-
RMD Open Nov 2022To conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) on the screening and prophylaxis of opportunistic and chronic infections in autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases... (Review)
Review
Systematic literature review informing the 2022 EULAR recommendations for screening and prophylaxis of chronic and opportunistic infections in adults with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) on the screening and prophylaxis of opportunistic and chronic infections in autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD).
METHODS
SLR (inception-12/2021) based on the following search domains: (1) infectious agents, (2) AIIRD, (3) immunosuppressives/immunomodulators used in rheumatology, (4) screening terms and (5) prophylaxis terms. Articles were retrieved having the terms from (1) AND (2) AND (3) plus terms from (4) OR(5). Databases searched: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library.
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
studies on postoperative infections, paediatric AIIRD, COVID-19, vaccinations and non-Εnglish literature. Study quality was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), RoB-Cochrane for RCTs, AMSTAR2 for SLRs.
RESULTS
From 5641 studies were retrieved, 568 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, with 194 articles finally included. For tuberculosis, tuberculin skin test (TST) is affected by treatment with glucocorticoids and conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and its performance is inferior to interferon gamma release assay (IGRA). Agreement between TST and IGRA is moderate to low. For hepatitis B virus (HBV): risk of reactivation is increased in patients positive for hepatitis B surface antigen. Anti-HBcore positive patients are at low risk for reactivation but should be monitored periodically with liver function tests and/or HBV-viral load. Risk for Hepatitis C reactivation is existing but low in patients treated with biological DMARDs. For , prophylaxis treatment should be considered in patients treated with prednisolone ≥15-30 mg/day for >2-4 weeks.
CONCLUSIONS
Different screening and prophylaxis approaches are described in the literature, partly determined by individual patient and disease characteristics.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Antirheumatic Agents; COVID-19; Hepatitis B virus; Opportunistic Infections; Rheumatic Diseases
PubMed: 36323488
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002726 -
Theranostics 2023Increasing data reveals that gelatin that has been methacrylated is involved in a variety of physiologic processes that are important for therapeutic interventions.... (Review)
Review
Increasing data reveals that gelatin that has been methacrylated is involved in a variety of physiologic processes that are important for therapeutic interventions. Gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA) hydrogel is a highly attractive hydrogels-based bioink because of its good biocompatibility, low cost, and photo-cross-linking structure that is useful for cell survivability and cell monitoring. Methacrylated gelatin (GelMA) has established itself as a typical hydrogel composition with extensive biomedical applications. Recent advances in GelMA have focused on integrating them with bioactive and functional nanomaterials, with the goal of improving GelMA's physical, chemical, and biological properties. GelMA's ability to modify characteristics due to the synthesis technique also makes it a good choice for soft and hard tissues. GelMA has been established to become an independent or supplementary technology for musculoskeletal problems. Here, we systematically review mechanism-of-action, therapeutic uses, and challenges and future direction of GelMA in musculoskeletal disorders. We give an overview of GelMA nanocomposite for different applications in musculoskeletal disorders, such as osteoarthritis, intervertebral disc degeneration, bone regeneration, tendon disorders and so on.
Topics: Humans; Gelatin; Hydrogels; Tissue Engineering; Nanocomposites; Intervertebral Disc Degeneration
PubMed: 37064871
DOI: 10.7150/thno.80615 -
Current Opinion in Supportive and... Sep 2019Myofascial pain syndrome is a chronic pain condition characterized by the presence of myofascial trigger point, a hyperirritable painful spot involving a limited number...
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
Myofascial pain syndrome is a chronic pain condition characterized by the presence of myofascial trigger point, a hyperirritable painful spot involving a limited number of muscle fibers. The literature suggest that myofascial trigger points should be considered peripheral pain generators and this critical review will summarize recent findings concerning the clinical evaluation and the treatment of myofascial trigger points.
RECENT FINDINGS
The clinical features of myofascial trigger points and their contribution to the patient pain and disability have been detailed in several recent studies, which support the clinical relevance of the condition. Recent studies reported that manual palpation to identify MTrPs has good reliability, although some limitations are intrinsic to the diagnostic criteria. During the last decade, a plethora of treatments have been proposed and positive effects on pain and function demonstrated.
