Flemish network on rare connective tissue diseases (CTD): patient pathways in systemic sclerosis. First steps taken

Despite the low prevalence of each rare disease, the total burden is high. Patients with rare diseases encounter numerous barriers, including delayed diagnosis and limited access to high-quality treatments. In order to tackle these challenges, the European Commission launched the European Reference Networks (ERNs), cross-border networks of healthcare providers and patients representatives. In parallel, the aims and structure of these ERNs were translated at the federal and regional levels, resulting in the creation of the Flemish Network of Rare Diseases. In line with the mission of the ERNs and to ensure equal access to care, we describe as first patient pathways for systemic sclerosis (SSc), as a pilot model for other rare connective and musculoskeletal diseases. Consensus was reached on following key messages: 1. Patients with SSc should have multidisciplinary clinical and investigational evaluations in a tertiary reference expert centre at baseline, and subsequently every three to 5 years. Intermediately, a yearly clinical evaluation should be provided in the reference centre, whilst SSc technical evaluations are permissionably executed in a centre that follows SSc-specific clinical practice guidelines. In between, monitoring can take place in secondary care units, under the condition that qualitative examinations and care including interactive multidisciplinary consultations can be provided. 2. Patients with early diffuse cutaneous SSc, (progressive) interstitial lung disease and/or pulmonary arterial hypertension should undergo regular evaluations in specialised tertiary care reference institutions. 3. Monitoring of patients with progressive interstitial lung disease and/or pulmonary (arterial) hypertension will be done in agreement with experts of ERN LUNG.

EULAR evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations on the management of medium to high-dose glucocorticoid therapy in rheumatic diseases

To develop recommendations for the management of medium to high-dose (ie, >7.5 mg but ≤100 mg prednisone equivalent daily) systemic glucocorticoid (GC) therapy in rheumatic diseases. A multidisciplinary EULAR task force was formed, including rheumatic patients. After discussing the results of a general initial search on risks of GC therapy, each participant contributed 10 propositions on key clinical topics concerning the safe use of medium to high-dose GCs. The final recommendations were selected via a Delphi consensus approach. A systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library was used to identify evidence concerning each of the propositions. The strength of recommendation was given according to research evidence, clinical expertise and patient preference. The 10 propositions regarded patient education and informing general practitioners, preventive measures for osteoporosis, optimal GC starting dosages, risk-benefit ratio of GC treatment, GC sparing therapy, screening for comorbidity, and monitoring for adverse effects. In general, evidence supporting the recommendations proved to be surprisingly weak. One of the recommendations was rejected, because of conflicting literature data. Nine final recommendations for the management of medium to high-dose systemic GC therapy in rheumatic diseases were selected and evaluated with their strengths of recommendations. Robust evidence was often lacking; a research agenda was created.

Monitoring adverse events of low-dose glucocorticoid therapy: EULAR recommendations for clinical trials and daily practice

Objective

To develop recommendations on monitoring for adverse events (AEs) of low-dose glucocorticoid (GC) therapy (≤7.5 mg prednisone or equivalent daily) in clinical trials and daily practice.

Methods

Literature was searched for articles containing information on incidence and monitoring of GC-related AEs using PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. Second, the authors searched for broad accepted guidelines on the monitoring of certain AEs (eg, WHO guidelines on screening for diabetes). Available data were summarised and discussed among experts (rheumatologists and patients) of the EULAR Task Force to decide which potential AEs should be monitored, how and at which interval.

Results

Data on monitoring proved to be scarce; most articles were focused on therapeutic effects of GCs, not on occurrence and monitoring of AEs. Most recommendations had to be based on consensus. Those for clinical trials aimed at getting insights into incidence, prevalence and clinical relevance of AEs to create a comprehensive and valid AE-profile of GC therapy. The set of AEs to monitor is therefore more extensive, and often consists of assessments at baseline and at end of trials. Recommendations for daily practice are meant to protect patients from real dangers, which can be prevented or treated. Standard care monitoring needs NOT be extended for patients on low-dose GC therapy, except for osteoporosis (follow national guidelines), and baseline assessments of ankle edema, fasting blood glucose and risk factors for glaucoma.

Conclusion

Given the incompleteness of literature data, consensus-based recommendations on monitoring for GC-related AEs were created, separately for daily practice and clinical trials.

Patient and rheumatologist perspectives on glucocorticoids: an exercise to improve the implementation of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations on the management of systemic glucocorticoid therapy in rheumatic diseases

OBJECTIVE

To explore perspectives among patients and rheumatologists on glucocorticoid (GC) therapy and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations on the management of systemic GC therapy in order to enhance implementation of the recommendations.

METHODS

Rheumatologists (from eight countries) and patients (from five countries) acquainted with GCs participated in separate meetings, during which positive and negative aspects of GC therapy were discussed and possible adverse events (AEs) were ranked for importance; in addition participants were asked to evaluate the published EULAR recommendations. The reports from these meetings and themes related to implementation of the recommendations were discussed during an international forum of the experts who had formulated the recommendations and patient participants.

RESULTS

In all, 140 patients (78% women; mean age 53 years; 61% patients with rheumatoid arthritis) and 110 rheumatologists (mean work experience 15 years) participated in the meetings. Osteoporosis, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases were ranked among the five most worrisome AEs by patients and rheumatologists. In both groups, there was agreement with most of the recommendations; the recommendations on GC information cards and GC use during pregnancy scored lowest. Ideas to improve implementation of the recommendations and a research agenda were generated.

CONCLUSION

The patient and rheumatologist views on GCs corresponded to a large extent, reflected by concerns in both groups about osteoporosis, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. Specific problems with the EULAR recommendations were identified and addressed to improve their implementation. This exercise shows that patient and rheumatologist perspectives should be included early in the process of formulating recommendations.

EULAR evidence-based recommendations on the management of systemic glucocorticoid therapy in rheumatic diseases

OBJECTIVE

To develop evidence-based recommendations for the management of systemic glucocorticoid (GC) therapy in rheumatic diseases.

METHODS

The multidisciplinary guideline development group from 11 European countries, Canada and the USA consisted of 15 rheumatologists, 1 internist, 1 rheumatologist-epidemiologist, 1 health professional, 1 patient and 1 research fellow. The Delphi method was used to agree on 10 key propositions related to the safe use of GCs. A systematic literature search of PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library was then used to identify the best available research evidence to support each of the 10 propositions. The strength of recommendation was given according to research evidence, clinical expertise and perceived patient preference.

RESULTS

The 10 propositions were generated through three Delphi rounds and included patient education, risk factors, adverse effects, concomitant therapy (ie, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, gastroprotection and cyclo-oxygenase-2 selective inhibitors, calcium and vitamin D, bisphosphonates) and special safety advice (ie, adrenal insufficiency, pregnancy, growth impairment).

CONCLUSION

Ten key recommendations for the management of systemic GC-therapy were formulated using a combination of systematically retrieved research evidence and expert consensus. There are areas of importance that have little evidence (ie, dosing and tapering strategies, timing, risk factors and monitoring for adverse effects, perioperative GC-replacement) and need further research; therefore also a research agenda was composed.