Citations

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding the treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in adults with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions. A systematic literature review was then performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A panel of clinicians and patients reached consensus on the direction and strength of the recommendations. Results Thirty‐five recommendations were generated (including two strong recommendations) for first‐line SARD‐ILD treatment, treatment of SARD‐ILD progression despite first‐line ILD therapy, and treatment of rapidly progressive ILD. The strong recommendations were against using glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis–ILD as a first‐line ILD therapy and after ILD progression. Otherwise, glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for first‐line ILD treatment in all other 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 treatment of ILD in people with SARDs.

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.

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.

ABSTRACT This clinical practice guideline addresses the prevention, diagnosis, and management of hypoparathyroidism (HypoPT) and provides evidence-based recommendations. The HypoPT task forces included four teams with a total of 50 international experts including representatives from the sponsoring societies. A methodologist (GG) and his team supported the taskforces and conducted the systematic reviews. A formal process following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology and the systematic reviews provided the structure for seven of the guideline recommendations. The task force used a less structured approach based on narrative reviews for 20 non-GRADEd recommendations. Clinicians may consider postsurgical HypoPT permanent if it persists for >12 months after surgery. To predict which patients will not develop permanent postsurgical HypoPT, we recommend evaluating serum PTH within 12 to 24 hours post total thyroidectomy (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). PTH > 10 pg/mL (1.05 pmol/L) virtually excludes long-term HypoPT. In individuals with nonsurgical HypoPT, genetic testing may be helpful in the presence of a positive family history of nonsurgical HypoPT, in the presence of syndromic features, or in individuals younger than 40 years. HypoPT can be associated with complications, including nephrocalcinosis, nephrolithiasis, renal insufficiency, cataracts, seizures, cardiac arrhythmias, ischemic heart disease, depression, and an increased risk of infection. Minimizing complications of HypoPT requires careful evaluation and close monitoring of laboratory indices. In patients with chronic HypoPT, the panel suggests conventional therapy with calcium and active vitamin D metabolites as first-line therapy (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). When conventional therapy is deemed unsatisfactory, the panel considers the use of PTH. © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

ABSTRACT To develop guidelines for hypoparathyroidism and primary hyperparathyroidism, the panel assembled a panel of experts in parathyroid disorders, general endocrinologists, representatives of the Hypoparathyroidism Association, and systematic review and guideline methodologists. The guideline panel referred to a formal process following the Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) methodology to issue GRADEd recommendations. In this approach, panelists and methodologists formatted the questions, conducted systematic reviews, evaluated risk of bias, assessed certainty of evidence, and presented a summary of findings in a transparent fashion. For most recommendations, the task forces used a less structured approach largely based on narrative reviews to issue non-GRADEd recommendations. The panel issued Eight GRADEd recommendations (seven for hypoparathyroidism and one for hyperparathyroidism). Each GRADEd recommendation is linked to the underlying body of evidence and judgments regarding the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations, values and preferences, and costs, feasibility, acceptability and equity. This article summarizes the methodology for issuing GRADEd and non-GRADEd recommendations for patients with hypoparathyroidism or hyperparathyroidism. © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

ABSTRACT Both medical and surgical therapy represent potential management options for patients with asymptomatic primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT). Because uncertainty remains regarding both medical and surgical therapy, this systematic review addresses the efficacy and safety of medical therapy in asymptomatic patients or symptomatic patients who decline surgery and surgery in asymptomatic patients. We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PubMed from inception to December 2020, and included randomized controlled trials in patients with PHPT that compared nonsurgical management with medical therapy versus without medical therapy and surgery versus no surgery in patients with asymptomatic PHPT. For surgical complications we included observational studies. Paired reviewers addressed eligibility, assessed risk of bias, and abstracted data for patient-important outcomes. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to pool relative risks and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals and used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess quality of evidence for each outcome. For medical therapy, 11 trials reported in 12 publications including 438 patients proved eligible: three addressed alendronate, one denosumab, three cinacalcet, two vitamin D, and two estrogen therapy. Alendronate, denosumab, vitamin D, and estrogen therapy all increased bone density. Cinacalcet probably reduced serum calcium and parathyroid hormone (PTH) levels. Cinacalcet and vitamin D may have a small or no increase in overall adverse events. Very-low-quality evidence raised the possibility of an increase in serious adverse events with alendronate and denosumab. The trials also provided low-quality evidence for increased bleeding and mastalgia with estrogen therapy. For surgery, six trials presented in 12 reports including 441 patients proved eligible. Surgery achieved biochemical cure in 96.1% (high quality). We found no convincing evidence supporting an impact of surgery on fracture, quality of life, occurrence of kidney stones, and renal function, but the evidence proved low or very low quality. Surgery was associated with an increase in bone mineral density. For patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic PHPT, who are not candidates for parathyroid surgery, cinacalcet probably reduced serum calcium and PTH levels; anti-resorptives increased bone density. For patients with asymptomatic PHPT, surgery usually achieves biochemical cure. These results can help to inform patients and clinicians regarding use of medical therapy and surgery in PHPT. © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

ABSTRACT The last international guidelines on the evaluation and management of primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) were published in 2014. Research since that time has led to new insights into epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, measurements, genetics, outcomes, presentations, new imaging modalities, target and other organ systems, pregnancy, evaluation, and management. Advances in all these areas are demonstrated by the reference list in which the majority of listings were published after the last set of guidelines. It was thus, timely to convene an international group of over 50 experts to review these advances in our knowledge. Four Task Forces considered: 1. Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Genetics; 2. Classical and Nonclassical Features; 3. Surgical Aspects; and 4. Management. For Task Force 4 on the Management of PHPT, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology addressed surgical management of asymptomatic PHPT and non-surgical medical management of PHPT. The findings of this systematic review that applied GRADE methods to randomized trials are published as part of this series. Task Force 4 also reviewed a much larger body of new knowledge from observations studies that did not specifically fit the criteria of GRADE methodology. The full reports of these 4 Task Forces immediately follow this summary statement. Distilling the essence of all deliberations of all Task Force reports and Methodological reviews, we offer, in this summary statement, evidence-based recommendations and guidelines for the evaluation and management of PHPT. Different from the conclusions of the last workshop, these deliberations have led to revisions of renal guidelines and more evidence for the other recommendations. The accompanying papers present an in-depth discussion of topics summarized in this report. © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).