Jeffrey R. Curtis

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.

Bisphosphonates (BPs) and denosumab reduce the risk of spine and nonspine fractures. Atypical femur fractures (AFFs) located in the subtrochanteric region and diaphysis of the femur have been reported in patients taking BPs and in patients on denosumab, but they also occur in patients with no exposure to these drugs. In this report, we review studies on the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and medical management of AFFs, published since 2010. This newer evidence suggests that AFFs are stress or insufficiency fractures. The original case definition was revised to highlight radiographic features that distinguish AFFs from ordinary osteoporotic femoral diaphyseal fractures and to provide guidance on the importance of their transverse orientation. The requirement that fractures be noncomminuted was relaxed to include minimal comminution. The periosteal stress reaction at the fracture site was changed from a minor to a major feature. The association with specific diseases and drug exposures was removed from the minor features, because it was considered that these associations should be sought rather than be included in the case definition. Studies with radiographic review consistently report significant associations between AFFs and BP use, although the strength of associations and magnitude of effect vary. Although the relative risk of patients with AFFs taking BPs is high, the absolute risk of AFFs in patients on BPs is low, ranging from 3.2 to 50 cases per 100,000 person-years. However, long-term use may be associated with higher risk (∼100 per 100,000 person-years). BPs localize in areas that are developing stress fractures; suppression of targeted intracortical remodeling at the site of an AFF could impair the processes by which stress fractures normally heal. When BPs are stopped, risk of an AFF may decline. Lower limb geometry and Asian ethnicity may contribute to the risk of AFFs. There is inconsistent evidence that teriparatide may advance healing of AFFs.

Peer Reviewed

The goal of our study was to estimate the prevalence of osteoporosis and low bone mass based on bone mineral density (BMD) at the femoral neck and the lumbar spine in adults 50 years and older in the United States (US). We applied prevalence estimates of osteoporosis or low bone mass at the femoral neck or lumbar spine (adjusted by age, sex, and race/ethnicity to the 2010 Census) for the noninstitutionalized population aged 50 years and older from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-2010 to 2010 US Census population counts to determine the total number of older US residents with osteoporosis and low bone mass. There were more than 99 million adults aged 50 years and older in the US in 2010. Based on an overall 10.3% prevalence of osteoporosis, we estimated that in 2010, 10.2 million older adults had osteoporosis. The overall low bone mass prevalence was 43.9%, from which we estimated that 43.4 million older adults had low bone mass. We estimated that 7.7 million non-Hispanic white, 0.5 million non-Hispanic black, and 0.6 million Mexican American adults had osteoporosis, and another 33.8, 2.9, and 2.0 million had low bone mass, respectively. When combined, osteoporosis and low bone mass at the femoral neck or lumbar spine affected an estimated 53.6 million older US adults in 2010. Although most of the individuals with osteoporosis or low bone mass were non-Hispanic white women, a substantial number of men and women from other racial/ethnic groups also had osteoporotic BMD or low bone mass.

Guidelines and recommendations developed and/or endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) are intended to provide guidance for particular patterns of practice and not to dictate the care of a particular patient. The ACR considers adherence to these guidelines and recommendations to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in light of each patient’s individual circumstances. Guidelines and recommendations are intended to promote beneficial or desirable outcomes but cannot guarantee any specific outcome. Guidelines and recommendations developed or endorsed by the ACR are subject to periodic revision as warranted by the evolution of medical knowledge, technology, and practice.