Clinical Guidelines Hub only

Allowed Publications
LayerRx Mapping ID
605
Slot System
Featured Buckets
Featured Buckets Admin

2012 update of the 2008 American College of Rheumatology recommendations for the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 13:54
Display Headline
2012 update of the 2008 American College of Rheumatology recommendations for the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Major Recommendations

The levels of evidence supporting the recommendations (A-C) are defined at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Recommendations for the Use of Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs (DMARDs) and Biologic Agents in Patients Who Qualify for Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA)

This 2012 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommendations update incorporates the evidence from systematic literature review synthesis and recommendations from 2008 and rates updated and new clinical scenarios regarding the use of DMARDs and biologic agents for the treatment of RA. Terms used in the recommendations are defined in Table 2 of the original guideline document. The 2012 recommendations are listed in the 4 sections below and in the following order:

  1. Indications for and switching DMARDs and biologic agents: early RA (indications, see Figure 1 in the original guideline document) followed by established RA (indications and switching, see Figure 2 in the original guideline document), along with details of the level of evidence supporting these recommendations (see Supplementary Appendix 7, available in the online version at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)2151-4658 
    )
  2. Use of biologic agents in patients with hepatitis, malignancy, or congestive heart failure (CHF) who qualify for RA management (see Table 4 in the original guideline document)
  3. Screening for tuberculosis (TB) in patients starting or currently receiving biologic agents as part of their RA therapy (see Figure 3 in the original guideline document)
  4. Vaccination in patients starting or currently receiving DMARDs or biologic agents as part of their RA therapy (see Table 5 in the original guideline document)

The recommendations in the text below and in Tables 4 and 5 in the original guideline document represent the results of the 2012 update only, whereas Figures 1–3 in the original guideline document also incorporate some of the 2008 ACR RA recommendations that did not change. Areas of uncertainty by the panel (that did not lead to recommendations) are noted in Supplementary Appendix 8 (available in the online version of this article at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)2151-4658 

).

  1. Indications for Starting, Resuming, Adding, or Switching DMARDs or Biologic Agents

    The panel first describes a recommendation targeting remission or low disease activity in RA (section 1A). This is followed by recommendations for DMARD or biologic agent use in early RA (section 1B). Next, the panel provides recommendations for initiating and switching between DMARDs and biologic agents in established RA (section 1C).

    1A. Target Low Disease Activity or Remission

    The panel recommends targeting either low disease activity (see Table 3 in the original guideline document) or remission (see Table 2 in the original guideline document) in all patients with early RA (see Figure 1 in the original guideline document; level of evidence C) and established RA (see Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence C) receiving any DMARD or biologic agent.

    1B. Early RA (Disease Duration <6 Months)

    In patients with early RA, the panel recommends the use of DMARD monotherapy both for low disease activity and for moderate or high disease activity with the absence of poor prognostic features (see Figure 1 in the original guideline document; level of evidence A–C) (details are shown in Supplementary Appendix 7, available in the online version of this article at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)2151-4658 

    ).

    In patients with early RA, the panel recommends the use of DMARD combination therapy (including double and triple therapy) in patients with moderate or high disease activity plus poor prognostic features (see Figure 1 in the original guideline document; level of evidence A–C).

    In patients with early RA, the panel also recommends the use of an anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) biologic with or without methotrexate in patients who have high disease activity with poor prognostic features (see Figure 1 in the original guideline document; level of evidence A and B). Infliximab is the only exception and the recommendation is to use it in combination with methotrexate, but not as monotherapy.

    1C. Established RA (Disease Duration ≥6 Months or Meeting the 1987 ACR RA Classification Criteria)

    The remainder of panel recommendations regarding indications for DMARDs and biologic agents are for patients with established RA. The 3 subsections below define recommendations for initiating and switching therapies in established RA (see Figure 2 in the original guideline document). Where the prognosis is not mentioned, the recommendation to use/switch to a DMARD or a biologic agent applies to all patients, regardless of prognostic features.

    Initiating and Switching Among DMARDs

    If after 3 months of DMARD monotherapy (in patients without poor prognostic features), a patient deteriorates from low to moderate/high disease activity, then methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, or leflunomide should be added (see rectangle A of Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence A and B).

    If after 3 months of methotrexate or methotrexate/DMARD combination, a patient still has moderate or high disease activity, then add another non-methotrexate DMARD or switch to a different non-methotrexate DMARD (see rectangle B of Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence B and C).

    Switching from DMARDs to Biologic Agents

    If a patient has moderate or high disease activity after 3 months of methotrexate monotherapy or DMARD combination therapy, as an alternative to the DMARD recommendation just noted above, the panel recommends adding or switching to an anti-TNF biologic, abatacept, or rituximab (see rectangles C and D of Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence A–C).

    If after 3 months of intensified DMARD combination therapy or after a second DMARD, a patient still has moderate or high disease activity, add or switch to an anti-TNF biologic (see rectangle C of Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence C).

    Switching Among Biologic Agents Due to Lack of Benefit or Loss of Benefit

    If a patient still has moderate or high disease activity after 3 months of anti-TNF biologic therapy and this is due to a lack or loss of benefit, switching to another anti-TNF biologic or a non-TNF biologic is recommended (see rectangles F and G of Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence B and C).

    If a patient still has moderate or high disease activity after 6 months of a non-TNF biologic and the failure is due to a lack or loss of benefit, switch to another non-TNF biologic or an anti-TNF biologic (see rectangles F and G of Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence B and C). An assessment period of 6 months was chosen rather than 3 months, due to the anticipation that a longer time may be required for efficacy of a non-TNF biologic.

