Methotrexate for juvenile idiopathic arthritis

BACKGROUND

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is the most common rheumatic disease in childhood. Methotrexate has broad immunomodulatory properties and is the most commonly used disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). This is an update of a 2001 Cochrane review. It supports a living guideline for children and young people with JIA.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of methotrexate for children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

SEARCH METHODS

The Australian JIA Living Guideline Working Group created a registry of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of JIA by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registries. The date of the most recent search of online databases was 1 February 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for RCTs that compared methotrexate with placebo, no treatment, or another DMARD (with or without concomitant therapies) in children and young people (aged up to 18 years) with JIA.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. The main comparison was methotrexate versus placebo. Our outcomes were treatment response, sustained clinically inactive disease, function, pain, participant global assessment of well-being, serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three new trials in this update, bringing the total number of included RCTs to five (575 participants). Three trials evaluated oral methotrexate versus placebo, one evaluated methotrexate plus intra-articular glucocorticoid (IAGC) therapy versus IAGC therapy alone, and one evaluated methotrexate versus leflunomide. Doses of methotrexate ranged from 5 mg/m2/week to 15 mg/m2/week in four trials, and participants in the methotrexate group of the remaining trial received 0.5 mg/kg/week. Trial size varied from 31 to 226 participants. The average age of participants ranged from four to 10 years. Most participants were females and most had nonsystemic JIA. The study that evaluated methotrexate plus IAGC therapy versus IAGC therapy alone recruited children and young people with the oligoarticular disease subtype of JIA. Two placebo-controlled trials and the trial of methotrexate versus leflunomide were adequately randomised and blinded, and likely not susceptible to important biases. One placebo-controlled trial may have been susceptible to selection bias due to lack of adequate reporting of randomisation methods. The trial investigating the addition of methotrexate to IAGC therapy was susceptible to performance and detection biases. Methotrexate versus placebo Methotrexate compared with placebo may increase the number of children and young people who achieve treatment response up to six months (absolute difference of 163 more per 1000 people; risk ratio (RR) 1.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 2.31; I2 = 0%; 3 trials, 328 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, methotrexate compared with placebo may have little or no effect on pain as measured on an increasing scale of 0 to 100 (mean difference (MD) -1.10 points, 95% CI -9.09 to 6.88; 1 trial, 114 participants), improvement in participant global assessment of well-being (absolute difference of 92 more per 1000 people; RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.72; 1 trial, 176 participants), occurrence of serious adverse events (absolute difference of 5 fewer per 1000 people; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.04 to 8.97; 3 trials, 328 participants), and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 3.46, 95% CI 0.60 to 19.79; 3 trials, 328 participants) up to six months. We could not estimate the absolute difference for withdrawals due to adverse events because there were no withdrawals in the placebo group. All outcomes were reported within six months of randomisation. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low for all outcomes due to indirectness (suboptimal dosing of methotrexate and diverse outcome measures) and imprecision (few participants and low event rates). No trials reported function or the number of participants with sustained clinically inactive disease. Serious adverse events included liver derangement, abdominal pain, and inadvertent overdose. Methotrexate plus intra-articular corticosteroid therapy versus intra-articular corticosteroid therapy alone Methotrexate plus IAGC therapy compared with IAGC therapy alone may have little or no effect on the probability of sustained clinically inactive disease or the rate of withdrawals due to adverse events up to 12 months in children and young people with the oligoarticular subtype of JIA (low-certainty evidence). We could not calculate the absolute difference in withdrawals due to adverse events because there were no withdrawals in the control group. We are uncertain if there is any difference between the interventions in the risk of severe adverse events, because none were reported. The study did not report treatment response, function, pain, or participant global assessment of well-being. Methotrexate versus an alternative disease-modifying antirheumatic drug Methotrexate compared with leflunomide may have little or no effect on the probability of treatment response or on function, participant global assessment of well-being, risk of serious adverse events, and rate of withdrawals due to adverse events up to four months. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes to low due to imprecision. The study did not report pain or sustained clinically inactive disease.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral methotrexate (5 mg/m2/week to 15 mg/m2/week) compared with placebo may increase the number of children and young people achieving treatment response but may have little or no effect on pain or participant global assessment of well-being. Oral methotrexate plus IAGC injections compared to IAGC injections alone may have little or no effect on the likelihood of sustained clinically inactive disease among children and young people with oligoarticular JIA. Similarly, methotrexate compared with leflunomide may have little or no effect on treatment response, function, and participant global assessment of well-being. Serious adverse events due to methotrexate appear to be rare. We will update this review as new evidence becomes available to inform the living guideline.

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.

Prioritization of clinical questions for the Australian Living Guideline for the Pharmacological Management of Inflammatory Arthritis

AIM

Living guidelines aim to reduce delays in translating new knowledge into practice by updating individual recommendations as soon as relevant new evidence emerges. We surveyed members of the Australian Rheumatology Association (ARA) to develop a list of priority questions for the Australian Living Guideline for the Pharmacological Management of Inflammatory Arthritis (ALG) and to explore clinicians' use of clinical practice guidelines.

METHODS

An electronic survey of ARA members was performed in two phases. The first survey contained questions about current guideline use and beliefs and invited participants to submit at least three questions relevant to the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In the second round, participants selected 10 questions they considered to be the highest priority from the collated list and ranked them in priority order. The sum of ranks was used to generate a final priority list.

RESULTS

There were 115 (21%) and 78 (14%) responses to the first and second survey rounds respectively. 87% of respondents use existing rheumatology guidelines in their usual practice, primarily EULAR guidelines. Most respondents favored the development of Australian rheumatology guidelines. In total, 34 potential recommendation topics were identified and ranked in order of priority.

CONCLUSION

A list of 34 clinical questions about RA management, ranked in order of importance by clinicians, has informed the development of the ALG. Similar prioritization exercises in other contexts may permit guidelines to be tailored to the needs of guideline users in their specific context, which may facilitate international collaboration and promote efficient translation of evidence to practice.

Trajectories of self-reported pain-related health outcomes and longitudinal effects on medication use in rheumatoid arthritis: a prospective cohort analysis using the Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD)

OBJECTIVE

To determine distinct trajectories of self-reported pain-related health status in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), their relationship with sociodemographic factors and medication use.

METHODS

988 Australian Rheumatology Association Database participants with RA (71% female, mean age 54 years, mean disease duration 2.3 years) were included. Distinct multi-trajectories over 15-year follow-up for five different self-reported pain-related health outcome measures (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, visual analogue scores for pain, arthritis, global health and the Assessment of Quality of Life utility index) were identified using latent variable discrete mixture modelling. Random effects models were used to determine associations with medication use and biologic therapy modification during follow-up.

RESULTS

Four, approximately equally sized, pain/health status groups were identified, ranging from 'better' to 'poorer', within which changes over time were relatively small. Important determinants of those with poorer pain/health status included female gender, obesity, smoking, socioeconomic indicators and comorbidities. While biologic therapy use was similar between groups during follow-up, biologic therapy modifications (p_linear<0.001) and greater tendency of non-tumour necrosis factor inhibitor use (p_linear<0.001) were observed in those with poorer pain/health status. Similarly, greater use of opioids, prednisolone and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs was seen in those with poorer pain/health status.