SUMMARY
The myofascial trigger point phenomenon has good face validity and is clinically relevant. Clinicians are encouraged to consider the contribution of myofascial trigger points to the patient's pain and disability through a careful medical history and a specific manual examination. Patients with myofascial trigger points will benefit from a multimodal treatment plan including dry needling and manual therapy techniques. Internal and external validity of research within the field must be improved.
Topics: Chronic Disease; Humans; Medical History Taking; Musculoskeletal Pain; Myofascial Pain Syndromes; Pain Measurement; Physical Examination; Reproducibility of Results; Therapy, Soft Tissue; Trigger Points
PubMed: 31313700
DOI: 10.1097/SPC.0000000000000445 -
International Journal of Environmental... May 2020Musculoskeletal diseases and pain (MSDs) are prevalent among dental professionals. They cause a growing inability to work and premature leaving of the occupation. Thus,...
Musculoskeletal diseases and pain (MSDs) are prevalent among dental professionals. They cause a growing inability to work and premature leaving of the occupation. Thus, the objective of this review was to summarize the evidence of ergonomic interventions for the prevention of MSDs among dental professionals. This review was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The literature search was carried out in May 2018, with an update in April 2019. Scientific databases such as MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed and Web of Science as well as reference lists of the included studies were used. Relevant data were extracted from the studies and summarized. The quality assessment was performed using a validated standardized instrument. Eleven studies were included in this review, of which four are of high quality. Eight studies focused on setting prevention strategies. Of those, in five studies, magnification loupes or prismatic spectacles were the subject of ergonomic interventions. Further subjects were the dental chair ( = 2) and dental instruments ( = 1). Three studies evaluated ergonomic training. In all studies, the ergonomic interventions had positive effects on the study outcome. Several ergonomic interventions to prevent MSDs among dental professionals were found to exert a positive effect on the prevalence of MSDs or working posture. This systematic review adds current evidence for the use of prismatic spectacles in order to prevent MSDs among dental professionals. Further intervention studies about the role of ergonomics for the prevention of MSDs among dental professionals are warranted.
Topics: Dentists; Ergonomics; Humans; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Occupational Diseases; Pain; Posture
PubMed: 32429439
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17103482 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Jan 2021Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) have been approved for use in various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. With five agents licensed, it was timely to summarise the...
OBJECTIVES
Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) have been approved for use in various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. With five agents licensed, it was timely to summarise the current understanding of JAKi use based on a systematic literature review (SLR) on efficacy and safety.
METHODS
Existing data were evaluated by a steering committee and subsequently reviewed by a 29 person expert committee leading to the formulation of a consensus statement that may assist the clinicians, patients and other stakeholders once the decision is made to commence a JAKi. The committee included patients, rheumatologists, a gastroenterologist, a haematologist, a dermatologist, an infectious disease specialist and a health professional. The SLR informed the Task Force on controlled and open clinical trials, registry data, phase 4 trials and meta-analyses. In addition, approval of new compounds by, and warnings from regulators that were issued after the end of the SLR search date were taken into consideration.
RESULTS
The Task Force agreed on and developed four general principles and a total of 26 points for consideration which were grouped into six areas addressing indications, treatment dose and comedication, contraindications, pretreatment screening and risks, laboratory and clinical follow-up examinations, and adverse events. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendations were determined based on the SLR and levels of agreement were voted on for every point, reaching a range between 8.8 and 9.9 on a 10-point scale.
CONCLUSION
The consensus provides an assessment of evidence for efficacy and safety of an important therapeutic class with guidance on issues of practical management.
Topics: Adamantane; Advisory Committees; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Azetidines; Cytokines; Drug Therapy, Combination; Europe; Heterocyclic Compounds, 3-Ring; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Niacinamide; Piperidines; Psoriasis; Purines; Pyrazoles; Pyridines; Pyrimidines; Rheumatology; Spondylarthropathies; Spondylitis, Ankylosing; Sulfonamides; Triazoles
PubMed: 33158881
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218398 -
PharmacoEconomics Feb 2021Considering the heavy economic burden of osteoporotic fractures, the limits of healthcare resources, and the recent availability of new anti-osteoporosis drugs, there is...
BACKGROUND
Considering the heavy economic burden of osteoporotic fractures, the limits of healthcare resources, and the recent availability of new anti-osteoporosis drugs, there is continuing interest in economic evaluation studies of osteoporosis management strategies.
OBJECTIVES
This study aims to (1) systematically review recent economic evaluations of drugs for osteoporosis and (2) to apply an osteoporosis-specific guideline to critically appraise them.
