-
Arthritis & Rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) Apr 2022To provide updated guidelines for pharmacologic management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), focusing on treatment of oligoarthritis, temporomandibular joint (TMJ)...
2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Therapeutic Approaches for Oligoarthritis, Temporomandibular Joint Arthritis, and Systemic Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis.
OBJECTIVE
To provide updated guidelines for pharmacologic management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), focusing on treatment of oligoarthritis, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis, and systemic JIA with and without macrophage activation syndrome. Recommendations regarding tapering and discontinuing treatment in inactive systemic JIA are also provided.
METHODS
We developed clinically relevant Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low). A Voting Panel including clinicians and patients/caregivers achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations.
RESULTS
Similar to those published in 2019, these JIA recommendations are based on clinical phenotypes of JIA, rather than a specific classification schema. This guideline provides recommendations for initial and subsequent treatment of JIA with oligoarthritis, TMJ arthritis, and systemic JIA as well as for tapering and discontinuing treatment in subjects with inactive systemic JIA. Other aspects of disease management, including factors that influence treatment choice and medication tapering, are discussed. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low in quality. For that reason, more than half of the recommendations are conditional.
CONCLUSION
This clinical practice guideline complements the 2019 American College of Rheumatology JIA and uveitis guidelines, which addressed polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, enthesitis, and uveitis. It serves as a tool to support clinicians, patients, and caregivers in decision-making. The recommendations take into consideration the severity of both articular and nonarticular manifestations as well as patient quality of life. Although evidence is generally low quality and many recommendations are conditional, the inclusion of caregivers and patients in the decision-making process strengthens the relevance and applicability of the guideline. It is important to remember that these are recommendations. Clinical decisions, as always, should be made by the treating clinician and patient/caregiver.
Topics: Arthritis, Juvenile; Humans; Quality of Life; Rheumatology; Temporomandibular Joint; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders; United States; Uveitis
PubMed: 35233993
DOI: 10.1002/art.42037 -
Arthritis Care & Research Apr 2022To provide updated guidelines for pharmacologic management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), focusing on treatment of oligoarthritis, temporomandibular joint (TMJ)...
2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Therapeutic Approaches for Oligoarthritis, Temporomandibular Joint Arthritis, and Systemic Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis.
OBJECTIVE
To provide updated guidelines for pharmacologic management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), focusing on treatment of oligoarthritis, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis, and systemic JIA with and without macrophage activation syndrome. Recommendations regarding tapering and discontinuing treatment in inactive systemic JIA are also provided.
METHODS
We developed clinically relevant Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low). A Voting Panel including clinicians and patients/caregivers achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations.
RESULTS
Similar to those published in 2019, these JIA recommendations are based on clinical phenotypes of JIA, rather than a specific classification schema. This guideline provides recommendations for initial and subsequent treatment of JIA with oligoarthritis, TMJ arthritis, and systemic JIA as well as for tapering and discontinuing treatment in subjects with inactive systemic JIA. Other aspects of disease management, including factors that influence treatment choice and medication tapering, are discussed. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low in quality. For that reason, more than half of the recommendations are conditional.
CONCLUSION
This clinical practice guideline complements the 2019 American College of Rheumatology JIA and uveitis guidelines, which addressed polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, enthesitis, and uveitis. It serves as a tool to support clinicians, patients, and caregivers in decision-making. The recommendations take into consideration the severity of both articular and nonarticular manifestations as well as patient quality of life. Although evidence is generally low quality and many recommendations are conditional, the inclusion of caregivers and patients in the decision-making process strengthens the relevance and applicability of the guideline. It is important to remember that these are recommendations. Clinical decisions, as always, should be made by the treating clinician and patient/caregiver.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Juvenile; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Quality of Life; Rheumatology; Temporomandibular Joint; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders; United States; Uveitis
PubMed: 35233986
DOI: 10.1002/acr.24853 -
Arthritis Care & Research Apr 2022To provide recommendations for the management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) with a focus on nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations,...
2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Recommendations for Nonpharmacologic Therapies, Medication Monitoring, Immunizations, and Imaging.
OBJECTIVE
To provide recommendations for the management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) with a focus on nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations, and imaging, irrespective of JIA phenotype.
METHODS
We developed clinically relevant Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low). A Voting Panel including clinicians and patients/caregivers achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations.
