in IA. Methods: A multidisciplinary taskforce of 18 members from 11 European countries was convened. A systematic review and other supportive information (survey of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patient organisations) were used to formulate the recommendations. Results: Three overarching principles and nine recommendations were formulated. These focused on empowering patients to become active partners of the team and to take a more proactive role. The importance of patient education and key self-management interventions such as problem solving, goal setting and cognitive behavioural therapy were highlighted. Role of patient organisations and HCPs in promoting and signposting patients to available resources has been highlighted through the promotion of physical activity, lifestyle advice, support with mental health aspects and ability to remain at work. Digital healthcare is essential in supporting and optimising self-management and the HCPs need to be aware of available resources to signpost patients. Conclusion: These recommendations support the inclusion of self-management advice and resources in the routine management of people with IA and aim to empower and support patients and encourage a more holistic, patient-centred approach to care which could result in improved patient experience of care and outcomes.This project has received funding by the European League Against Rheumatism, Project number: PAR028.Published versio
Position Statement on Exercise Dosage in Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases: The Fole of the IMPACT-RMD Toolkit
There is convincing evidence to suggest that exercise interventions can significantly improve disease-related outcomes as well as comorbidities in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). All exercise interventions should be appropriately defined by their dose, which comprises of two components: a) the FITT (frequency, intensity, time and type) and b) the training (ie, specificity, overload, progression, initial values, reversibility, and diminishing returns) principles. In the published RMD literature, exercise dosage is often misreported, which in "pharmaceutical treatment terms", this would be the equivalent of receiving the wrong medication dosage. Lack of appropriately reporting exercise dosage in RMDs, therefore, results in limited clarity on the effects of exercise interventions on different outcomes while it also hinders reproducibility, generalisability and accuracy of research findings. Based on the collective but limited current knowledge, the main purpose of the present Position Statement is to provide specific guidance for RMD researchers to help improve the reporting of exercise dosage and help advance research into this important field of investigation. We also propose the use of the IMPACT-RMD toolkit, a tool that can be used in the design and reporting phase of every trial
Chromosome conformation signatures define predictive markers of inadequate response to methotrexate in early rheumatoid arthritis
The authors would like to thank members of OBD Reference Facility Benjamin Foulkes, Chloe Bird, Emily Corfeld and Matthew Salter for expedient processing of clinical samples on the EpiSwitch™ platform and Magdalena Jeznach and Willem Westra for help with preparation of the manuscript. The study employed samples from the SERA Biobank used with permission and approval of the SERA Approval Group. We gratefully acknowledge the invaluable contribution of the clinicians and operating team in SERA. We would also like to thank Prof. Raju Kucherlapati (Harvard Medical School), and Prof. Jane Mellor (Oxford Univ.), Prof. John O’Shea (National Institute of Health) and Prof. John Isaacs (New Castle Univ.) for their independent and critical review of our study. A list of Scottish Early Rheumatoid Arthritis (SERA) inception cohort investigators is provided in Additional fle 1: Additional Note. Funding This work was funded by Oxford BioDynamics.Peer reviewedPublisher PD
Prevalence and longterm course of primary biliary cirrhosis in primary Sjogrens syndrome
SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW ON THE SCREENING AND PROPHYLAXIS OF CHRONIC AND OPPORTUNISTIC INFECTIONS
BackgroundOpportunistic and chronic infections can arise in the context of treatment used for Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases (ARDs). Although it is recognized that screening procedures and prophylactic measures must be followed, clinical practice is largely heterogeneous, with relevant recommendations not currently developed or disparately located across the literature.ObjectivesTo conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) focusing on the screening and prophylaxis of opportunistic and chronic infections in ARDs. This is preparatory work done by members of the respective EULAR task force (TF).MethodsFollowing the EULAR standardised operating procedures, we conducted an SLR with the following 5 search domains; 1) Infection: infectious agents identifed by a scoping review and expert opinion (TF members), 2) Rheumatic Diseases: all ARDs, 3) Immunosuppression: all immunosuppressives/immunomodulators used in rheumatology, 4) Screening: general and specific (e.g mantoux test) terms, 5) Prophylaxis: general and specific (e.g trimethoprim) terms. Articles were retrieved having the terms from domains 1 AND 2 AND 3, plus terms from domains 4 OR 5. Databases searched: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane. Exclusion