CONCLUSION

In the absence of disease activity information, distinct trajectories of varying pain/health status were seen from the outset and throughout the disease course in this RA cohort. More biologic therapy modifications and greater use in anti-inflammatories, opioids and prednisolone were seen in those with poorer pain/health status, reflecting undesirable lived experience of persistent pain in RA.

Australian recommendations on perioperative use of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in people with inflammatory arthritis undergoing elective surgery

Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are effective treatments for inflammatory arthritis but carry an increased risk of infection. For patients undergoing surgery, there is a need to consider the trade-off between a theoretical increased risk of infection with continuation of DMARDs perioperatively versus an increased risk of disease flare if they are temporarily withheld. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to develop recommendations for perioperative use of DMARDs for people with inflammatory arthritis undergoing elective surgery. The recommendations form part of the National Health and Medical Research Council-endorsed Australian Living Guideline for the Pharmacological Management of Inflammatory Arthritis. Conditional recommendations were made against routinely discontinuing conventional synthetic and biologic (b) DMARDs in the perioperative period but to consider temporary discontinuation of bDMARDs in individuals with a high risk of infection or where the impact of infection would be severe. A conditional recommendation was made in favour of temporary discontinuation of targeted synthetic DMARDs in the perioperative period.

Equity Considerations in COVID-19 Vaccination Studies of Individuals With Autoimmune Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases

OBJECTIVE

We sought to examine the extent to which populations experiencing inequities were considered in studies of COVID-19 vaccination in individuals with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIRDs).

METHODS

We included all studies (n = 19) from an ongoing Cochrane living systematic review on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with AIRDs. We used the PROGRESS-Plus framework (place of residence, race/ethnicity, occupation, gender/sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status, and social capital, plus: age, multimorbidity, and health literacy) to identify factors that stratify health outcomes. We assessed equity considerations in relation to differences in COVID-19 baseline risk, eligibility criteria, and description of participant characteristics and attrition, controlling for confounding factors, subgroup analyses, and applicability of findings.

RESULTS

All 19 studies were cohort studies that followed individuals with AIRDs after vaccination. Three studies (16%) described differences in baseline risk for COVID-19 across age. Two studies (11%) defined eligibility criteria based on occupation and age. All 19 studies described participant age and sex. Twelve studies (67%) controlled for age and/or sex as confounders. Eight studies (47%) conducted subgroup analyses across at least 1 PROGRESS-Plus factor, most commonly age. Ten studies (53%) interpreted applicability in relation to at least 1 PROGRESS-Plus factor, most commonly age (47%), then ethnicity (16%), sex (16%), and multimorbidity (11%).

CONCLUSION

Sex and age were the most frequently considered PROGRESS-Plus factors in studies of COVID-19 vaccination in individuals with AIRDs. The generalizability of evidence to populations experiencing inequities is uncertain. Future COVID-19 vaccine studies should report participant characteristics in more detail to inform guideline recommendations.

Vaccination Rates, Perceptions, and Information Sources Used by People With Inflammatory Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To determine vaccination rates, perceptions, and information sources in people with inflammatory arthritis.

METHODS

Participants enrolled in the Australian Rheumatology Association Database were invited to participate in an online questionnaire, conducted in January 2020, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Included questions were about vaccination history, modified World Health Organization Vaccination Hesitancy Scale, views of the information sources consulted, the Beliefs About Medicines Questionnaire, education, and the Single-Item Health Literacy Screener.

RESULTS

Response rate was 994 of 1498 (66%). The median age of participants was 62 years, with 67% female. Self-reported adherence was 83% for the influenza vaccine. Participants generally expressed positive vaccination views, particularly regarding safety, efficacy, and access. However, only 43% knew which vaccines were recommended for them. Vaccine hesitancy was primarily attributable to uncertainty and a perceived lack of information about which vaccines were recommended. Participants consulted multiple vaccination information sources (median 3, interquartile range 2-7). General practitioners (89%) and rheumatologists (76%) were the most frequently used information sources and were most likely to yield positive views. Negative views of vaccination were most often from internet chatrooms, social media, and mainstream media. Factors of younger age, male gender, and having more concerns about the harms and overuse of medicines in general were associated with lower adherence and greater uncertainty about vaccinations, whereas education and self-reported literacy were not.

CONCLUSION

Participants with inflammatory arthritis generally held positive views about vaccination, although there was considerable uncertainty as to which vaccinations were recommended for them. This study highlights the need for improved consumer information about vaccination recommendations for people with inflammatory arthritis.

Which clinical research questions are the most important? Development and preliminary validation of the Australia & New Zealand Musculoskeletal (ANZMUSC) Clinical Trials Network Research Question Importance Tool (ANZMUSC-RQIT)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

High quality clinical research that addresses important questions requires significant resources. In resource-constrained environments, projects will therefore need to be prioritized. The Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal (ANZMUSC) Clinical Trials Network aimed to develop a stakeholder-based, transparent, easily implementable tool that provides a score for the 'importance' of a research question which could be used to rank research projects in order of importance.

METHODS

Using a mixed-methods, multi-stage approach that included a Delphi survey, consensus workshop, inter-rater reliability testing, validity testing and calibration using a discrete-choice methodology, the Research Question Importance Tool (ANZMUSC-RQIT) was developed. The tool incorporated broad stakeholder opinion, including consumers, at each stage and is designed for scoring by committee consensus.

RESULTS

The ANZMUSC-RQIT tool consists of 5 dimensions (compared to 6 dimensions for an earlier version of RQIT): (1) extent of stakeholder consensus, (2) social burden of health condition, (3) patient burden of health condition, (4) anticipated effectiveness of proposed intervention, and (5) extent to which health equity is addressed by the research. Each dimension is assessed by defining ordered levels of a relevant attribute and by assigning a score to each level. The scores for the dimensions are then summed to obtain an overall ANZMUSC-RQIT score, which represents the importance of the research question. The result is a score on an interval scale with an arbitrary unit, ranging from 0 (minimal importance) to 1000. The ANZMUSC-RQIT dimensions can be reliably ordered by committee consensus (ICC 0.73-0.93) and the overall score is positively associated with citation count (standardised regression coefficient 0.33, p<0.001) and journal impact factor group (OR 6.78, 95% CI 3.17 to 14.50 for 3rd tertile compared to 1st tertile of ANZMUSC-RQIT scores) for 200 published musculoskeletal clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

We propose that the ANZMUSC-RQIT is a useful tool for prioritising the importance of a research question.

Using the derived 28-joint disease activity score patient-reported components (DAS28-P) index as a discriminatory measure of response to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis

Background

The 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28) is a widely used measure to assess disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The DAS28-P index, a derived proportion of the patient-reported components (joint tenderness and patient global assessment) within the DAS28, has been utilized as a discriminatory measure of non-inflammatory pain mechanisms in RA. This study aimed to evaluate the use of the DAS28-P index as a predictor of treatment response in early RA.

Methods

Patients with early RA enrolled in a supplemental fish oil clinical trial received a combination of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) according to a ‘treat-to-target’ protocol. First, consecutive measures of the DAS28-P index, derived from the DAS28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR), at each visit over a 1-year period were estimated for each patient. Then, distinct subgroups of treatment responders based on the trajectories of the DAS28-P indices were identified using bivariate k-means cluster analysis. Data on baseline predictors as well as longitudinal outcomes of disease impact and DMARD use over a 1-year period and radiographic progression over a 3-year period were collected and analyzed using a random intercept, population-averaged generalized estimating equation model.