RESULTS
Recommendations in this guideline include the use of physical therapy and occupational therapy interventions; a healthy, well-balanced, age-appropriate diet; specific laboratory monitoring for medications; widespread use of immunizations; and shared decision-making with patients/caregivers. Disease management for all patients with JIA is addressed with respect to nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations, and imaging. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low in quality. For that reason, more than half of the recommendations are conditional.
CONCLUSION
This clinical practice guideline complements the 2019 American College of Rheumatology JIA and uveitis guidelines, which addressed polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, enthesitis, and uveitis, and a concurrent 2021 guideline on oligoarthritis, temporomandibular arthritis, and systemic JIA. It serves as a tool to support clinicians, patients, and caregivers in decision-making. The recommendations take into consideration the severity of both articular and nonarticular manifestations as well as patient quality of life. Although evidence is generally low quality and many recommendations are conditional, the inclusion of caregivers and patients in the decision-making process strengthens the relevance and applicability of the guideline. It is important to remember that these are recommendations. Clinical decisions, as always, should be made by the treating clinician and patient/caregiver.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Juvenile; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Immunization; Quality of Life; Rheumatology; United States; Uveitis
PubMed: 35233989
DOI: 10.1002/acr.24839 -
Pain Physician Sep 2023The sacroiliac joint is one of the proven causes of low back and lower extremity pain, ranging from 10% to 25% in patients with persistent axial low back pain without...
BACKGROUND
The sacroiliac joint is one of the proven causes of low back and lower extremity pain, ranging from 10% to 25% in patients with persistent axial low back pain without disc herniation, discogenic pain, or radiculitis. Despite the difficulty of diagnosis, multiple therapeutic modalities including surgical and nonsurgical interventions have been utilized. Among the interventional modalities, intraarticular injections are commonly utilized.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the therapeutic effectiveness of intraarticular injections in the sacroiliac joint.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of the therapeutic effectiveness of intraarticular injections of the sacroiliac joint utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Reviews And Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist.
METHODS
The available literature on therapeutic sacroiliac joint intraarticular injections was reviewed. The quality assessment criteria utilized were the Cochrane review criteria to assess risk of bias, the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) for randomized therapeutic trials, and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR) for nonrandomized studies. The level of evidence was based on best evidence synthesis with modified grading of qualitative evidence from Level I to Level V. Data collection was performed including literature published from 1966 through December 2022, as well as manual searches of the bibliographies of known articles.
OUTCOME MEASURES
Primary outcome measures include pain relief and improvement in functional status at 3 months for a single intervention. Only the studies performed under fluoroscopic guidance, with at least 3 months of follow-up were included. Duration of relief was categorized as short-term (< 6 months) and long-term (> 6 months).
RESULTS
Based on the qualitative and quantitative analyses with a single-arm meta-analysis and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system of appraisal, and the inclusion of 11 RCTs (5 positive, 6 negative) and 3 observational studies (2 positive, one negative), the evidence was Level III or fair in managing low back pain of sacroiliac joint origin with sacroiliac joint injections.
LIMITATIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis are limited by lack of eligible studies, inconsistencies among the available studies, variations in techniques, variable diagnostic standards for inclusion criteria, and finally, the inability to correlate the results and perform an optimal systematic review and meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION
The present systematic review and meta-analysis show an inability to perform conventional dual-arm analysis, whereas a single-arm meta-analysis demonstrated a difference of approximately 3 points on the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and 8 points on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). However, there were no studies that considered >= 50% relief as the criterion standard. Overall, the qualitative and quantitative evidence combined shows Level III or fair evidence for therapeutic sacroiliac joint injections for managing low back pain of sacroiliac joint origin.
KEY WORDS
Chronic low back pain, sacroiliac joint pain, sacroiliac joint dysfunction, sacroiliitis, sacroiliac joint injection, sacroiliac joint nerve blocks, radiofrequency ablation, conventional radiofrequency, pulsed radiofrequency.
PubMed: 37774179
DOI: No ID Found -
Musculoskeletal Surgery Jun 2024The aim of the present study is to systematically review the current literature about diagnosis and treatment of acute inflammatory sacroiliitis in pregnant or... (Review)
Review
The aim of the present study is to systematically review the current literature about diagnosis and treatment of acute inflammatory sacroiliitis in pregnant or post-partum women. A systematic search was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data about clinical presentation, diagnosis methods and treatment strategies were retrieved from included studies and reported in a table. After screening, five studies on 34 women were included; they were all affected by acute inflammatory sacroiliitis. Clinical examination and magnetic resonance imaging were used to confirm diagnosis. In four studies, patients were treated with ultrasound-guided sacroiliac injections of steroids and local anesthetics, while one study used only manual mobilization. Clinical scores improved in all patients. Ultrasound-guided injections proved to be a safe and effective strategy for inflammatory sacroiliitis treatment during pregnancy or post-partum.