criteria: post-operative infections, pediatric ARDs, not ARDs (e.g septic arthritis), not concerning screening or prophylaxis, Covid-19 studies, articles concerning vaccinations and non-Εnglish literature. Quality of studies included was assessed as follows: Newcastle Ottawa scale for non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs), RoB-Cochrane tool for RCTs, AMSTAR2 for SLRs.Results5641 studies were initially retrieved (Figure 1). After title and abstract screening and removal of duplicates, 568 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Finally, 293 articles were included in the SLR. Most studies were of medium quality. Reasons for exclusion are shown in Figure 1. Results categorized as per type of microbe, are as follows: For Tuberculosis; evidence suggests that tuberculin skin test (TST) is affected by treatment with glucocorticoids and conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) and its performance is inferior to interferon gamma release assay (IGRA). Agreement between TST and IGRA is moderate to low. Conversion of TST/IGRA occurs in about 10-15% of patients treated with biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs). Various prophylactic schemes have been used for latent TB, including isoniazide for 9 months, rifampicin for 4 months, isoniazide/rifampicin for 3-4 months. For hepatitis B (HBV): there is evidence that risk of reactivation is increased in patients positive for hepatitis B surface antigen. These patients should be referred for HBV treatment. Patients who are positive for anti-HBcore antibodies, are at low risk for reactivation when treated with glucocorticoids, cDMARDs and bDMARDs but should be monitored periodically with liver function tests and HBV-viral load. Patients treated with rituximab display higher risk for HBV reactivation especially when anti-HBs titers are low. Risk for reactivation in hepatitis C RNA positive patients, treated with bDMARDs is low. However, all patients should be referred for antiviral treatment and monitored periodically. For pneumocystis jirovecii: prophylaxis with trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (alternatively with atovaquone or pentamidine) should be considered in patients treated with prednisolone: 15-30mg/day for more than 4 weeks. Few data exist for screening and prophylaxis from viruses like EBV, CMV and Varicella Zoster Virus. Expert opinion supports the screening of rare bugs like histoplasma and trypanosoma in patients considered to be at high risk (e.g living in endemic areas).Figure 1.SLR flowchartConclusionThe risk of chronic and opportunistic infections should be considered in all patients prior to treatment with immunosuppressives/immunomodulators. Different screening and prophylaxis approaches are described in the literature, partly determined by individual patient and disease characteristics. Collaboration between different disciplines is important.AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank all members of the EULAR Task Force for the screening and prophylaxis of chronic and opportunistic infections in Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases.Disclosure of InterestsNone declared</jats:sec
Social Distancing, Health Care Disruptions, Telemedicine Use, and Treatment Interruption During the COVID‐19 Pandemic in Patients With or Without Autoimmune Rheumatic Disease
Recommended from our members
Synthesis of guidance available for assessing methodological quality and grading of evidence from qualitative research to inform clinical recommendations: a systematic literature review.
OBJECTIVE: To understand (1) what guidance exists to assess the methodological quality of qualitative research; (2) what methods exist to grade levels of evidence from qualitative research to inform recommendations within European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed in multiple databases including PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, COCHRANE and PsycINFO, from inception to 23 October 2020. Eligible studies included primary articles and guideline documents available in English, describing the: (1) development; (2) application of validated tools (eg, checklists); (3) guidance on assessing methodological quality of qualitative research and (4) guidance on grading levels of qualitative evidence. A narrative synthesis was conducted to identify key similarities between included studies. RESULTS: Of 9073 records retrieved, 51 went through to full-manuscript review, with 15 selected for inclusion. Six articles described methodological tools to assess the quality of qualitative research. The tools evaluated research design, recruitment, ethical rigour, data collection and analysis. Seven articles described one approach, focusing on four key components to determine how much confidence to place in findings from systematic reviews of qualitative research. Two articles focused on grading levels of clinical recommendations based on qualitative evidence; one described a qualitative evidence hierarchy, and another a research pyramid. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of consensus on the use of tools, checklists and approaches suitable for appraising the methodological quality of qualitative research and the grading of qualitative evidence to inform clinical practice. This work is expected to facilitate the inclusion of qualitative evidence in the process of developing recommendations at EULAR level