-
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 Jun 2019To develop treatment recommendations for children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis manifesting as non-systemic polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, or enthesitis.
2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation Guideline for the Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Therapeutic Approaches for Non-Systemic Polyarthritis, Sacroiliitis, and Enthesitis.
OBJECTIVE
To develop treatment recommendations for children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis manifesting as non-systemic polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, or enthesitis.
METHODS
The Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) questions were developed and refined by members of the guideline development teams. A systematic review was conducted to compile evidence for the benefits and harms associated with treatments for these conditions. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of evidence. A group consensus process was conducted among the Voting Panel to generate the final recommendations and grade their strength. A Parent and Patient Panel used a similar consensus approach to provide patient/caregiver preferences for key questions.
RESULTS
Thirty-nine recommendations were developed (8 strong and 31 conditional). The quality of supporting evidence was very low or low for 90% of the recommendations. Recommendations are provided for the use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, and intraarticular and oral glucocorticoids. Recommendations for the use of physical and occupational therapy are also provided. Specific recommendations for polyarthritis address general medication use, initial and subsequent treatment, and adjunctive therapies. Good disease control, with therapeutic escalation to achieve low disease activity, was recommended. The sacroiliitis and enthesitis recommendations primarily address initial therapy and adjunctive therapies.
CONCLUSION
This guideline provides direction for clinicians, caregivers, and patients making treatment decisions. Clinicians, caregivers, and patients should use a shared decision-making process that accounts for patients' values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Juvenile; Biological Products; Consensus; Enthesopathy; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Occupational Therapy; Physical Therapy Modalities; Rheumatology; Risk Factors; Sacroiliitis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31021516
DOI: 10.1002/acr.23870 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
Arthritis Research & Therapy Mar 2012Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been proven capable of showing inflammatory and structural changes in patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA) and has become widely... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been proven capable of showing inflammatory and structural changes in patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA) and has become widely used in the diagnosis of SpA. Despite this, no systematic reviews evaluate the diagnostic utility of MRI for SpA. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review was to determine the evidence for the utility of MRI in the clinical diagnosis of SpA. The aims were to identify which MRI findings are associated with the diagnosis of SpA and to quantify this association.
METHODS
MEDLINE and EMBASE were electronically searched. Inclusion criteria were cross-sectional or longitudinal case-control or cohort MRI studies. The studies required a group with either SpA or inflammatory back pain (IBP) and a non-case group without SpA or IBP. Each group required a minimum of 20 participants. The included articles had to report results containing raw numbers suitable for the construction of two-by-two tables or report results by sensitivity and specificity for cross-sectional studies or odds ratios, relative risk ratios, or likelihood ratios for longitudinal studies. Method quality was assessed by using criteria based on the QUADAS tool.
RESULTS
In total, 2,395 articles were identified in MEDLINE and EMBASE before November 2011. All articles were reviewed by title and abstract. Seventy-seven articles were reviewed by full text, and 10 met the inclusion criteria. Two were considered of high quality: one evaluated the sacroiliac joints, and the other, the spine. Because of the small number of high-quality studies, a meta-analysis was not performed. The two high-quality studies found a positive association between MRI findings (bone marrow edema, erosions, fat infiltrations, global assessment of sacroiliitis, and ankylosis) and the diagnosis of IBP and SpA.
CONCLUSION
In this review, several MRI findings were found to be associated with SpA. However, because of the small number of high-quality studies, the evidence for the utility of MRI in the diagnosis of SpA must be considered limited. Therefore, caution should be taken to ensure that inflammatory and structural MRI findings are not interpreted as being more specific for SpA than is supported by research.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Spondylarthritis
PubMed: 22405031
DOI: 10.1186/ar3768 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Jun 2017Axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA) is a relatively frequent and debilitating disease, with a prevalence ranging from 0.1 to 2% in the Caucasian population. Current... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA) is a relatively frequent and debilitating disease, with a prevalence ranging from 0.1 to 2% in the Caucasian population. Current Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) classification criteria of AxSpA rely either on sacroiliitis on imaging plus one SpA feature or positive HLAB27 antigen plus two SpA features, in a patient with chronic low back pain and age at onset of less than 45 years. Therefore, HLA-B27 is a central feature in SpA classification and plays a pivotal role in referral strategies and early diagnosis. The primary objective of the study is to review the prevalence of HLA-B27 in normal and AxSpA populations in Middle Eastern and Arab Countries and to assess the strength of association between HLA-B27 antigen and AxSpA. The secondary objective is to identify the gaps in the methodology of the studies and suggest a framework for future research.
METHODS
Studies were included in the analysis if they reported prevalence of HLA-B27 in AxSpA and/or general population and if they covered geographical location in the Middle East or Arab countries in the Mediterranean basin. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated for each country, as a measure of the strength of association between HLA-B27 and AxSpA, compared to the normal population, using the two-by-two frequency table. Available data from the literature were analyzed according to the following quality indicators: sample size, method of HLA-B27 testing, presence of control group and external validity.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven studies were analyzed. HLAB27 prevalence in the normal population ranged from 0.3% (Oman) to 6.8% (Turkey). HLA-B27 prevalence in AxSpA ranged from 26.2% (Lebanon) to 91% (Turkey). HLA-B27 prevalence in all SpA ranged from 13.87% (Lebanon) to 69.43% (Kuwait). Peripheral SpA was less associated with HLA-B27 than AxSpA, indicating the need of differentiating between the two entities when calculating prevalence. When available (8 studies), the OR ranged from 21.63 (Morocco) to 105.6 (Syria). The high heterogeneity between the results can be due to differences in methodology: study sample size, different classification criteria, absence of control groups, HLA-B27 testing method.
CONCLUSIONS
The prevalence of HLA-B27 in the normal population is significantly lower in the Middle Eastern and Arab countries than in Western Countries. However, HLA-B27 testing can be useful for AxSpA positive diagnosis, given the high OR. Heterogeneity between countries may be due to methodological differences.
Topics: HLA-B27 Antigen; Humans; Middle East; Spondylarthritis
PubMed: 28662723
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-017-1639-5 -
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 -
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