Results

121 patients were included (74% female; mean age of 57; median of 16 weeks of active disease) and a 3-cluster model was identified—the ‘Responders’ group (n = 58; 48%), the ‘Partial Responders’ group (n = 32; 26%), and the ‘Non-Responders’ group (n = 31; 26%). The ‘Partial Responders’ group had consistently higher proportions of the DAS28-P index throughout the study period and had minimal radiographic progression over time, with the lowest joint erosion score of 0.9 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.2, 1.6], observed at the 3-year follow-up. At 52 weeks, the methotrexate dose was higher for both ‘Partial Responders’ and ‘Non-Responders’ groups (18.5 mg [95% CI 15.5, 21.5] and 18.6 mg [95% CI 15.3, 21.8] respectively), when compared with the ‘Responders’ group (12.8 mg [95% CI 14.7, 20.9]).

Conclusions

Persistently high DAS28-P index scores are useful to distinguish poor patient global assessment and excessive treatment escalation in early RA, suggestive of underlying non-inflammatory pain contributing to higher disease activity score. Early identification of patients with discordant subjective and objective components of composite disease activity measures may allow better tailoring of treatment in RA.

Crowdsourcing trainees in a living systematic review provided valuable experiential learning opportunities: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVES

To understand trainee experiences of participating in a living systematic review (LSR) for rheumatoid arthritis and the potential benefits in terms of experiential evidence-based medicine (EBM) education.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a mixed-methods study with trainees who participated in the LSR and who were recruited broadly from training programs in two countries. Trainees received task-specific training and completed one or more tasks in the review: assessing article eligibility, data extraction, and quality assessment. Trainees completed a survey followed by a one-on-one interview. Data were triangulated to produce broad themes.

RESULTS

Twenty one trainees, most of whom had a little prior experience with systematic reviews, reported a positive overall experience. Key benefits included learning opportunities, task segmentation (ability to focus on a single task, as opposed to an entire review), working in a supportive environment, international collaboration, and incentives such as authorship or acknowledgment. Trainees reported improvement in their competency as a Scholar, Collaborator, Leader, and Medical Expert. Challenges included communication and technical difficulties and appropriate matching of tasks to trainee skillsets.

CONCLUSION

Participating in an LSR provided benefits to a wide range of trainees and may provide an opportunity for experiential EBM training, while helping LSR sustainability.

Australian recommendations on tapering of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in inflammatory arthritis

Biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) have been an important advance in the management of inflammatory arthritis, but are expensive medications, carry a risk of infection and other adverse effects, and are often perceived as a burden by patients. We used GRADE methodology to develop recommendations for dose reduction and discontinuation of b/tsDMARDs in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who have achieved a low disease activity state or remission. The recommendations form part of the Australian Living Guideline for the Pharmacological Management of Inflammatory Arthritis, an NHMRC-endorsed 'living' guideline, in which recommendations are updated in near real-time as new evidence emerges. Conditional recommendations were made in favour of dose reduction in RA and AxSpA but not in PsA. Abrupt discontinuation of b/tsDMARDs is not recommended in any of the three diseases. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Perspectives of Glucocorticoid Use in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective

Prednisolone is an effective oral glucocorticoid for managing symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) but has predictable and common adverse effects. We explored patient perspectives of prednisolone use in RA.

Methods

Patients with RA registered with the Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD) who had completed an ARAD questionnaire in the preceding 12 months were invited to participate in an online survey. Responses were linked to already collected respondent demographics, medication use, and patient‐reported outcome measures. The Beliefs about Medicine Questionnaire (BMQ) measured patient beliefs on medication necessity and concerns. Free‐text responses outlining reasons for stopping or declining prednisolone underwent thematic analysis using NVivo 12.

Results

The survey response rate was 79.6% (804/1010), including 251 (31.2%) reporting current prednisolone use and 432 (53.7%) reporting previous use. Compared with previous users, current users were older (P = 0.0002) and had worse self‐reported pain, disease activity, health‐related quality of life, and function (all P < 0.001). Current users had higher BMQ scores for prednisolone‐specific necessity (3.6 versus 1.7; P <0.001) and concerns (2.7 versus 2.3; P <0.001). In previous prednisolone users (n = 432), the most frequent themes identified in free‐text responses for cessation were adequate disease control (30.3%), adverse effects (25.2%), and predetermined short courses (21.3%). Of respondents citing adverse effects for cessation (n = 131), weight gain (27.5%), osteoporosis (14.7%), and neuropsychiatric issues (13.8%) were most frequent.

Conclusions

In our cohort, patients with RA taking prednisolone believed it was necessary yet remained concerned about its use. Adequate disease control and adverse effects were important considerations for patients using prednisolone.

Colchicine is not effective for reducing osteoarthritic hand pain compared to placebo: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial (COLAH)

BACKGROUND

Colchicine may offer relief in osteoarthritis. This has never been investigated for hand osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effect of 1 mg daily colchicine vs placebo on hand pain and function over 12 weeks in older adults with hand osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Community-dwelling adults with diagnosed osteoarthritis of the hand aged 40-80 years were randomised to receive colchicine (0.5 mg twice daily) or matching placebo. Primary outcome measure was VAS hand pain score (0-100 mm). Secondary outcome measures included tender and swollen joint count, grip strength, C-reactive protein, and Michigan Hand Questionnaire total, function and pain scores. In an exploratory assessment, we compared synovial grade and power Doppler. All outcome measures were obtained at baseline and week 12. Stata v16 was used to perform constrained longitudinal data analysis models.

RESULTS

64 adults (54 females, 10 males) aged 48-79 years of age were enrolled. 59 participants completed the study (N = 28 colchicine, N = 31 placebo) (withdrawal rate 8%). Adverse reactions to the study medication occurred in nine patients. VAS score was not significantly different at baseline (61 ± 17 mm in the colchicine, 64 ± 17 mm in the placebo group). Between-group difference for VAS score at week 12 was 7.6 mm (95% CI -3.5-18.7, p-value 0.18). There were no significant differences between groups for any secondary outcomes at baseline or week 12.

CONCLUSIONS

1 mg colchicine daily for 12 weeks was not effective for reducing pain, tender and swollen joint count or increasing grip strength in symptomatic hand osteoarthritis. Our results do not support the use of colchicine in hand osteoarthritis.

Early development of the Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal Clinical Trials Network

The Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal (ANZMUSC) Clinical Trials Network was formed to build capacity and infrastructure for high-quality musculoskeletal clinical trials in our region. The purpose of this paper is to describe the steps taken in its formation to help others interested in establishing similar networks. In particular, we describe the steps taken to form the collaboration and our progress in achieving our vision and mission. Our aim is to focus on trials of highest importance and quality to provide definitive answers to the most pressing questions in our field.

Disease‐modifying anti‐rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:

The primary objective is to compare the benefits and harms of different disease‐modifying anti‐rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) as initial therapy and after failure of conventional synthetic DMARDs or biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs in adults with rheumatoid arthritis through a network meta‐analysis (NMA). A secondary objective is to rank the interventions for both benefits and harms.

This protocol describes the approach for separate NMAs for the three populations of interest (described below), which we intend to publish as three separate Cochrane Reviews.

