Canadian Rheumatology Association Living Guidelines for the Pharmacological Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis With Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs

Axial spondyloarthritis guidelines - aiming for maximum impact

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review discusses international clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) focusing on methodology, guideline quality, and implementation.

RECENT FINDINGS

The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (ASAS/EULAR) and Pan-American League of Associations for Rheumatology (PANLAR) recently published axSpA CPGs and updates of the American College of Rheumatology/Spondylitis Association of America/Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (ACR/SAA/SPARTAN) and Asia-Pacific League of Associations for Rheumatology (APLAR) CPGs are expected. GRADE has emerged as the dominant framework for CPG development and has been used by three of the four international axSpA guidelines. Notable differences exist among these guidelines in the way that the recommendations are presented. Two of the four acknowledge the need for implementation strategies, but little detail about this is provided. The few studies that have evaluated the implementation of axSpA CPGs have identified poor adherence to recommendations on physical therapy/exercise and disease activity monitoring. Implementation science has identified many barriers and facilitators affecting guideline uptake, including those related to healthcare professionals and to the guidelines themselves. Creation of a tailored implementation plan simultaneously with the CPG is recommended.

SUMMARY

While methodological rigor in the creation of evidence-based recommendations is the focus of CPG development, recommendations must be presented in a user-friendly format that makes them easy to apply. 'Living guidelines' could facilitate keeping content up to date. Implementation is critical for the success of a CPG and should be emphasized in future axSpA guideline updates. Further research is needed to better understand the factors impacting the successful implementation of axSpA CPGs.

Efficacy and safety of tetrandrine in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a meta analysis

OBJECTIVES

To explore the efficacy and safety of tetrandrine in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

Randomized controlled studies of tetrandrine in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis were searched in China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), World Wide Web Database, SinoMed, PubMed, Springer, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails database. A meta-analysis was conducted using R software version 3.5.3 to evaluate the clinical outcomes, including the total effective rate, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), rheumatoid factor (RF), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, disease activity score (DAS), tender joint count (TJC), swollen joint count (SJC), and morning stiffness duration, as well as adverse events of RA patients.

RESULTS

A total of 10 articles were included in the study. The meta-analysis indicated that tetrandrine significantly improved the total effective rate (OR=3.27, 95%CI: 2.01-5.37, P<0.01), ESR (SMD=1.12, 95%CI: 0.06-2.19, P<0.05), CRP (SMD=0.75, 95%CI: 0.28-1.22, P<0.01), VAS (SMD=0.55, 95%CI: 0.21-0.89, P<0.01), SJC (SMD=0.85, 95%CI: 0.40-1.31, P<0.01), TJC (SMD=1.16, 95%CI: 0.58-1.74, P<0.01), and morning stiffness (SMD=1.09, 95%CI: 0.68-1.50, P<0.01). However, no statistical significance was found in RF (SMD=1.70, 95%CI: －1.10-4.51, P>0.05) and DAS (SMD=0.26, 95%CI: －0.59-1.11, P>0.05). The overall incidence of adverse events associated with tetrandrine treatment for rheumatoid arthritis was 20% (95%CI: 12%-27%, I2=60%, P<0.05), with mild severity and favorable outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Tetrandrine is effective in the treatment of RA patients with a mild degree of adverse events.

Is it possible to make 'living' guidelines? An evaluation of the Australian Living Stroke Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Keeping best practice guidelines up-to-date with rapidly emerging research evidence is challenging. 'Living guidelines' approaches enable continual incorporation of new research, assisting healthcare professionals to apply the latest evidence to their clinical practice. However, information about how living guidelines are developed, maintained and applied is limited. The Stroke Foundation in Australia was one of the first organisations to apply living guideline development methods for their Living Stroke Guidelines (LSGs), presenting a unique opportunity to evaluate the process and impact of this novel approach.

METHODS

A mixed-methods study was conducted to understand the experience of LSGs developers and end-users. We used thematic analysis of one-on-one semi-structured interview and online survey data to determine the feasibility, acceptability, and facilitators and barriers of the LSGs. Website analytics data were also reviewed to understand usage.

RESULTS

Overall, the living guidelines approach was both feasible and acceptable to developers and users. Facilitators to use included collaboration with multidisciplinary clinicians and stroke survivors or carers. Increased workload for developers, workload unpredictability, and limited information sharing, and interoperability of technological platforms were identified as barriers. Users indicated increased trust in the LSGs (69%), likelihood of following the LSGs (66%), and frequency of access (58%), compared with previous static versions. Web analytics data showed individual access by 16,517 users in 2016 rising to 53,154 users in 2020, a threefold increase. There was also a fourfold increase in unique LSG pageviews from 2016 to 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

This study, the first evaluation of living guidelines, demonstrates that this approach to stroke guideline development is feasible and acceptable, that these approaches may add value to developers and users, and may increase guideline use. Future evaluations should be embedded along with guideline implementation to capture data prospectively.

Crowd-sourcing and automation facilitated the identification and classification of randomized controlled trials in a living review

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate an approach using automation and crowdsourcing to identify and classify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a living systematic review (LSR).

METHODS

Records from a database search for RCTs in RA were screened first by machine learning and Cochrane Crowd to exclude non-RCTs, then by trainee reviewers using a Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) annotator platform to assess eligibility and classify the trial to the appropriate review. Disagreements were resolved by experts using a custom online tool. We evaluated the efficiency gains, sensitivity, accuracy, and interrater agreement (kappa scores) between reviewers.

RESULTS

From 42,452 records, machine learning and Cochrane Crowd excluded 28,777 (68%), trainee reviewers excluded 4,529 (11%), and experts excluded 7,200 (17%). The 1,946 records eligible for our LSR represented 220 RCTs and included 148/149 (99.3%) of known eligible trials from prior reviews. Although excluded from our LSRs, 6,420 records were classified as other RCTs in RA to inform future reviews. False negative rates among trainees were highest for the RCT domain (12%), although only 1.1% of these were for the primary record. Kappa scores for two reviewers ranged from moderate to substantial agreement (0.40-0.69).

CONCLUSION

A screening approach combining machine learning, crowdsourcing, and trainee participation substantially reduced the screening burden for expert reviewers and was highly sensitive.

What are the core recommendations for rheumatoid arthritis care? Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines

Systematic r eview to evaluate the quality of the clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management and to provide a synthesis of high-quality CPG recommendations, highlighting areas of consistency, and inconsistency. Electronic searches of five databases and four online guideline repositories were performed. RA management CPGs were eligible for inclusion if they were written in English and published between January 2015 and February 2022; focused on adults ≥ 18 years of age; met the criteria of a CPG as defined by the Institute of Medicine; and were rated as high quality on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. RA CPGs were excluded if they required additional payment to access; only addressed recommendations for the system/organization of care and did not include interventional management recommendations; and/or included other arthritic conditions. Of 27 CPGs identified, 13 CPGs met eligibility criteria and were included. Non-pharmacological care should include patient education, patient-centered care, shared decision-making, exercise, orthoses, and a multi-disciplinary approach to care. Pharmacological care should include conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), with methotrexate as the first-line choice. If monotherapy conventional synthetic DMARDs fail to achieve a treatment target, this should be followed by combination therapy conventional synthetic DMARDs (leflunomide, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine), biologic DMARDS and targeted synthetic DMARDS. Management should also include monitoring, pre-treatment investigations and vaccinations, and screening for tuberculosis and hepatitis. Surgical care should be recommended if non-surgical care fails. This synthesis offers clear guidance of evidence-based RA care to healthcare providers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review was registered with Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UB3Y7 ).