Citations

ObjectiveWe provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease.MethodsWe developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation.ResultsFifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high‐resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6‐minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs.ConclusionThis clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs.

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease. Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation. Results Fifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high‐resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6‐minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs.

AbstractThe DPYD gene encodes dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase, the rate‐limiting enzyme for the metabolism of fluoropyrimidines 5‐fluorouracil and capecitabine. Genetic variants in DPYD have been associated with altered enzyme activity, therefore accurate detection and interpretation is critical to predict metabolizer status for individualized fluoropyrimidine therapy. The most commonly observed deleterious variation is the causal variant linked to the previously described HapB3 haplotype, c.1129‐5923C>G (rs75017182) in intron 10, which introduces a cryptic splice site. A benign synonymous variant in exon 11, c.1236G>A (rs56038477) is also linked to HapB3 and is commonly used for testing. Previously, these single‐nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been reported to be in perfect linkage disequilibrium (LD); therefore, c.1236G>A is often utilized as a proxy for the function‐altering intronic variant. Clinical genotyping of DPYD identified a patient who had c.1236G>A, but not c.1129‐5923C>G, suggesting that these two SNPs may not be in perfect LD, as previously assumed. Additional individuals with c.1236G>A, but not c.1129‐5923C>G, were identified in the Children's Mercy Data Warehouse and the All of Us Research Program version 7 cohort substantiating incomplete SNP linkage. Consequently, testing only c.1236G>A can generate false‐positive results in some cases and lead to suboptimal dosing that may negatively impact patient therapy and prospect of survival. Our data show that DPYD genotyping should include the functional variant c.1129‐5923C>G, and not the c.1236G>A proxy, to accurately predict DPD activity.

ObjectiveTo develop evidence‐based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient‐important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate‐to‐severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA).MethodsWe developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations.ResultsThe panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality.ConclusionThis guideline provides evidence‐based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate‐to‐severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient‐important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

ObjectiveTo develop evidence‐based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient‐important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate‐to‐severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA).MethodsWe developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations.ResultsThe panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality.ConclusionThis guideline provides evidence‐based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate‐to‐severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient‐important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

The Pharmacogene Variation Consortium (PharmVar) provides nomenclature for the highly polymorphic human CYP2D6 gene locus and a comprehensive summary of structural variation. CYP2D6 contributes to the metabolism of numerous drugs and, thus, genetic variation in its gene impacts drug efficacy and safety. To accurately predict a patient's CYP2D6 phenotype, testing must include structural variants including gene deletions, duplications, hybrid genes, and combinations thereof. This tutorial offers a comprehensive overview of CYP2D6 structural variation, terms, and definitions, a review of methods suitable for their detection and characterization, and practical examples to address the lack of standards to describe CYP2D6 structural variants or any other pharmacogene. This PharmVar tutorial offers practical guidance on how to detect the many, often complex, structural variants, as well as recommends terms and definitions for clinical and research reporting. Uniform reporting is not only essential for electronic health record‐keeping but also for accurate translation of a patient's genotype into phenotype which is typically utilized to guide drug therapy.

Objective To develop updated guidelines for the perioperative management of disease‐modifying medications for patients with rheumatic diseases, specifically those with inflammatory arthritis (IA) and those with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), undergoing elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) or elective total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods We convened a panel of rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, and infectious disease specialists, updated the systematic literature review, and included currently available medications for the clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using a group consensus process. Results This guideline updates the 2017 recommendations for perioperative use of disease‐modifying antirheumatic therapy, including traditional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologic agents, targeted synthetic small‐molecule drugs, and glucocorticoids used for adults with rheumatic diseases, specifically for the treatment of patients with IA, including rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritis, those with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, or those with SLE who are undergoing elective THA or TKA. It updates recommendations regarding when to continue, when to withhold, and when to restart these medications and the optimal perioperative dosing of glucocorticoids. Conclusion This updated guideline includes recently introduced immunosuppressive medications to help decision‐making by clinicians and patients regarding perioperative disease‐modifying medication management for patients with IA and SLE at the time of elective THA or TKA.