1) Disease‐modifying anti‐rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis as initial therapy: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis

2) Disease‐modifying anti‐rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis after failure of conventional synthetic disease‐modifying anti‐rheumatic drugs: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis

3) Disease‐modifying anti‐rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis after failure of biologic or targeted synthetic therapy: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis

Patients' experience of shoulder disorders: a systematic review of qualitative studies for the OMERACT Shoulder Core Domain Set

OBJECTIVES

To describe the experiences (including symptoms and perceived impacts on daily living) of people with a shoulder disorder.

METHODS

Systematic review of qualitative studies. We searched for eligible qualitative studies indexed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL (EBSCO), SportDiscus (EBSCO) and Ovid PsycINFO up until November 2017. Two authors independently screened studies for inclusion, appraised their methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist, used thematic synthesis methods to generate themes describing the experiences reported by participants and assessed the confidence in the findings using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) approach.

RESULTS

The inclusion criteria were met by eight studies, which included 133 participants (49 females and 84 males) with either rotator cuff disease, adhesive capsulitis, proximal humeral fracture, shoulder instability or unspecified shoulder pain. We generated seven themes to describe what people in the included studies reported experiencing: pain; physical function/activity limitations; participation restriction; sleep disruption; cognitive dysfunction; emotional distress; and other pathophysiological manifestations (other than pain). There were interactions between the themes, with particular experiences impacting on others (e.g. pain leading to reduced activities and sleep disruption). Following grading of the evidence, we considered it likely that most of the review findings were a reasonable representation of the experiences of people with shoulder disorders.

CONCLUSION

Patients with shoulder disorders contend with considerable disruption to their life. The experiences described should be considered by researchers seeking to select the most appropriate outcomes to measure in clinical trials and other research studies in people with shoulder disorders.

The OMERACT Core Domain Set for Clinical Trials of Shoulder Disorders

OBJECTIVE

To reach consensus on the core domains to be included in a core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders using the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 Core Domain Set process.

METHODS

At OMERACT 2018, the OMERACT Shoulder Working Group conducted a workshop that presented the OMERACT 2016 preliminary core domain set and its rationale based upon a systematic review of domains measured in shoulder trials and international Delphi sessions involving patients, clinicians, and researchers, as well as a new systematic review of qualitative studies on the experiences of people with shoulder disorders. After discussions in breakout groups, the OMERACT core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders was presented for endorsement by OMERACT 2018 participants.

RESULTS

The qualitative review (n = 8) identified all domains included in the preliminary core set. An additional domain, cognitive dysfunction, was also identified, but confidence that this represents a core domain was very low. The core domain set that was endorsed by the OMERACT participants, with 71% agreement, includes 4 "mandatory" trial domains: pain, function, patient global - shoulder, and adverse events including death; and 4 "important but optional" domains: participation (recreation/work), sleep, emotional well-being, and condition-specific pathophysiological manifestations. Cognitive dysfunction was voted out of the core domain set.

CONCLUSION

OMERACT 2018 delegates endorsed a core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders. The next step includes identification of a core outcome measurement set that passes the OMERACT 2.1 Filter for measuring each domain.

Methotrexate for psoriatic arthritis

BACKGROUND

Psoriatic arthritis is an inflammatory disease associated with joint damage, impaired function, pain, and reduced quality of life. Methotrexate is a disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) commonly prescribed to alleviate symptoms, attenuate disease activity, and prevent progression of disease.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of methotrexate for psoriatic arthritis in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and www.clinicaltrials.gov for relevant records. We searched all databases from inception to 29 January 2018. We handsearched included articles for additional records and contacted study authors for additional unpublished data. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared methotrexate versus placebo, or versus another DMARD, for adults with psoriatic arthritis. We reported on the following major outcomes: disease response (measured by psoriatic arthritis response criteria (PsARC)), function (measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire for Rheumatoid Arthritis (HAQ)), health-related quality of life, disease activity (measured by disease activity score (28 joints) with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR)), radiographic progression, serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed search results, assessed risk of bias, extracted trial data, and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We undertook meta-analysis only when this was meaningful.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in this review eight RCTs conducted in an outpatient setting, in Italy, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, China, Russia, and Bangladesh. Five studies compared methotrexate versus placebo, and four studies compared methotrexate versus other DMARDs. The average age of participants varied across studies (26 to 52 years), as did the average duration of psoriatic arthritis (one to nine years). Doses of methotrexate varied from 7.5 mg to 25 mg orally per week, but most studies administered approximately 15 mg or less orally per week. Risk of bias was generally unclear or high across most domains for all studies. We considered only one study to have low risk of selection and detection bias. The main study informing results of the primary comparison (methotrexate vs placebo up to six months) was at low risk of bias for all domains except attrition bias and reporting bias.We restricted reporting of results to the comparison of methotrexate versus placebo for up to six months. Low-quality evidence (downgraded due to bias and imprecision) from a single study (221 participants; methotrexate dose 15 mg orally or less per week) informed results for disease response, function, and disease activity. Disease response, measured by the proportion who responded to treatment according to PsARC (response indicates improvement), was 41/109 in the methotrexate group and 24/112 in the placebo group (risk ratio (RR) 1.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 2.70). This equates to an absolute difference of 16% more responders with methotrexate (4% more to 28% more), and a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 6 (95% CI 5 to 25). Mean function, measured by the HAQ (scale 0 to 3; 0 meaning no functional impairment; minimum clinically important difference 0.22), was 1.0 points with placebo and 0.3 points better (95% 0.51 better to 0.09 better) with methotrexate; absolute improvement was 10% (3% better to 17% better), and relative improvement 30% (9% better to 51% better). Mean disease activity as measured by the DAS28-ESR (scale of 0 to 10; lower score means lower disease activity; minimum clinically important difference unknown) was 3.8 points in the methotrexate group and 4.06 points in the placebo group; mean difference was -0.26 points (95% CI -0.65 to 0.13); absolute improvement was 3% (7% better to 1% worse), and relative improvement 6% (16% better to 3% worse).Low-quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision) from three studies (n = 293) informed our results for serious adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. Due to low event rates, we are uncertain if methotrexate results show increased risk of serious adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events compared to placebo. Results show 1/141 serious adverse events in the methotrexate group and 4/152 in the placebo group: RR 0.26 (95% CI 0.03 to 2.26); absolute difference was 2% fewer events with methotrexate (5% fewer to 1% more). In all, 9/141 withdrawals in the methotrexate group were due to adverse events and 7/152 in the placebo group: RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.51 to 3.42); absolute difference was 1% more withdrawals (4% fewer to 6% more).One study measured health-related quality of life but did not report these results. No study measured radiographic progression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality evidence suggests that low-dose (15 mg or less) oral methotrexate might be slightly more effective than placebo when taken for six months; however we are uncertain if it is more harmful. Effects of methotrexate on health-related quality of life, radiographic progression, enthesitis, dactylitis, and fatigue; its benefits beyond six months; and effects of higher-dose methotrexate have not been measured or reported in a randomised placebo-controlled trial.

Gout prevalence and predictors of urate-lowering therapy use: results from a population-based study

Background

Gout has an increasing global prevalence. Underutilization of urate-lowering therapy (ULT) is thought to be common, via both suboptimal dosing and poor medication adherence. The aims of this study were to determine the prevalence of self-reported gout and the key predictors of ULT use in those with gout in a representative population survey in South Australia.