METHODS
A literature search was undertaken using PubMed, EMBASE, National Health Service Economic Evaluation database, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry to identify original articles containing economic evaluations of anti-osteoporosis drugs, published between 1 July, 2013 and 31 December, 2019. A recent European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases-International Osteoporosis Foundation (ESCEO-IOF) guideline for the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations in osteoporosis was used to assess the quality of included articles.
RESULTS
The database search retrieved 3860 records, of which 27 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These studies were conducted in 15 countries; 12 active drugs were assessed, including various traditional pharmacological treatments such as bisphosphonates, raloxifene, strontium ranelate, denosumab, and teriparatide, and new agents such as abaloparatide, romosozumab, and gastro-resistant risedronate. Eight out of 12 studies that compared traditional oral bisphosphonates to other active interventions (denosumab, zoledronic acid, gastro-resistant risedronate, and teriparatide) suggested that the other active agents were generally cost-effective or dominant. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of sequential therapy has recently been assessed and indications are that it can lead to extra health benefits (larger gains in quality-adjusted life-year). The key drivers of cost effectiveness included baseline fracture risk, drug effect on the risk of fractures, drug cost, and medication adherence/persistence. The current average score for quality assessment was 17 out of 25 (range 2-15); room for improvement was observed for most studies, which could potentially be explained by the fact that most studies were published prior to the osteoporosis-specific guideline. Greater adherence to guideline recommendations was expected for future studies. The quality of reporting was also suboptimal, especially with regard to treatment side effects, treatment effect after discontinuation, and medication adherence.
CONCLUSIONS
This updated review provides an overview of recently published cost-effectiveness analyses. In comparison with a previous review, recent economic evaluations of anti-osteoporosis drugs were conducted in more countries and included more active drugs and sequential therapy as interventions/comparators. The updated economic evidence could help decision makers prioritize health interventions and the unmet/unreported quality issues indicated by the osteoporosis-specific guideline could be useful in improving the transparency, quality, and comparability of future economic evaluations in osteoporosis.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Pharmaceutical Preparations; State Medicine
PubMed: 33026634
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-020-00965-9 -
RMD Open Jun 2022A EULAR taskforce was convened to develop recommendations for lifestyle behaviours in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). In this paper, the literature on the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effects of diet on the outcomes of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs): systematic review and meta-analyses informing the 2021 EULAR recommendations for lifestyle improvements in people with RMDs.
BACKGROUND
A EULAR taskforce was convened to develop recommendations for lifestyle behaviours in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). In this paper, the literature on the effect of diet on the progression of RMDs is reviewed.
METHODS
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were performed of studies related to diet and disease outcomes in seven RMDs: osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus, axial spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis, systemic sclerosis and gout. In the first phase, existing relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses, published from 2013 to 2018, were identified. In the second phase, the review was expanded to include published original studies on diet in RMDs, with no restriction on publication date. Systematic reviews or original studies were included if they assessed a dietary exposure in one of the above RMDs, and reported results regarding progression of disease (eg, pain, function, joint damage).
RESULTS
In total, 24 systematic reviews and 150 original articles were included. Many dietary exposures have been studied (n=83), although the majority of studies addressed people with OA and RA. Most dietary exposures were assessed by relatively few studies. Exposures that have been assessed by multiple, well conducted studies (eg, OA: vitamin D, chondroitin, glucosamine; RA: omega-3) were classified as moderate evidence of small effects on disease progression.
CONCLUSION
The current literature suggests that there is moderate evidence for a small benefit for certain dietary components. High-level evidence of clinically meaningful effect sizes from individual dietary exposures on outcomes in RMDs is missing.