Topics: Humans; Pregnancy; Female; Sacroiliitis; Pregnancy Complications; Postpartum Period; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Acute Disease; Ultrasonography, Interventional; Puerperal Disorders; Anesthetics, Local; Adult
PubMed: 37338751
DOI: 10.1007/s12306-023-00786-x -
Joint Bone Spine Dec 2020Sarcoidosis and spondyloarthritis (SpA) have been regularly associated. Bone iliac granulomas have also been described. We propose herein a systematic review of...
BACKGROUND
Sarcoidosis and spondyloarthritis (SpA) have been regularly associated. Bone iliac granulomas have also been described. We propose herein a systematic review of rheumatologic axial manifestations of sarcoidosis.
METHODS
PubMed and the Cochrane Library were used to conduct this systematic literature review. Case reports and cross-sectional studies were reviewed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
RESULTS
A total of 41 articles were eligible. Three cross-sectional studies on the association between SpA and sarcoidosis showed a prevalence of sacroiliitis and SpA ranging from 12.9 to 44.8% and 12.9 to 48.3% in inflammatory back pain (IBP) subgroups, respectively. However, the IBP definitions and sacroiliac joint (SIJ) imaging modalities (X-rays or magnetic resonance imaging) were heterogeneous, and X-ray was mainly used for sacroiliitis diagnosis (in 78% of cases). Thirty-one case-report articles of the sarcoidosis-sacroiliitis association were identified, representing 35 patients. ASAS criteria for SpA were met in half of cases (16/32) and 46% (12/26) had HLA B27 positivity. Sarcoidosis occurred after sacroiliac symptoms in 47% of cases. In the seven case-report articles with granulomatous sacroiliac bone involvement, unilateral involvement seemed higher than in the sarcoidosis-sacroiliitis group.
CONCLUSION
Literature analysis found a good evidence of the association between SpA and sarcoidosis, and special attention should be given to patients reporting IBP. Unilateral sacroiliitis may raise suspicion of granulomatous bone involvement, distinct from sacroiliitis. Imaging modalities used to study the SIJ in patients with sarcoidosis have been heterogeneous and further investigation is needed.
Topics: Back Pain; Cross-Sectional Studies; Friends; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Sacroiliac Joint; Sacroiliitis; Sarcoidosis; Spondylarthritis
PubMed: 32622038
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2020.06.011 -
Acta Radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden :... Apr 2021Plain radiography serves a pivotal role in diagnosing axial spondyloarthritis. However, a broad range of diagnostic performance of plain radiography has been reported. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Plain radiography serves a pivotal role in diagnosing axial spondyloarthritis. However, a broad range of diagnostic performance of plain radiography has been reported.
PURPOSE
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to measure the diagnostic performance of plain radiography for sacroiliitis in patients suspected of having axial spondyloarthritis using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings as the reference standard.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Studies comparing radiography and MRI in the diagnosis of sacroiliitis in patients suspected of having axial spondyloarthritis were searched in PubMed and EMBASE. Additionally, studies analyzed SPondyloaArthritis Caught Early (SPACE), DEvenir des Spondylarthropathies Indifferenciées Récentes (DESIR), GErman Spondyloarthritis Inception Cohort (GESPIC), and South Swedish Arthritis Treatment Group (SSATG) cohorts were manually searched. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of radiography were calculated by using a bivariate random-effects model. Meta-regression analyses were performed to identify the sources of heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Eight eligible studies with 1579 patients were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of radiography were 0.55 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.40-0.69) and 0.87 (95% CI = 0.72-0.95). The meta-regression analyses showed prospective study design and criteria for MRI positivity considering only active bone marrow edema were associated with lower sensitivity.
CONCLUSION
The plain radiography showed low sensitivity and reasonable specificity in diagnosis of sacroiliitis in patients suspected of having axial spondyloarthritis.
Topics: Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Radiography; Sacroiliitis; Spondylarthritis
PubMed: 32536262
DOI: 10.1177/0284185120930624 -
The Journal of Rheumatology Feb 2023Axial involvement in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a common subset of this condition, but a unanimous definition has yet to be established. It has been...