Methods

Data were obtained from the Spring 2015 South Australian Health Omnibus Survey, a multilevel, systematic, survey in a representative population sample involving face-to-face interviews (n = 3005). This study analyzed responses from respondents aged ≥ 25 years (n = 2531) about self-reported gout, ULT use, sociodemographic factors, lifestyle factors, and comorbidities, using survey weighting. Univariate and subsequent adjusted logistic regression analyses on self-reported gout were performed. ULT use was divided into three categories (never use, prior use, and current use) and these data were analyzed using a multinomial logistic regression model.

Results

Self-reported gout prevalence was 6.8% (95% CI 5.8, 7.9). The mean age of respondents with gout was 64 years (standard deviation 16) and 82% were male. As expected, older age, male gender, lower socioeconomic status (SES), and higher body mass index (BMI) were associated with gout, as were high alcohol consumption, current smoking, other forms of arthritis, and hypertension or hypercholesterolemia medication, after adjustment for sociodemographic variables. Two thirds of respondents with gout reported ULT use (36% current; 29% previous) with only 55% continuing treatment. Predictors of ULT use included male gender, low SES, and concomitant cholesterol-lowering therapy. Respondents with gout with a higher BMI were more likely to remain on ULT.

Conclusions

Despite gout being a common, potentially disabling joint disease, only 55% of respondents with gout in this study adhered to ULT. Identification of key predictors of ULT use will provide guidance on prescribing strategy in clinical practice and on the quality of gout care in the community.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13075-018-1633-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Study protocol: families and childhood transitions study (FACTS) - a longitudinal investigation of the role of the family environment in brain development and risk for mental health disorders in community based children

Background

Extant research has demonstrated that parenting behaviour can be a significant contributor to the development of brain structure and mental health during adolescence. Nonetheless, there is limited research examining these relationships during late childhood, and particularly in the critical period of brain development occurring between 8 and 10 years of age. The effects of the family environment on the brain during late childhood may have significant implications for later functioning, and particularly mental health. The Families and Childhood Transitions Study (FACTS) is a multidisciplinary longitudinal cohort study of brain development and mental health, with two waves of data collection currently funded, occurring 18-months apart, when child participants are aged approximately 8- and 10-years old.

Methods/design

Participants are 163 children (M age [SD] = 8.44 [0.34] years, 76 males) and their mothers (M age [SD] = 40.34 [5.43] years). Of the 163 families who consented to participate, 156 completed a video-recorded and observer-coded dyadic interaction task and 153 completed a child magnetic resonance imaging brain scan at baseline. Families were recruited from lower socioeconomic status (SES) areas to maximise rates of social disadvantage and variation in parenting behaviours. All experimental measures and tasks completed at baseline are repeated at an 18-month follow-up, excluding the observer coded family interaction tasks. The baseline assessment was completed in October 2015, and the 18-month follow up will be completed May 2017.

Discussion

This study, by examining the neurobiological and mental health consequences of variations in parenting, has the potential to significantly advance our understanding of child development and risk processes. Recruitment of lower SES families will also allow assessment of resilience factors given the poorer outcomes often associated with this population.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12887-017-0905-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Quality of reporting of interventional animal studies in rheumatology: a systematic review using the ARRIVE guidelines

AIM

To systematically investigate the quality of reporting of published interventional animal studies in experimental rheumatology.

METHODS

Original scientific publications in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (ARD) and Arthritis and Rheumatism (A&R) from January to December 2012 were identified. Studies were included if they used animal experimental model(s) and involved a treatment intervention. Data were extracted regarding disease type, animal model, intervention type and funding. Each study was assessed for quality of reporting, using the ARRIVE guidelines as a checklist.

RESULTS

Forty-one studies (15 ARD, 26 A&R) were analyzed. Ethics approval was not reported or unclear in 22%. Randomization was not reported or unclear in 82.9% of the papers. Only 19.5% and 9.8% of papers reported attrition rate and important adverse events, respectively. Sample size calculation or allocation method was not reported in any paper. Only one study published negative results.

CONCLUSION

A number of key study design principles are poorly reported in experimental animal research investigating potential treatments in rheumatology. We support the widespread implementation of the ARRIVE guidelines in the rheumatology literature to promote the publication of manuscripts that allow rigorous appraisal of scientific quality.

Dispositional mindfulness is predicted by structural development of the insula during late adolescence

•

Adolescence is a critical period for the development of self-regulatory abilities.

•

The cultivation of mindfulness has been associated with improved self-regulation.

•

We examined brain development and dispositional mindfulness in adolescence.

•

Adolescents with higher levels of mindfulness demonstrated less thinning in the left anterior insula.

Adolescence is a critical period of development, in which the increasing social and cognitive demands of independence need to be met by enhanced self-regulatory abilities. The cultivation of mindfulness has been associated with improved self-regulation in adult populations, and it is theorized that one neurodevelopmental mechanism that supports this capacity is the development of the prefrontal cortex. The current study examined the neurodevelopmental mechanisms associated with dispositional mindfulness in adolescence. Using a longitudinal within-persons design, 82 participants underwent structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessments at approximately ages 16 and 19, and also completed self-reported measurements of mindfulness at age 19. It was hypothesized that adolescents who demonstrated greater thinning of frontal cortical regions between the age of 16 and 19 would exhibit higher dispositional mindfulness levels at age 19. Results indicated that, contrary to predictions, adolescents with higher levels of mindfulness demonstrated less thinning in the left anterior insula. By contrast, higher IQ was associated with greater thinning of the right caudal middle frontal and right superior frontal regions. The involvement of insula development in mindfulness is consistent with a direct role for this structure in managing self-regulation, and in doing so concords with recent models of self-referential interoceptive awareness.

Australian and New Zealand recommendations for the diagnosis and management of gout: integrating systematic literature review and expert opinion in the 3e Initiative

AIM

To develop evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of gout in Australia and New Zealand as part of the multi-national 3e Initiative.

METHOD

Using a formal voting process, a panel of 78 international rheumatologists selected 10 key clinical questions pertinent to the diagnosis and management of gout. An additional question was also developed by participating Australian and New Zealand rheumatologists. Each question was investigated with a systematic literature review. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and abstracts from 2010 to 2011 European League Against Rheumatism and American College of Rheumatology meetings were searched in each review. Relevant studies were independently reviewed by two individuals for data extraction and synthesis and risk of bias assessment. Using this evidence, 47 Australian and New Zealand rheumatologists developed national recommendations. For each recommendation the level of agreement was assessed and the level of evidence graded.

RESULT

Eleven recommendations were produced relating to the diagnosis of gout, different aspects of the management of gout, cardiovascular and renal comorbidities and the management of asymptomatic hyperuricemia. The mean level of agreement with the recommendations was 9.1 on a 1-10 scale, with 10 representing full agreement.

CONCLUSION

Eleven Australian and New Zealand recommendations on the diagnosis and management of gout were developed combining systematically reviewed evidence with local expertise, enhancing their utility in clinical practice.