Topics: Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Diet; Humans; Life Style; Muscular Diseases; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Osteoarthritis; Rheumatic Diseases
PubMed: 35654458
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2021-002167 -
International Journal of Molecular... Apr 2023Spinal diseases are commonly associated with pain and neurological symptoms, which negatively impact patients' quality of life. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an... (Review)
Review
Spinal diseases are commonly associated with pain and neurological symptoms, which negatively impact patients' quality of life. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous source of multiple growth factors and cytokines, with the potential to promote tissue regeneration. Recently, PRP has been widely used for the treatment of musculoskeletal diseases, including spinal diseases, in clinics. Given the increasing popularity of PRP therapy, this article examines the current literature for basic research and emerging clinical applications of this therapy for treating spinal diseases. First, we review in vitro and in vivo studies, evaluating the potential of PRP in repairing intervertebral disc degeneration, promoting bone union in spinal fusion surgeries, and aiding in neurological recovery from spinal cord injury. Second, we address the clinical applications of PRP in treating degenerative spinal disease, including its analgesic effect on low back pain and radicular pain, as well as accelerating bone union during spinal fusion surgery. Basic research demonstrates the promising regenerative potential of PRP, and clinical studies have reported on the safety and efficacy of PRP therapy for treating several spinal diseases. Nevertheless, further high-quality randomized controlled trials would be required to establish clinical evidence of PRP therapy.
Topics: Humans; Quality of Life; Intervertebral Disc Degeneration; Low Back Pain; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Intercellular Signaling Peptides and Proteins
PubMed: 37108837
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24087677 -
Physical Therapy May 2021Telerehabilitation is an option that should be adapted as soon as possible to face the crisis caused by coronavirus disease 2019. An umbrella and mapping review with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Telerehabilitation is an option that should be adapted as soon as possible to face the crisis caused by coronavirus disease 2019. An umbrella and mapping review with meta-meta-analysis (MMA) of the available scientific evidence was performed to determine whether telerehabilitation could be an effective alternative to conventional rehabilitation in physical therapist practice.
METHODS
A systematic review of reviews and a synthesis of the findings of all systematic evidence published to date with a visual map and a meta-meta-analysis (MMA) were performed. A systematic search was realized in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE (PubMed), and Google Scholar. Two independent reviewers performed a data analysis and assessed the quality of the included reviews, assessing the risk of bias using ROBIS.
RESULTS
Twenty-nine articles that met the inclusion criteria were selected and divided according to the type of patient targeted for rehabilitation (patients with cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neurological conditions). The MMA regarding physical function between telerehabilitation and usual care rehabilitation did not reveal a statistically significant difference for patients with cardiorespiratory and musculoskeletal conditions. For patients with neurological conditions, the MMA revealed a statistically significant but negligible effect size in 6 reviews in favor of telerehabilitation (standardized mean difference = 0.18; 95% CI = 0.03-0.34).
CONCLUSION
The results of the present review showed that telerehabilitation offers positive clinical results, even comparable to conventional face-to-face rehabilitation approaches.
IMPACT
The advantages of lower cost and less interference by the rehabilitation processes in patients' daily life could justify implementing telerehabilitation in clinical settings in the coronavirus disease 2019 era.
Topics: COVID-19; Cardiac Rehabilitation; Humans; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Nervous System Diseases; Pandemics; Physical Therapy Modalities; Review Literature as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; Telerehabilitation
PubMed: 33611598
DOI: 10.1093/ptj/pzab075 -
American Journal of Industrial Medicine Jan 2022Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is a highly prevalent musculoskeletal disorder in workers, often associated with physically demanding work. Knowledge of work-relatedness of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is a highly prevalent musculoskeletal disorder in workers, often associated with physically demanding work. Knowledge of work-relatedness of LE is crucial to develop appropriate preventive measures. This study investigates the prospective association between work-related physical risk factors and LE.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted in MedLine using PubMed from January 1, 2010 until February 16, 2021. Published reports were included if: (1) LE was clinically assessed, (2) exposure to work-related physical risk factors was assessed, and (3) associations between LE and work-related physical risk factors were reported in prospective studies. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.
RESULTS
In total, 318 workers with LE from a population of 5036 workers in five studies were included. Meta-analyses revealed high-quality evidence for associations between LE and a Strain Index (SI) score >5.1 (odds ratio [OR]: 1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-2.78) and moderate-quality evidence for forearm rotation >4 h/day or forearm rotation ≥45° for ≥45% time (OR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.10-3.10). Gripping, flexion and extension of the wrist, and repetitive movements showed no significant associations with LE.
CONCLUSION
High-quality evidence was found indicating that a higher SI increased the risk of LE. Moderate-quality evidence was found for an association between forearm rotation and LE. No associations were found between other physical risk factors and LE. Primary preventive interventions should focus on a reduction of the SI and of high forearm rotation in work.
Topics: Humans; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Occupational Diseases; Prospective Studies; Risk Factors; Tennis Elbow
PubMed: 34674287
DOI: 10.1002/ajim.23303