ObjectiveTo develop updated guidelines for the perioperative management of disease‐modifying medications for patients with rheumatic diseases, specifically those with inflammatory arthritis (IA) and those with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), undergoing elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) or elective total knee arthroplasty (TKA).MethodsWe convened a panel of rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, and infectious disease specialists, updated the systematic literature review, and included currently available medications for the clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using a group consensus process.ResultsThis guideline updates the 2017 recommendations for perioperative use of disease‐modifying antirheumatic therapy, including traditional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologic agents, targeted synthetic small‐molecule drugs, and glucocorticoids used for adults with rheumatic diseases, specifically for the treatment of patients with IA, including rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritis, those with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, or those with SLE who are undergoing elective THA or TKA. It updates recommendations regarding when to continue, when to withhold, and when to restart these medications and the optimal perioperative dosing of glucocorticoids.ConclusionThis updated guideline includes recently introduced immunosuppressive medications to help decision‐making by clinicians and patients regarding perioperative disease‐modifying medication management for patients with IA and SLE at the time of elective THA or TKA.

Objective To provide evidence‐based recommendations and expert guidance for the management of Kawasaki disease (KD), focusing on clinical scenarios more commonly addressed by rheumatologists. Methods Sixteen clinical questions regarding diagnostic testing, treatment, and management of KD were developed in the Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) question format. Systematic literature reviews were conducted for each PICO question. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation method to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations. Each recommendation required consensus from at least 70% of the Voting Panel. Results We present 1 good practice statement, 11 recommendations, and 1 ungraded position statement to guide the management of KD and clinical scenarios of suspected KD. These recommendations for KD are focused on situations in which input from rheumatologists may be requested by other managing specialists, such as in cases of treatment‐refractory, severe, or complicated KD. The good practice statement affirms that all patients with KD should receive initial treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). In addition, we developed 7 strong and 4 conditional recommendations for the management of KD or suspected KD. Strong recommendations include prompt treatment of incomplete KD, treatment with aspirin, and obtaining an echocardiogram in the setting of unexplained macrophage activation syndrome or shock. Conditional recommendations include use of IVIG with other adjuvant agents for patients with KD and high‐risk features of IVIG resistance and/or coronary artery aneurysms. These recommendations endorse minimizing risk to the patient by using established therapy promptly at disease onset and identifying situations in which adjunctive therapy may be warranted. Conclusion These recommendations provide guidance regarding diagnostic strategies, use of pharmacologic agents, and use of echocardiography in patients with suspected or confirmed KD.

Objective To provide evidence‐based recommendations and expert guidance for the management of Kawasaki disease (KD), focusing on clinical scenarios more commonly addressed by rheumatologists. Methods Sixteen clinical questions regarding diagnostic testing, treatment, and management of KD were developed in the Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) question format. Systematic literature reviews were conducted for each PICO question. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation method to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations. Each recommendation required consensus from at least 70% of the Voting Panel. Results We present 1 good practice statement, 11 recommendations, and 1 ungraded position statement to guide the management of KD and clinical scenarios of suspected KD. These recommendations for KD are focused on situations in which input from rheumatologists may be requested by other managing specialists, such as in cases of treatment‐refractory, severe, or complicated KD. The good practice statement affirms that all patients with KD should receive initial treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). In addition, we developed 7 strong and 4 conditional recommendations for the management of KD or suspected KD. Strong recommendations include prompt treatment of incomplete KD, treatment with aspirin, and obtaining an echocardiogram in the setting of unexplained macrophage activation syndrome or shock. Conditional recommendations include use of IVIG with other adjuvant agents for patients with KD and high‐risk features of IVIG resistance and/or coronary artery aneurysms. These recommendations endorse minimizing risk to the patient by using established therapy promptly at disease onset and identifying situations in which adjunctive therapy may be warranted. Conclusion These recommendations provide guidance regarding diagnostic strategies, use of pharmacologic agents, and use of echocardiography in patients with suspected or confirmed KD.