The scope, funding and publication of musculoskeletal clinical trials performed in Australia

Musculoskeletal conditions are the leading contributors to disability burden globally and account for 27.4% of total disability burden in Australia. Timely research that addresses important questions relevant to consumers, clinicians and policymakers is critical for reducing the burden associated with these conditions. Clinical trials are particularly important for providing information about whether interventions are effective and safe. They are also needed to test strategies for reducing the sizeable delays in translating evidence into practice. A review of the current scope of musculoskeletal clinical trials in Australia found that National Health and Medical Research Council funding is disproportionally low compared with the burden of these conditions (averaging 5.8 new trials per year through the project grant scheme over the past 5 years, representing 0.8% of all project grants and funding, and 5% of NHMRC clinical trial funding). In the past 2 years, 128 Australian-initiated trials were registered in a trial registry, while about one in 20 randomised trials published in 37 leading general medical and musculoskeletal-specific journals was initiated in Australia. None were implementation trials. Relative to the burden of musculoskeletal conditions in Australia, investment in clinical trials is not ideal. While Australian musculoskeletal trialists are productive and internationally competitive, we may not be addressing the most critical issues. There is an urgent need for Australian researchers, clinicians, policymakers and consumers to work collaboratively to prioritise the most important questions, secure appropriate research funding, and undertake well designed trials to ensure we deliver best evidence-informed care and optimal outcomes for people with musculoskeletal conditions.

Consensus statement on the investigation and management of non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA)

AIM

Non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) is axial inflammatory arthritis where plain radiographic damage is not evident. An unknown proportion of these patients will progress to ankylosing spondylitis (AS). The increasing recognition of nr-axSpA has been greatly assisted by the widespread use of magnetic resonance imaging. The aim of this article was to construct a set of consensus statements based on a literature review to guide investigation and promote best management of nr-axSpA.

METHODS

A literature review using Medline was conducted covering the major investigation modalities and treatment options available. A group of rheumatologists and a radiologist with expertise in investigation and management of SpA reviewed the literature and formulated a set of consensus statements. The Grade system encompassing the level of evidence and strength of recommendation was used. The opinion of a patient with nr-axSpA and a nurse experienced in the care of SpA patients was also sought and included.

RESULTS

The literature review found few studies specifically addressing nr-axSpA, or if these patients were included, their results were often not separately reported. Fourteen consensus statements covering investigation and management of nr-axSpA were formulated. The level of agreement was high and ranged from 8.1 to 9.8. Treatment recommendations vary little with established AS, but this is primarily due to the lack of available evidence on the specific treatment of nr-axSpA.

CONCLUSION

The consensus statements aim to improve the diagnosis and management of nr-axSpA. We aim to raise awareness of this condition by the public and doctors and promote appropriate investigation and management.

Isotretinoin-induced skeletal hyperostosis

We describe a case of skeletal hyperostosis in a 29 year old man presenting with non-inflammatory back pain with a past history of isotretinoin therapy for acne. The development of skeletal hyperostosis, predominantly of the spine, has been reported in association with isotretinoin use and has a radiographic picture similar to diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis. The prevalence and severity of this condition appears to correlate with duration of therapy. Isotretinoin is a well-established treatment for severe acne. It is important for the rheumatologist be aware of this phenomenon when assessing young patients with musculoskeletal symptoms and evidence of radiological abnormalities.

Opioid analgesics for rheumatoid arthritis pain

CLINICAL QUESTION Do the benefits of opioid analgesics outweigh the risks in patients with persistent pain due to rheumatoid arthritis? BOTTOM LINE Weak opioids (such as codeine, dextropropoxyphene, and tramadol) may be effective in the short-term management of rheumatoid arthritis pain, but adverse effects are common and may outweigh the benefits; alternative analgesics should be considered first.

The efficacy and safety of muscle relaxants in inflammatory arthritis: a Cochrane systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of muscle relaxants in pain management in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA).

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, and PsychINFO for randomized controlled trials in adults with IA that compared any muscle relaxant (administered via any route) to another analgesic intervention or placebo. We also searched the 2008-2009 American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism abstracts and performed a hand search of reference lists of relevant articles. Primary outcomes were patient-reported pain relief ≥ 30% and withdrawals due to adverse events. Two authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data.

RESULTS

Six trials (126 participants) were included in this review. All trials were deemed to have a high risk of bias. Five crossover trials evaluated benzodiazepine; 4 assessed diazepam (n = 71), and one assessed triazolam (n = 15). The sixth trial, a parallel-group study, evaluated zopiclone (non-benzodiazepine, n = 40). No trial was longer than 2 weeks and 3 single-dose trials assessed outcomes at 24 hours only. Overall, the included trials failed to find evidence of a beneficial effect of muscle relaxants over placebo (at 24 hours, 1 week, or 2 weeks) or in addition to nonsteroidal antiiflammatory drugs (at 24 hours) on pain intensity, function, or quality of life. Data from 2 trials of longer than 24-hour duration (diazepam and zopiclone, n = 74) found that participants who received a muscle relaxant had significantly more adverse events compared with those who received placebo [number needed to harm (NNTH) 3, 95% CI 2 to 7]. These were predominantly central nervous system side effects including dizziness and drowsiness (NNTH 3, 95% CI 2 to 11).

CONCLUSION

Based upon the currently available evidence in patients with IA, benzodiazepines (diazepam and triazolam) do not appear to be beneficial in improving pain over 24 hours or 1 week. The non-benzodiazepine agent zopiclone also did not significantly reduce pain over 2 weeks. However, even short-term muscle relaxant use (24 hours to 2 weeks) is associated with significant adverse events, predominantly drowsiness and dizziness.

The accuracy of methods for urate crystal detection in synovial fluid and the effect of sample handling: a systematic review

This study aims to compare different methods of monosodium urate crystal (MSU) detection in synovial fluid (SF) and the effect of sample storage and handling on crystal detection. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and the American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism conference abstracts of 2010 and 2011. Studies that compared a method for detecting MSU crystals in SF with polarised light microscopy (PLM) or compared various SF storage and handling factors with the detection of MSU crystals as an outcome were included. Twelve studies out of 247 identified references were included in the review. Seven studies compared different methods of MSU crystal detection in SF with PLM. Due to study heterogeneity, methodological limitations and risk of bias, no firm conclusions could be drawn from the available data. Five studies examining SF storage and handling factors were identified. A reduction in MSU crystal concentration was observed over time at room temperature that was not seen in refrigerated samples. The use of anticoagulation as a storage medium provided no benefit. Dried cytospin preparations appeared to be a suitable medium for long-term storage and delayed crystal analysis for at least 12 months. The existing data do not provide a compelling argument for the replacement of PLM as the current standard. SF sample storage and handling have an effect on MSU crystals and may impact on the reliability of analysis.

Efficacy and safety of neuromodulators in inflammatory arthritis: a Cochrane systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of neuromodulators for pain management in patients with inflammatory arthritis.

METHODS

A Cochrane systematic review was performed as part of the 3e Initiative on pain management in inflammatory arthritis. We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central for studies to November 2010, and American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism meeting abstracts published in 2008-2009. Studies were included if they were randomized or quasirandomized controlled trials that compared any neuromodulator (excluding cannabis) to another therapy (active or placebo, including nonpharmacological therapies) for pain in patients with RA, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or spondyloarthritis. Primary outcomes of interest were patient-reported pain relief of 30% or greater and withdrawals due to adverse events. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality. A risk of bias assessment was performed using the methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration.

