1
|
Smolen JS, Landewé R, Breedveld FC, Buch M, Burmester G, Dougados M, Emery P, Gaujoux-Viala C, Gossec L, Nam J, Ramiro S, Winthrop K, de Wit M, Aletaha D, Betteridge N, Bijlsma JWJ, Boers M, Buttgereit F, Combe B, Cutolo M, Damjanov N, Hazes JMW, Kouloumas M, Kvien TK, Mariette X, Pavelka K, van Riel PLCM, Rubbert-Roth A, Scholte-Voshaar M, Scott DL, Sokka-Isler T, Wong JB, van der Heijde D. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2013 update. Ann Rheum Dis 2014; 73:492-509. [PMID: 24161836 PMCID: PMC3933074 DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204573] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1433] [Impact Index Per Article: 143.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/07/2013] [Revised: 10/05/2013] [Accepted: 10/11/2013] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Josef S Smolen
- Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine 3, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- 2nd Department of Medicine, Hietzing Hospital Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Robert Landewé
- Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Atrium Medical Center, Heerlen, The Netherlands
| | - Ferdinand C Breedveld
- Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Maya Buch
- Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, UK
- NIHR Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Gerd Burmester
- Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité-University Medicine, Free University and Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany
- Clinical Immunology Free University and Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany
| | - Maxime Dougados
- Department of Rheumatology B, Cochin Hospital, René Descartes University, Paris, France
| | - Paul Emery
- Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, UK
- NIHR Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Cécile Gaujoux-Viala
- Department of Rheumatology, Nîmes University Hospital, Montpellier I University, Nimes, France
| | - Laure Gossec
- Rheumatology Department, Paris 06 UPMC University, AP-HP, Pite-Salpetriere Hospital, Paris, France
| | - Jackie Nam
- Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, UK
- NIHR Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Sofia Ramiro
- Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Hospital Garcia de Orta, Almada, Portugal
| | - Kevin Winthrop
- Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
| | - Maarten de Wit
- EULAR Standing Committee of People with Arthritis/Rheumatism in Europe (PARE), Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Daniel Aletaha
- Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine 3, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Neil Betteridge
- EULAR Standing Committee of People with Arthritis/Rheumatism in Europe (PARE), Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Johannes W J Bijlsma
- Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Maarten Boers
- VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Frank Buttgereit
- Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité-University Medicine, Free University and Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany
- Clinical Immunology Free University and Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany
| | - Bernard Combe
- Service d'Immuno-Rhumatologie, Montpellier University, Lapeyronie Hospital, Montpellier, France
| | - Maurizio Cutolo
- Academic Clinical Unit of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Nemanja Damjanov
- 2nd Hospital Department, Institute of Rheumatology, University of Belgrade Medical School, Belgrade, Serbia
| | - Johanna M W Hazes
- Department of Rheumatology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Dr Molewaterplein, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marios Kouloumas
- EULAR Standing Committee of People with Arthritis/Rheumatism in Europe (PARE), Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Tore K Kvien
- Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Xavier Mariette
- Hopitaux Universitaires Paris Sud, AP-HP, and Université Paris-Sud, Le Kremlin Bicetre, France
| | - Karel Pavelka
- Institute of Rheumatology and Clinic of Rheumatology, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Piet L C M van Riel
- Department of Rheumatology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Marieke Scholte-Voshaar
- EULAR Standing Committee of People with Arthritis/Rheumatism in Europe (PARE), Zurich, Switzerland
| | - David L Scott
- King's College School of Medicine, Weston Education Centre, London, UK
| | | | - John B Wong
- Division of Clinical Decision Making, Informatics and Telemedicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Practice guidelines for the use of subcutaneous abatacept. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2014; 10:218-26. [PMID: 24387951 DOI: 10.1016/j.reuma.2013.11.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/01/2013] [Revised: 10/21/2013] [Accepted: 11/06/2013] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To review the clinical evidence on subcutaneous (sc) abatacept and to formulate recommendations in order to clear up points related to its use in rheumatology. METHOD An expert panel of rheumatologists objectively summarized the evidence on the mechanism of action, practicality, effectiveness, and safety of abatacept sc and formulated recommendations after a literature review. RESULTS The efficacy and safety of abatacept sc was studied in 7 clinical trials, 3 double-blind, 3 open, and one mixed, with the following endpoints: comparison against abatacept iv, impact on immunogenicity, effect of replacing iv by sc, abatacept sc in monotherapy, and non-inferiority to adalimumab. No significant differences were found between sc and iv abatacept on efficacy or safety. The development of sc abatacept has allowed a complementary study to the iv, formulation, thus making the abatacept profile better defined. CONCLUSIONS This is a practical document to supplement the summary of product characteristics. In summary, abatacept sc is presented as an effective and safe drug and, therefore, as an alternative for use within the broad armamentarium the rheumatologist has to treat RA. It also has the advantage of being the only biological agent that can be administered iv and sc which can facilitate its use in certain patients.
Collapse
|