OBJECTIVE
Axial involvement in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a common subset of this condition, but a unanimous definition has yet to be established. It has been defined by using different criteria, ranging from the presence of at least unilateral grade 2 sacroiliitis to those used for ankylosing spondylitis (AS), or simply the presence of inflammatory low back pain (IBP). Our aim was to identify and evaluate the efficacy of therapeutic interventions for treatment of axial disease in PsA.
METHODS
This systematic review is an update of the axial PsA (axPsA) domain of the treatment recommendations project by the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA).
RESULTS
The systematic review of the literature showed that new biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug classes, namely interleukin (IL)-17A and Janus kinase inhibitors, could be considered for the treatment of axPsA. This would be in addition to previously recommended treatments such as nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, physiotherapy, simple analgesia, and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Conflicting evidence still remains regarding the use of IL-12/23 and IL-23 inhibitors.
CONCLUSION
Further studies are needed for a better understanding of the treatment of axPsA, as well as validated outcome measures.
Topics: Humans; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Psoriasis; Spondylitis, Ankylosing; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Interleukin-23; Low Back Pain
PubMed: 36318999
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.220309 -
Therapeutic Advances in Musculoskeletal... 2021Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have an excess burden of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), which, if left untreated, may significantly impact on clinical... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have an excess burden of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), which, if left untreated, may significantly impact on clinical outcomes. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of axSpA, including previously undiagnosed cases, in IBD patients from studies involving cross-sectional imaging and identify the IBD features potentially associated with axSpA.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched systematically between 1990 and 2018. Article reference lists and key conference abstract lists from 2012 to 2018 were also reviewed. All abstracts were reviewed by two authors to determine eligibility for inclusion. The study inclusion criteria were (a) adults aged 18 years or above, (b) a clinical diagnosis of IBD and (c) reporting identification of sacroiliitis using cross-sectional imaging.
RESULTS
A total of 20 observational studies were identified: 12 used CT, 6 used MR and 2 utilised both computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. Sample sizes ranged from 25 to 1247 (a total of 4096 patients); 31 studies were considered to have low selection bias, 13 included two or more radiology readers, and 3 included rheumatological assessments. The prevalence of sacroiliitis, the most commonly reported axSpA feature, ranged from 2.2% to 68.0% with a pooled prevalence of 21.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 17-26%]. Associated IBD features include increasing IBD duration, increasing age, male sex, IBD location, inflammatory back pain and peripheral arthritis. No significant difference in the prevalence of sacroiliitis between Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis was identified. Study limitations include variability in the individual study sample sizes and patient demographics.
CONCLUSION
This review highlights the need for larger, well-designed studies using more sensitive imaging modalities and multivariable modelling to better estimate the prevalence of axSpA in IBD. An improved knowledge of the IBD phenotype(s) associated with axSpA and use of cross-sectional imaging intended for IBD assessment to screen for axSpA may help clinicians identify those patients most at risk.
PubMed: 33786068
DOI: 10.1177/1759720X21996973 -
Musculoskeletal Surgery Aug 2020The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is a possible source of persistent or new onset pain after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion. The aim of this paper is to systematically review and...
The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is a possible source of persistent or new onset pain after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion. The aim of this paper is to systematically review and analyze the available literature related to the incidence, diagnosis and management of sacroiliitis after spinal arthrodesis. The authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of all articles identified concerning sacroiliac joint pain after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion, to assess their suitability to the research focus. The average incidence of sacroiliitis after lumbar or lumbosacral arthrodesis was found to be 37 ± 28.48 (range 6-75), increasing directly to the number of fused segments involved, especially when the sacrum is included. The most accurate evaluation is the image-guided injection of anesthetic solutions in the joint. Surgery treatment may be considered when conservative therapy fails, with open surgery or with minimally invasive SIJ fusion. Although the risk of developing SIJ degeneration is unclear, the results indicate that pain and degeneration of SIJ develop more often in patients undergoing lumbosacral fusion regardless of the number of melting segments. The treatment of sacroiliitis appears to be independent of his etiology, with or without previous instrumentation on several levels.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anesthetics, Local; Arthrodesis; Child; Failed Back Surgery Syndrome; Female; Humans; Incidence; Injections, Intra-Articular; Lumbar Vertebrae; Male; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications; Sacroiliac Joint; Sacroiliitis; Sacrum; Spinal Fusion; Young Adult
PubMed: 31065955
DOI: 10.1007/s12306-019-00607-0