RESULTS

Three trials, all in RA and all at high risk of bias, were included in this review. Two placebo-controlled trials evaluated nefopam (52 participants) and one placebo-controlled trial evaluated topical capsaicin 0.025% (31 participants). Pooled analysis showed a significant reduction in pain levels favoring nefopam over placebo after 2 weeks [weighted mean difference -21.2, 95% CI -35.6 to -6.7; number needed to treat (NNT) 2, 95% CI 1.4 to 9.5]. However, nefopam was associated with significantly more adverse events (RR 4.1, 95% CI 1.6 to 10.7; number needed to harm 9, 95% CI 2 to 367), predominantly nausea and sweating. In one trial, capsaicin reduced pain more than placebo at 1 and 2 weeks (MD -23.8, 95% CI -44.8 to -2.8; NNT 3, 95% CI 2-47, and -34.4, 95% CI -54.7 to -14.14; NNT 2, 95% CI 1.4 to 6, respectively). Of those who received capsaicin, 44% developed burning at the site of application and 2% withdrew as a result.

CONCLUSION

Based on 3 small trials, which were all at high risk of bias, there is weak evidence that nefopam and capsaicin are superior to placebo in reducing pain in patients with RA, but both are associated with a significant side effect profile. There are no available data for other types of IA or for newer agents such as gabapentin or pregabalin.

The efficacy and safety of opioids in inflammatory arthritis: a Cochrane systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of opioid analgesics in inflammatory arthritis (IA).

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, and Central to May 2010. Randomized controlled trials in adults with IA that compared opioids (administered via any route) to another intervention or placebo were included. Studies in the immediate postoperative setting were excluded. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary endpoints were pain and adverse events (AE). Categorical data were pooled using RevMan5 and reported as relative risks (RR) or odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included, all in patients with RA. The risk of bias of all studies was high. No study was longer than 6 weeks in duration and 4 studies used single doses of study drugs. Seven studies were between 1 and 6 weeks in duration and assessed 6 different oral opioids. Only 1 study investigated a strong opioid. Data could be pooled from 4 studies comparing weak opioids to placebo: there was no difference in withdrawals due to inadequate analgesia (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.34, 2.01), but patient-reported global impression of change was superior with opioids (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.03, 2.03). Opioids were more likely than placebo to cause AE (OR 3.90, 95% CI 2.31, 6.56). There was no difference between opioids and placebo in net efficacy after adjustment for AE.

CONCLUSION

Based on 11 heterogeneous studies of short duration and high risk of bias, there is weak evidence that opioids are effective analgesics in RA. AE are common and may offset the benefits. The relative risks and benefits of opioids in IA beyond 6 weeks are unknown.

The efficacy and safety of antidepressants in inflammatory arthritis: a Cochrane systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of antidepressants in pain management in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA).

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, and PsychINFO for randomized controlled trials in adults with IA that compared any antidepressants (administered via any route) to another analgesic intervention or placebo. We also searched the 2008-2009 American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism abstracts and performed a hand search of reference lists of relevant articles. Primary outcomes were patient-reported pain relief ≥ 30% and withdrawals due to adverse events. Two authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data. A risk of bias assessment was performed using methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration.

RESULTS

Eight trials (652 participants) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and 1 trial in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (100 participants) were included in this review. The majority of studies were published in the late 1980s in patients with active disease receiving minimal disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy. All trials evaluated tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) and 2 studies included a selective serotonin uptake inhibitor. Seven of the 9 trials had high risk of bias, 2 were unclear, and metaanalysis was not performed due to trial heterogeneity. RA trials with short-term outcome (< 1 week) found no significant benefit of amitriptyline 25 mg in combination with dextropropoxyphene (DXP) 65 mg over placebo, and inferiority of amitriptyline + DXP versus DXP 130 mg [mean difference (MD) 10.0, 95% CI 0.4 to 19.6]. There was conflicting evidence regarding medium (1-6 wks) or longer-term (> 6 wks) benefits on pain. One trial in depressed patients with RA showed no significant difference between amitriptyline and paroxetine given for 8 weeks (65% vs 56% much or very much improved; RR 1.2, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.5). One trial found that amitriptyline was no better than placebo in reducing pain in patients with active AS over 2 weeks (MD -0.2, 95% CI -1.2 to 0.8). From 5 trials, withdrawals due to adverse events were not significantly different from placebo. However, there were significantly more minor adverse events in patients receiving TCA compared with those receiving a placebo (RR 2.3, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.4). These included somnolence, dizziness, dry mouth, and nausea.

CONCLUSION

Based upon 9 trials of high or unclear risk of bias, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions about the efficacy of TCA as analgesics for patients with IA. The use of these agents may be associated with adverse events that are generally mild and do not lead to cessation of treatment. High-quality trials are needed in this area.

Multinational evidence-based recommendations for pain management by pharmacotherapy in inflammatory arthritis: integrating systematic literature research and expert opinion of a broad panel of rheumatologists in the 3e Initiative

OBJECTIVE

To develop evidence-based recommendations for pain management by pharmacotherapy in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA).

METHODS

A total of 453 rheumatologists from 17 countries participated in the 2010 3e (Evidence, Expertise, Exchange) Initiative. Using a formal voting process, 89 rheumatologists representing all 17 countries selected 10 clinical questions regarding the use of pain medications in IA. Bibliographic fellows undertook a systematic literature review for each question, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and 2008-09 European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/ACR abstracts. Relevant studies were retrieved for data extraction and quality assessment. Rheumatologists from each country used this evidence to develop a set of national recommendations. Multinational recommendations were then formulated and assessed for agreement and the potential impact on clinical practice.

RESULTS

A total of 49,242 references were identified, from which 167 studies were included in the systematic reviews. One clinical question regarding different comorbidities was divided into two separate reviews, resulting in 11 recommendations in total. Oxford levels of evidence were applied to each recommendation. The recommendations related to the efficacy and safety of various analgesic medications, pain measurement scales and pain management in the pre-conception period, pregnancy and lactation. Finally, an algorithm for the pharmacological management of pain in IA was developed. Twenty per cent of rheumatologists reported that the algorithm would change their practice, and 75% felt the algorithm was in accordance with their current practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Eleven evidence-based recommendations on the management of pain by pharmacotherapy in IA were developed. They are supported by a large panel of rheumatologists from 17 countries, thus enhancing their utility in clinical practice.

Active foot synovitis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: applying clinical criteria for disease activity and remission may result in underestimation of foot joint involvement

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether application of criteria for remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may result in underestimation of foot joint involvement among patients in a clinic setting.

METHODS

RA patients (n = 123) were assessed at baseline and 6 months after commencement of a response-driven combination disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) protocol. Remission was assessed using disease activity measures (the 28-joint Disease Activity Score using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR], Simplified Disease Activity Index [SDAI], and Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI]) as well as Boolean-based criteria for remission (the 1981 American College of Rheumatology [ACR] preliminary criteria and the 2011 ACR/European League Against Rheumatism [EULAR] provisional criteria). The prevalence of foot synovitis and the mean swollen/tender foot joint count in RA patients meeting any of these remission criteria were estimated by hurdle (mixed distribution) regression.

RESULTS

In patients who received 6 months of combination DMARD treatment, application of the 1981 ACR criteria and the newly proposed 2011 ACR/EULAR criteria, each utilizing full joint counts (which includes assessment of the feet), classified the least number of patients as being in remission (8-10%), and evidence of foot synovitis was minimal among these patients. In contrast, ongoing foot synovitis was present in a substantial proportion of patients (>20%) meeting the 28-joint count criteria for remission, including the DAS28-ESR, SDAI, CDAI, and 2011 ACR/EULAR criteria (clinical practice setting or clinical trials). Furthermore, applying the 2011 ACR/EULAR composite remission criterion of a SDAI score ≤3.3 to define remission did not adequately capture the resolution of foot synovitis (i.e., residual foot involvement was still detected in a substantial proportion of patients classified as being in remission by this definition).

