scholarly journals Efficacy of glucocorticoids, conventional and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a systematic literature review informing the 2016 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis

2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (6) ◽  
pp. 1102-1107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katerina Chatzidionysiou ◽  
Sharzad Emamikia ◽  
Jackie Nam ◽  
Sofia Ramiro ◽  
Josef Smolen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Treat To Target ◽  
Tight Control ◽  
Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs ◽  
Antirheumatic Drugs ◽  
Eular Recommendations ◽  
Synthetic Dmards ◽  
Disease Modifying

ObjectivesTo perform a systematic literature review (SLR) informing the 2016 update of the recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsAn SLR for the period between 2013 and 2016 was undertaken to assess the efficacy of glucocorticoids (GCs), conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) (tofacitinib and baricitinib) in randomised clinical trials.ResultsFor GCs, four studies were included in the SLR. Patients without poor prognostic factors experienced benefit when GCs were added to methotrexate (MTX). Lower doses of GCs were similar to higher doses. For csDMARDs, two new studies comparing MTX monotherapy with combination csDMARD were included in the SLR. In the tREACH trial at the end of 12 months no difference between the groups in disease activity, functional ability and radiographic progression was seen, using principles of tight control (treat-to-target). In the CareRA trial, combination therapy with csDMARDs was not superior to MTX monotherapy and monotherapy was better tolerated.For tsDMARDs, tofacitinib and baricitinib were shown to be more effective than placebo (MTX) in different patient populations.ConclusionsAddition of GCs to csDMARD therapy may be beneficial but the benefits should be balanced against the risk of toxicity. Under tight control conditions MTX monotherapy is not less effective than combination csDMARDs, but better tolerated. Tofacitinib and baricitinib are efficacious in patients with RA, including those with refractory disease.

scholarly journals Efficacy of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a systematic literature review informing the 2016 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis

2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (6) ◽  
pp. 1113-1136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jackie L Nam ◽  
Kaoru Takase-Minegishi ◽  
Sofia Ramiro ◽  
Katerina Chatzidionysiou ◽  
Josef S Smolen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Clinical Response ◽  
Dose Reduction ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Treat To Target ◽  
Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs ◽  
Antirheumatic Drugs ◽  
Disease Modifying

ObjectivesTo update the evidence for the efficacy of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to inform European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Task Force treatment recommendations.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for phase III or IV (or phase II, if these studies were lacking) randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 2013 and February 2016. Abstracts from the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR conferences were obtained.ResultsThe RCTs confirmed greater efficacy with a bDMARD+conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) versus a csDMARDs alone (level 1A evidence). Using a treat-to-target strategy approach, commencing and escalating csDMARD therapy and adding a bDMARD in cases of non-response, is an effective approach (1B). If a bDMARD had failed, improvements in clinical response were seen on switching to another bDMARD (1A), but no clear advantage was seen for switching to an agent with another mode of action. Maintenance of clinical response in patients in remission or low disease activity was best when continuing rather than stopping a bDMARD, but bDMARD dose reduction or ‘spacing’ was possible, with a substantial proportion of patients achieving bDMARD-free remission (2B). RCTs have also demonstrated efficacy of several new bDMARDs and biosimilar DMARDs (1B).ConclusionsThis systematic literature review consistently confirmed the previously reported efficacy of bDMARDs in RA and provided additional information on bDMARD switching and dose reduction.

scholarly journals Efficacy of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a systematic literature review informing the 2013 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis

2014 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 516-528 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jackie L Nam ◽  
Sofia Ramiro ◽  
Cecile Gaujoux-Viala ◽  
Kaoru Takase ◽  
Mario Leon-Garcia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Initial Treatment ◽  
Certolizumab Pegol ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Treat To Target ◽  
Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs ◽  
Antirheumatic Drugs ◽  
Disease Modifying

ObjectivesTo update the evidence for the efficacy of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to inform the European League Against Rheumatism(EULAR) Task Force treatment recommendations.MethodsMedline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for articles published between January 2009 and February 2013 on infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab-pegol, golimumab, anakinra, abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab and biosimilar DMARDs (bsDMARDs) in phase 3 development. Abstracts from 2011 to 2012 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and 2011–2013 EULAR conferences were obtained.ResultsFifty-one full papers, and 57 abstracts were identified. The randomised controlled trials (RCT) confirmed the efficacy of bDMARD+conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) versus csDMARDs alone (level 1B evidence). There was some additional evidence for the use of bDMARD monotherapy, however bDMARD and MTX combination therapy for all bDMARD classes was more efficacious (1B). Clinical and radiographic responses were high with treat-to-target strategies. Earlier improvement in signs and symptoms were seen with more intensive initial treatment strategies, but outcomes were similar upon addition of bDMARDs in patients with insufficient response to MTX. In general, radiographic progression was lower with bDMARD use, mainly due to initial treatment effects. Although patients may achieve bDMARD- and drug-free remission, maintenance of clinical responses was higher with bDMARD continuation (1B), but bDMARD dose reduction could be applied (1B). There was still no RCT data for bDMARD switching.ConclusionsThe systematic literature review confirms efficacy of biological DMARDs in RA. It addresses different treatment strategies with the potential for reduction in therapy, particularly with early disease control, and highlights emerging therapies.

scholarly journals Rheumatoid arthritis: problems of treatment at the present stage

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 65-70
Author(s):  
N. V. Chichasova
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Biologic Agents ◽  
Control Treatment ◽  
Treat To Target ◽  
Present Stage ◽  
Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs ◽  
Antirheumatic Drugs ◽  
Synthetic Dmards ◽  
Disease Modifying ◽  
Set Up

