2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis
Objective To develop updated guidelines for the pharmacologic management of rheumatoid arthritis. Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment,...
Saved in:
Published in | Arthritis care & research (2010) Vol. 73; no. 7; pp. 924 - 939 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
United States
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
01.07.2021
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
ISSN | 2151-464X 2151-4658 2151-4658 |
DOI | 10.1002/acr.24596 |
Cover
Summary: | Objective
To develop updated guidelines for the pharmacologic management of rheumatoid arthritis.
Methods
We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A voting panel comprising clinicians and patients achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations.
Results
The guideline addresses treatment with disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic DMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, use of glucocorticoids, and use of DMARDs in certain high‐risk populations (i.e., those with liver disease, heart failure, lymphoproliferative disorders, previous serious infections, and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease). The guideline includes 44 recommendations (7 strong and 37 conditional).
Conclusion
This clinical practice guideline is intended to serve as a tool to support clinician and patient decision‐making. Recommendations are not prescriptive, and individual treatment decisions should be made through a shared decision‐making process based on patients’ values, goals, preferences, and comorbidities. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 ObjectType-Instructional Material/Guideline-3 content type line 23 ObjectType-Undefined-4 All authors were involved in drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content, and all authors approved the final version to be submitted for publication. Dr. Fraenkel had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS Acquisition of data. Fraenkel, Bathon, England, St.Clair, Carandang, Deane, Genovese, Kerr, Kremer, J. Singh, Sparks, Al-Gibbawi, Baker, Barton, Cappelli, George, Johnson, Kahale, Karam, Khamis, Navarro-Millán, Mirza, Schwab, N. Singh, Turgunbaev, Turner, Yaacoub, Akl. Study conception and design. Fraenkel, Bathon, England, St.Clair, Deane, Genovese, Kerr, Kremer, Sparks, Venkatachalam, Weinblatt, George, Johnson, Turner, Yaacoub, Akl. Analysis and interpretation of data. Fraenkel, Bathon, England, St.Clair, Arayssi, Deane, Genovese, Huston, Kerr, Kremer, Nakamura, Russell, J. Singh, Smith, Sparks, Venkatachalam, Weinblatt, Al-Gibbawi, Barbour, Barton, Chamseddine, Johnson, Kahale, Karam, Khamis, Navarro-Millán, Mirza, Schwab, N. Singh, Turgunbaev, Yaacoub, Akl. |
ISSN: | 2151-464X 2151-4658 2151-4658 |
DOI: | 10.1002/acr.24596 |