CONCLUSION

Although the DAS28-ESR, CDAI, and SDAI have been validated for assessment of remission in RA, this study shows that the performance of these 3 disease activity measures, which do not provide a direct assessment of the foot, in detecting foot synovitis is poor, in contrast to that of the 1981 ACR and 2011 ACR/EULAR remission criteria utilizing full joint counts. Thus, patients may be at risk of ongoing damage if treatment decisions are made solely on the basis of criteria that omit foot joint assessment.

Muscle relaxants for pain management in rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Pain management is a high priority for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Muscle relaxants include drugs that reduce muscle spasm (for example benzodiazepines such as diazepam (Valium), alprazolam (Xanax), lorazepam (Ativan) and non-benzodiazepines such as metaxalone (Skelaxin) or a combination of paracetamol and orphenadrine (Muscol)) and drugs that prevent increased muscle tone (baclofen and dantrolene). Despite a paucity of evidence supporting their use, antispasmodic and antispasticity muscle relaxants have gained widespread clinical acceptance as adjuvants in the management of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to determine the efficacy and safety of muscle relaxants in pain management in patients with RA. The muscle relaxants that were included in this review are the antispasmodic benzodiazepines (alprazolam, bromazepam, chlordiazepoxide,cinolazepam, clonazepam, cloxazolam, clorazepate, diazepam, estazolam, flunitrazepam, flurazepam, flutoprazepam, halazepam, ketazolam, loprazolam, lorazepam, lormetazepam, medazepam, midazolam, nimetazepam, nitrazepam, nordazepam, oxazepam, pinazepam, prazepam, quazepam, temazepam, tetrazepam, triazolam), antispasmodic non-benzodiazepines (cyclobenzaprine, carisoprodol, chlorzoxazone, meprobamate, methocarbamol, metaxalone, orphenadrine, tizanidine and zopiclone), and antispasticity drugs (baclofen and dantrolene sodium).

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 4th quarter 2010), MEDLINE (1950 to week 1 November 2010), EMBASE (Week 44 2010), and PsycINFO (1806 to week 2 November 2010). We also searched the 2008 to 2009 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) abstracts and performed a handsearch of reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials which compared a muscle relaxant to another therapy (active, including non-pharmacological therapies, or placebo) in adult patients with RA and that reported at least one clinically relevant outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two blinded review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the trials. Meta-analyses were used to examine the efficacy of muscle relaxants on pain, depression, sleep and function, as well as their safety.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials (126 participants) were included in this review. All trials were rated at high risk of bias. Five cross-over trials evaluated a benzodiazepine, four assessed diazepam (n = 71) and one assessed triazolam (n = 15). The sixth trial assessed zopiclone (a non-benzodiazepine) (n = 40) and was a parallel group study. No trial duration was longer than two weeks while three single dose trials assessed outcomes at 24 hours only. Overall the included trials failed to find evidence of a beneficial effect of muscle relaxants over placebo, alone (at 24 hrs, 1 or 2 weeks) or in addition to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (at 24 hrs), on pain intensity, function, or quality of life. Data from two trials of longer than 24 hours duration (n = 74) (diazepam and zopiclone) found that participants who received a muscle relaxant had significantly more adverse events compared with those who received placebo (number needed to harm (NNTH) 3, 95% CI 2 to 7). These were predominantly central nervous system side effects, including dizziness and drowsiness (NNTH 3, 95% CI 2 to 11). 

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based upon the currently available evidence in patients with RA, benzodiazepines (diazepam and triazolam) do not appear to be beneficial in improving pain over 24 hours or one week. The non-benzodiazepine agent zopiclone also did not significantly reduce pain over two weeks. However, even short term muscle relaxant use (24 hours to 2 weeks) is associated with significant adverse events, predominantly drowsiness and dizziness.

Neuromodulators for pain management in rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Pain management is a high priority for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Despite deficiencies in research data, neuromodulators have gained widespread clinical acceptance as adjuvants in the management of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to determine the efficacy and safety of neuromodulators in pain management in patients with RA. Neuromodulators included in this review were anticonvulsants (gabapentin, pregabalin, phenytoin, sodium valproate, lamotrigine, carbamazepine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, tiagabine and topiramate), ketamine, bupropion, methylphenidate, nefopam, capsaicin and the cannabinoids.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a computer-assisted search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, 4th quarter), MEDLINE (1950 to week 1 November 2010), EMBASE (Week 44, 2010) and PsycINFO (1806 to week 2 November 2010). We also searched the 2008 and 2009 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) conference abstracts and performed a handsearch of reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials which compared any neuromodulator to another therapy (active or placebo, including non-pharmacological therapies) in adult patients with RA that had at least one clinically relevant outcome measure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two blinded review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the trials. Meta-analyses were used to examine the efficacy of a neuromodulator on pain, depression and function as well as their safety.

MAIN RESULTS

Four trials with high risk of bias were included in this review. Two trials evaluated oral nefopam (52 participants) and one trial each evaluated topical capsaicin (31 participants) and oromucosal cannabis (58 participants).The pooled analyses identified a significant reduction in pain levels favouring nefopam over placebo (weighted mean difference (WMD) -21.16, 95% CI -35.61 to -6.71; number needed to treat (NNT) 2, 95% CI 1.4 to 9.5) after two weeks. There were insufficient data to assess withdrawals due to adverse events. Nefopam was associated with significantly more adverse events (RR 4.11, 95% CI 1.58 to 10.69; NNTH 9, 95% CI 2 to 367), which were predominantly nausea and sweating.In a mixed population trial, qualitative analysis of patients with RA showed a significantly greater reduction in pain favouring topical capsaicin over placebo at one and two weeks (MD -23.80, 95% CI -44.81 to -2.79; NNT 3, 95% CI 2 to 47; MD -34.40, 95% CI -54.66 to -14.14; NNT 2, 95% CI 1.4 to 6 respectively). No separate safety data were available for patients with RA, however 44% of patients developed burning at the site of application and 2% withdrew because of this.One small, low quality trial assessed oromucosal cannabis against placebo and found a small, significant difference favouring cannabis in the verbal rating score 'pain at present' (MD -0.72, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.13) after five weeks. Patients receiving cannabis were significantly more likely to suffer an adverse event (risk ratio (RR) 1.82, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.00; NNTH 3, 95% CI 3 to 13). These were most commonly dizziness (26%), dry mouth (13%) and light headedness (10%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently weak evidence that oral nefopam, topical capsaicin and oromucosal cannabis are all superior to placebo in reducing pain in patients with RA. However, each agent is associated with a significant side effect profile. The confidence in our estimates is not strong given the difficulties with blinding, the small numbers of participants evaluated and the lack of adverse event data. In some patients, however, even a small degree of pain relief may be considered worthwhile. Until further research is available, given the relatively mild nature of the adverse events, capsaicin could be considered as an add-on therapy for patients with persistent local pain and inadequate response or intolerance to other treatments. Oral nefopam and oromucosal cannabis have more significant side effect profiles however and the potential harms seem to outweigh any modest benefit achieved.