Mobile health technologies for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to perform a standardized review of available mobile health (mHealth) applications (apps) for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and to conduct a systematic review of the literature on mHealth technologies in SLE. METHODS: Google Play and AppStore in the United States of America were queried and the quality of eligible mHealth apps was assessed using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). Web of Science, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched from inception through June 2019. RESULTS: Of 324 mHealth apps found, 20 were eligible for inclusion; 10 focused on education, 7 offered tools to track patient-reported symptoms, 5 included interactive online communities, and 1 enabled emoji sharing. The reviewed apps scored poorly on the MARS quality scale with a mean score 2.3 (0.6) out of 5. Of 1147 studies identified in the literature review, 21 were eligible for inclusion; 11 studies (52.4%) focused on the development and use of mHealth for providing patient information, while only 2 (9.5%) were randomized trials of mHealth interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is growing interest in the development of mHealth technologies to support SLE patients, currently available tools are of poor quality and limited functionality, and the literature examining this area is sparse.

OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee, hip, and polyarticular osteoarthritis

To update and expand upon prior Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) guidelines by developing patient-focused treatment recommendations for individuals with Knee, Hip, and Polyarticular osteoarthritis (OA) that are derived from expert consensus and based on objective review of high-quality meta-analytic data. We sought evidence for 60 unique interventions. A systematic search of all relevant databases was conducted from inception through July 2018. After abstract and full-text screening by two independent reviewers, eligible studies were matched to PICO questions. Data were extracted and meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan software. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence Profiles were compiled using the GRADEpro web application. Voting for Core Treatments took place first. Four subsequent voting sessions took place via anonymous online survey, during which Panel members were tasked with voting to produce recommendations for all joint locations and comorbidity classes. We designated non-Core treatments to Level 1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, or 5, based on the percentage of votes in favor, in addition to the strength of the recommendation. Core Treatments for Knee OA included arthritis education and structured land-based exercise programs with or without dietary weight management. Core Treatments for Hip and Polyarticular OA included arthritis education and structured land-based exercise programs. Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were strongly recommended for individuals with Knee OA (Level 1A). For individuals with gastrointestinal comorbidities, COX-2 inhibitors were Level 1B and NSAIDs with proton pump inhibitors Level 2. For individuals with cardiovascular comorbidities or frailty, use of any oral NSAID was not recommended. Intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, IA hyaluronic acid, and aquatic exercise were Level 1B/Level 2 treatments for Knee OA, dependent upon comorbidity status, but were not recommended for individuals with Hip or Polyarticular OA. The use of Acetaminophen/Paracetamol (APAP) was conditionally not recommended (Level 4A and 4B), and the use of oral and transdermal opioids was strongly not recommended (Level 5). A treatment algorithm was constructed in order to guide clinical decision-making for a variety of patient profiles, using recommended treatments as input for each decision node. These guidelines offer comprehensive and patient-centered treatment profiles for individuals with Knee, Hip, and Polyarticular OA. The treatment algorithm will facilitate individualized treatment decisions regarding the management of OA.

OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee, hip, and polyarticular osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To update and expand upon prior Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) guidelines by developing patient-focused treatment recommendations for individuals with Knee, Hip, and Polyarticular osteoarthritis (OA) that are derived from expert consensus and based on objective review of high-quality meta-analytic data. METHODS: We sought evidence for 60 unique interventions. A systematic search of all relevant databases was conducted from inception through July 2018. After abstract and full-text screening by two independent reviewers, eligible studies were matched to PICO questions. Data were extracted and meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan software. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence Profiles were compiled using the GRADEpro web application. Voting for Core Treatments took place first. Four subsequent voting sessions took place via anonymous online survey, during which Panel members were tasked with voting to produce recommendations for all joint locations and comorbidity classes. We designated non-Core treatments to Level 1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, or 5, based on the percentage of votes in favor, in addition to the strength of the recommendation. RESULTS: Core Treatments for Knee OA included arthritis education and structured land-based exercise programs with or without dietary weight management. Core Treatments for Hip and Polyarticular OA included arthritis education and structured land-based exercise programs. Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were strongly recommended for individuals with Knee OA (Level 1A). For individuals with gastrointestinal comorbidities, COX-2 inhibitors were Level 1B and NSAIDs with proton pump inhibitors Level 2. For individuals with cardiovascular comorbidities or frailty, use of any oral NSAID was not recommended. Intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, IA hyaluronic acid, and aquatic exercise were Level 1B/Level 2 treatments for Knee OA, dependent upon comorbidity status, but were not recommended for individuals with Hip or Polyarticular OA. The use of Acetaminophen/Paracetamol (APAP) was conditionally not recommended (Level 4A and 4B), and the use of oral and transdermal opioids was strongly not recommended (Level 5). A treatment algorithm was constructed in order to guide clinical decision-making for a variety of patient profiles, using recommended treatments as input for each decision node. CONCLUSION: These guidelines offer comprehensive and patient-centered treatment profiles for individuals with Knee, Hip, and Polyarticular OA. The treatment algorithm will facilitate individualized treatment decisions regarding the management of OA.

Are bisphosphonates efficacious in knee osteoarthritis? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To clarify the effects of bisphosphonates in knee osteoarthritis (OA) using an up-to-date meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). DESIGN: The protocol is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017073449). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database from inception until August 2017. We included only RCTs comparing any bisphosphonates vs placebo in knee OA patients and reporting validated pain and function scales, radiographic progression, and adverse events (AEs) outcomes. We excluded studies using active comparators or concomitant medications besides non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen. We calculated standardized mean differences (SMDs) to account for variation in outcome scales. Random effects meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: We included seven RCTs (3013 patients, 69% female); most patients (N = 2767) received oral risedronate. No pain or function outcomes, regardless of dose, route, time point or measuring instrument, revealed statistically significant results (end of trial pain SMD = -0.16 [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.34, 0.02]). Similarly, we found no statistically significant effect on radiographic progression (risk ratio = 0.98 [95% CI: 0.77, 1.26]). One small RCT in patients with bone marrow lesions (BMLs) suggested a reduction in BML size at 6 months. Bisphosphonates displayed good tolerability, with no statistically significant differences in AE outcomes vs placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to prior reviews, our analysis showed that bisphosphonates neither provide symptomatic relief nor defer radiographic progression in knee OA. However, these agents may still be beneficial in certain subsets of patients who display high rates of subchondral bone turnover. Future studies should be directed at defining such OA subsets and investigating the effects of bisphosphonates in those patients.

Comparative safety profile of hyaluronic acid products for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Intra-articular (IA) hyaluronic acid (HA) is considered a safer alternative to oral Non-Steroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids for knee osteoarthritis (OA). A recent review raised potential safety concerns about HA, warranting further review of safety outcomes. We examined the risks of HA compared with IA placebo and investigated whether the risks vary among individual HA preparations. METHODS: We searched all relevant databases from inception to October 2015 and sought unpublished data. We included all knee OA trials which compared any of the 18 HA products and reported on adverse events (AEs) and withdrawals. We calculated odds ratios for safety data reported at the longest follow-up. Network meta-analysis was performed using a Bayesian hierarchical random effects model for mixed multiple treatment comparisons. RESULTS: We identified 74 studies involving 13,032 participants aged between 45 and 75 years. The proportion of women ranged from 28% to 100%. The overall incidence of local reactions reported across all products was 8.5%. Commonly reported AEs were transient local reactions, such as pain, swelling and arthralgia, which subsided rapidly. None of the HA products were statistically significantly different from IA placebo or from each other with regard to incidence of AEs. Three treatment-related serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported among 9214 participants. CONCLUSIONS: Given the very low incidence of any particular AEs, we conclude that HA products are relatively well tolerated. These products have a similar safety profile compared to each other. This information along with the comparative effectiveness profile and relative cost would be helpful for clinicians in delivering individualized patient care.