The possibilities of rheumatoid arthritis therapy have been significantly expanded today. In addition to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), biologic agents (BAs), and a targeted synthetic DMARD, a control treatment strategy has been put into practice.The paper demonstrates successes in the early prescription of csDMARD and the implementation of treat-to-target principles – to achieve the goal after 6 months in 50% of patients receiving subcutaneous methotrexate and 45% of those using a Leflunomide generic. During this therapy, there is a lower need for BAs and targeted synthetic DMARDs. The priority problem is to train general practitioners in methods for the early detection of RA and to set up schools for these patients.

scholarly journals EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2013 update

2013 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 492-509 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josef S Smolen ◽  
Robert Landewé ◽  
Ferdinand C Breedveld ◽  
Maya Buch ◽  
Gerd Burmester ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Certolizumab Pegol ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Treat To Target ◽  
Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs ◽  
Antirheumatic Drugs ◽  
Dmard Therapy ◽  
Eular Recommendations ◽  
Disease Modifying

In this article, the 2010 European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs and bDMARDs, respectively) have been updated. The 2013 update has been developed by an international task force, which based its decisions mostly on evidence from three systematic literature reviews (one each on sDMARDs, including glucocorticoids, bDMARDs and safety aspects of DMARD therapy); treatment strategies were also covered by the searches. The evidence presented was discussed and summarised by the experts in the course of a consensus finding and voting process. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were derived and levels of agreement (strengths of recommendations) were determined. Fourteen recommendations were developed (instead of 15 in 2010). Some of the 2010 recommendations were deleted, and others were amended or split. The recommendations cover general aspects, such as attainment of remission or low disease activity using a treat-to-target approach, and the need for shared decision-making between rheumatologists and patients. The more specific items relate to starting DMARD therapy using a conventional sDMARD (csDMARD) strategy in combination with glucocorticoids, followed by the addition of a bDMARD or another csDMARD strategy (after stratification by presence or absence of adverse risk factors) if the treatment target is not reached within 6 months (or improvement not seen at 3 months). Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, biosimilars), abatacept, tocilizumab and, under certain circumstances, rituximab are essentially considered to have similar efficacy and safety. If the first bDMARD strategy fails, any other bDMARD may be used. The recommendations also address tofacitinib as a targeted sDMARD (tsDMARD), which is recommended, where licensed, after use of at least one bDMARD. Biosimilars are also addressed. These recommendations are intended to inform rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies and other stakeholders about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA with sDMARDs, glucocorticoids and bDMARDs. They are based on evidence and expert opinion and intended to improve outcome in patients with RA.

scholarly journals EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

2010 ◽  
Vol 69 (6) ◽  
pp. 964-975 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josef S Smolen ◽  
Robert Landewé ◽  
Ferdinand C Breedveld ◽  
Maxime Dougados ◽  
Paul Emery ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs ◽  
Antirheumatic Drugs ◽  
Eular Recommendations ◽  
Evidence Strength ◽  
Synthetic Dmards ◽  
Disease Modifying ◽  
General Aspects

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may differ among rheumatologists and currently, clear and consensual international recommendations on RA treatment are not available. In this paper recommendations for the treatment of RA with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs) that also account for strategic algorithms and deal with economic aspects, are described. The recommendations are based on evidence from five systematic literature reviews (SLRs) performed for synthetic DMARDs, biological DMARDs, GCs, treatment strategies and economic issues. The SLR-derived evidence was discussed and summarised as an expert opinion in the course of a Delphi-like process. Levels of evidence, strength of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived. Fifteen recommendations were developed covering an area from general aspects such as remission/low disease activity as treatment aim via the preference for methotrexate monotherapy with or without GCs vis-à-vis combination of synthetic DMARDs to the use of biological agents mainly in patients for whom synthetic DMARDs and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors had failed. Cost effectiveness of the treatments was additionally examined. These recommendations are intended to inform rheumatologists, patients and other stakeholders about a European consensus on the management of RA with DMARDs and GCs as well as strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA, based on evidence and expert opinion.

Periodontitis Severity Affects the Clinical Response to Biological Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A 1-Year Follow-up Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tetsuo Kobayashi ◽  
Satoshi Ito ◽  
Akira Murasawa ◽  
Hajime Ishikawa ◽  
Koichi Tabeta
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Clinical Response ◽  
Activity Index ◽  
Disease Activity Index ◽  
Positive Association ◽  
Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs ◽  
Antirheumatic Drugs ◽  
Case Definitions ◽  
Synthetic Dmards ◽  
Disease Modifying

ABSTRACT Objectives To assess whether periodontitis severity affects the clinical response to biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for 1 year in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. Methods Data were collected from 50 RA patients who had received corticosteroids, conventional synthetic DMARDs, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs before (baseline) and after 1 year of bDMARD therapy in a retrospective study. Rheumatologic conditions were compared between the two periodontitis severity groups according to the periodontal inflamed surface area (PISA) or Centers for Disease Control Prevention (CDC)/ American Academy of Periodontology (AAP) case definitions Results Twenty-eight patients with no or mild periodontitis showed significantly greater decreases in changes in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and tender and swollen joint count in comparison to 22 patients with moderate and severe periodontitis (p = 0.02, p = 0.01, and p = 0.03). Both bivariate and multivariate analyses revealed a significantly positive association between the baseline CDC/AAP definitions and CDAI changes (p = 0.005 and p = 0.0038). However, rheumatologic conditions were comparable between 25 patients each in the low and high PISA groups. Conclusions Baseline periodontitis severity according to the CDC/AAP definitions is associated with the clinical response to bDMARDs for 1 year in RA patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document