Parks, Deborah

ObjectiveCurrently, there are no reliable biomarkers for predicting therapeutic response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The synovium may unlock critical information for determining efficacy, since a reduction in the numbers of sublining synovial macrophages remains the most reproducible biomarker. Thus, a clinically actionable method for the collection of synovial tissue, which can be analyzed using high‐throughput strategies, must become a reality. This study was undertaken to assess the feasibility of utilizing synovial biopsies as a precision medicine‐based approach for patients with RA.MethodsRheumatologists at 6 US academic sites were trained in minimally invasive ultrasound‐guided synovial tissue biopsy. Biopsy specimens obtained from patients with RA and synovial tissue from patients with osteoarthritis (OA) were subjected to histologic analysis, fluorescence‐activated cell sorting, and RNA sequencing (RNA‐seq). An optimized protocol for digesting synovial tissue was developed to generate high‐quality RNA‐seq libraries from isolated macrophage populations. Associations were determined between macrophage transcriptional profiles and clinical parameters in RA patients.ResultsPatients with RA reported minimal adverse effects in response to synovial biopsy. Comparable RNA quality was observed from synovial tissue and isolated macrophages between patients with RA and patients with OA. Whole tissue samples from patients with RA demonstrated a high degree of transcriptional heterogeneity. In contrast, the transcriptional profile of isolated RA synovial macrophages highlighted different subpopulations of patients and identified 6 novel transcriptional modules that were associated with disease activity and therapy.ConclusionPerformance of synovial tissue biopsies by rheumatologists in the US is feasible and generates high‐quality samples for research. Through the use of cutting‐edge technologies to analyze synovial biopsy specimens in conjunction with corresponding clinical information, a precision medicine–based approach for patients with RA is attainable.

ObjectiveTo develop a new evidence‐based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsWe 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThis 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.

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.