Management of skin, mucosa and joint involvement of Behcet's syndrome: A systematic review for update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of Behcet's syndrome

The aim of this systematic review was to inform the update of European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Recommendations for the management of Beh\ue7et's syndrome (BS), on the evidence for the treatment of skin, mucosa and joint involvement of BS.Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to inform the update of European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Recommendations for the management of Beh\ue7et's syndrome (BS), on the evidence for the treatment of skin, mucosa and joint involvement of BS. Methods: A systematic literature search, data extraction, statistical analyses and assessment of the quality of evidence were performed according to a pre-specified protocol using the PRISMA guidelines. Studies that assessed the efficacy of an intervention in comparison to an active comparator or placebo for oral ulcers, genital ulcers, papulopustular lesions, nodular lesions or arthritis were included. Where possible, risk ratios were calculated for binary outcomes and mean difference for continuous outcomes. Results: Among the 3927 references that were screened, 37 were included in the analyses. Twenty-seven of these assessed mucocutaneous and 17 assessed joint involvement. Twenty-one of these studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs with colchicine, azathioprine, interferon-alpha, thalidomide, etanercept and apremilast showed beneficial results with some differences according to lesion type and gender. These agents were generally well tolerated with few adverse events causing withdrawal from the study. Conclusions: RCTs comprised more than a half (21/37, 57%) of the sources included in the evidence synthesis related to skin, mucosa and joint involvement applicable for the EULAR Recommendations for the management of BS. Differences in the outcome measures that were used across the included studies often made it difficult to combine and compare the results

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used