2015 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE: To develop a new evidence-based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We conducted systematic reviews to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatment options. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence. We employed a group consensus process to grade the strength of recommendations (either strong or conditional). A strong recommendation indicates that clinicians are certain that the benefits of an intervention far outweigh the harms (or vice versa). A conditional recommendation denotes uncertainty over the balance of benefits and harms and/or more significant variability in patient values and preferences. RESULTS: The guideline covers the use of traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in early (<6 months) and established (≥6 months) RA. In addition, it provides recommendations on using a treat-to-target approach, tapering and discontinuing medications, and the use of biologic agents and DMARDs in patients with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, malignancy, and serious infections. The guideline addresses the use of vaccines in patients starting/receiving DMARDs or biologic agents, screening for tuberculosis in patients starting/receiving biologic agents or tofacitinib, and laboratory monitoring for traditional DMARDs. The guideline includes 74 recommendations: 23% are strong and 77% are conditional. CONCLUSION: This RA guideline should serve as a tool for clinicians and patients (our two target audiences) for pharmacologic treatment decisions in commonly encountered clinical situations. These recommendations are not prescriptive, and the treatment decisions should be made by physicians and patients through a shared decision-making process taking into account patients' values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

2015 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

"OBJECTIVE: To develop a new evidence-based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We conducted systematic reviews to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatment options. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence. We employed a group consensus process to grade the strength of recommendations (either strong or conditional). A strong recommendation indicates that clinicians are certain that the benefits of an intervention far outweigh the harms (or vice versa). A conditional recommendation denotes uncertainty over the balance of benefits and harms and/or more significant variability in patient values and preferences. RESULTS: The guideline covers the use of traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in early (<6 months) and established (≥6 months) RA. In addition, it provides recommendations on using a treat-to-target approach, tapering and discontinuing medications, and the use of biologic agents and DMARDs in patients with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, malignancy, and serious infections. The guideline addresses the use of vaccines in patients starting/receiving DMARDs or biologic agents, screening for tuberculosis in patients starting/receiving biologic agents or tofacitinib, and laboratory monitoring for traditional DMARDs. The guideline includes 74 recommendations: 23% are strong and 77% are conditional. CONCLUSION: This RA guideline should serve as a tool for clinicians and patients (our two target audiences) for pharmacologic treatment decisions in commonly encountered clinical situations. These recommendations are not prescriptive, and the treatment decisions should be made by physicians and patients through a shared decision-making process taking into account patients' values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies."

2015 American College of Rheumatology guideline for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE: To develop a new evidence-based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We conducted systematic reviews to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatment options. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence. We employed a group consensus process to grade the strength of recommendations (either strong or conditional). A strong recommendation indicates that clinicians are certain that the benefits of an intervention far outweigh the harms (or vice versa). A conditional recommendation denotes uncertainty over the balance of benefits and harms and/or more significant variability in patient values and preferences. RESULTS: The guideline covers the use of traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in early (<6 months) and established (≥6 months) RA. In addition, it provides recommendations on using a treat-to-target approach, tapering and discontinuing medications, and the use of biologic agents and DMARDs in patients with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, malignancy, and serious infections. The guideline addresses the use of vaccines in patients starting/receiving DMARDs or biologic agents, screening for tuberculosis in patients starting/receiving biologic agents or tofacitinib, and laboratory monitoring for traditional DMARDs. The guideline includes 74 recommendations: 23% are strong and 77% are conditional. CONCLUSION: This RA guideline should serve as a tool for clinicians and patients (our two target audiences) for pharmacologic treatment decisions in commonly encountered clinical situations. These recommendations are not prescriptive, and the treatment decisions should be made by physicians and patients through a shared decision-making process taking into account patients' values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.