    Switching Among Biologic Agents Due to Harms/Adverse Events

    If a patient has high disease activity after failing an anti-TNF biologic because of a serious adverse event, switch to a non-TNF biologic (see rectangle E of Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence C).

    If a patient has moderate or high disease activity after failing an anti-TNF biologic because of a nonserious adverse event, switch to another anti-TNF biologic or a non-TNF biologic (see rectangle F of Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence B and C).

    If a patient has moderate or high disease activity after failing a non-TNF biologic because of an adverse event (serious or nonserious), switch to another non-TNF biologic or an anti-TNF biologic (see rectangle F of Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence C).

  1. Use of Biologic Agents in RA Patients With Hepatitis, Malignancy, or Chronic Heart Failure (CHF), Qualifying for More Aggressive Treatment (level of evidence C for all recommendations)

    Hepatitis B or C

    The panel recommends that etanercept could potentially be used in RA patients with hepatitis C requiring RA treatment (see Table 4 in the original guideline document).

    The panel also recommends not using biologic agents in RA patients with untreated chronic hepatitis B (disease not treated due to contraindications to treatment or intolerable adverse events) and in RA patients with treated chronic hepatitis B with Child-Pugh class B and higher (see Table 4 in the original guideline document; for details of Child-Pugh classification, see Table 2 in the original guideline document). The panel did not make recommendations regarding the use of any biologic agent for treatment in RA patients with a history of hepatitis B and a positive hepatitis B core antibody.

    Malignancies

    For patients who have been treated for solid malignancies more than 5 years ago or who have been treated for nonmelanoma skin cancer more than 5 years ago, the panel recommends starting or resuming any biologic agent if those patients would otherwise qualify for this RA management strategy (see Table 4 in the original guideline document).

    The panel only recommends starting or resuming rituximab in RA patients with: 1) a previously treated solid malignancy within the last 5 years, 2) a previously treated nonmelanoma skin cancer within the last 5 years, 3) a previously treated melanoma skin cancer, or 4) a previously treated lymphoproliferative malignancy. Little is known about the effects of biologic therapy in patients with a history of a solid cancer within the past 5 years owing to the exclusion of such patients from participation in clinical trials and the lack of studies examining the risk of recurrent cancer in this subgroup of patients.

    CHF

    The panel recommends not using an anti-TNF biologic in RA patients with CHF that is New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV and who have an ejection fraction of 50% or less (see Table 4 in the original guideline document).

  1. TB Screening for Biologic Agents (level of evidence C for all recommendations except for initiation of biologic agents in patients being treated for latent TB infection [LTBI], where the level of evidence is B)

    The panel recommends screening to identify LTBI in all RA patients being considered for therapy with biologic agents, regardless of the presence of risk factors for LTBI (see diamond A of Figure 3 in the original guideline document). It recommends that clinicians assess the patient's medical history to identify risk factors for TB (specified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]) (see Table 2 in the original guideline document).

    The panel recommends the tuberculin skin test (TST) or interferon-gamma–release assays (IGRAs) as the initial test in all RA patients starting biologic agents, regardless of risk factors for LTBI (see diamond A of Figure 3 in the original guideline document). It recommends the use of the IGRA over the TST in patients who had previously received a bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccination, due to the high false-positive test rates for TST (see Figure 3 in the original guideline document).

    The panel recommends that RA patients with a positive initial or repeat TST or IGRA should have a chest radiograph and, if suggestive of active TB, a subsequent sputum examination to check for the presence of active TB (see diamonds B and C of Figure 3 in the original guideline document). RA patients with a negative screening TST or IGRA may not need further evaluation in the absence of risk factors and/or clinical suspicion for TB. Since patients with RA may have false-negative TST or IGRA results due to immunosuppression, a negative TST or IGRA should not be interpreted as excluding the possibility that a patient has LTBI. Accordingly, in immunosuppressed RA patients with risk factors for LTBI and negative initial screening tests, the panel recommends that a repeat TST or IGRA could be considered 1–3 weeks after the initial negative screening (see diamond A of Figure 3 in the original guideline document).

    If the RA patient has active or latent TB based on the test results, the panel recommends appropriate antitubercular treatment and consideration of referral to a specialist. Treatment with biologic agents can be initiated or resumed after 1 month of latent TB treatment with antitubercular medications and after completion of the treatment of active TB, as applicable (see Figure 3 in the original guideline document).

    The panel recommends annual testing in RA patients who live, travel, or work in situations where TB exposure is likely while they continue treatment with biologic agents (see diamond D of Figure 3 in the original guideline document). Patients who test positive for TST or IGRA at baseline can remain positive for these tests even after successful treatment of TB. These patients need monitoring for clinical signs and symptoms of recurrent TB, since repeating tests will not help in the diagnosis of recurrent TB.

  1. Vaccination in Patients Starting or Currently Receiving DMARDs or Biologic Agents as Part of Their RA Therapy (level of evidence C for all recommendations)

    The panel recommends that all killed (pneumococcal, influenza intramuscular, and hepatitis B), recombinant (human papillomavirus [HPV] vaccine for cervical cancer), and live attenuated (herpes zoster) vaccinations should be undertaken before starting a DMARD or a biologic agent (see Table 5 in the original guideline document).

    It also recommends that, if not previously done, vaccination with indicated pneumococcal (killed), influenza intramuscular (killed), hepatitis B (killed), and HPV vaccine (recombinant) should be undertaken in RA patients already taking a DMARD or a biologic agent (see Table 5 in the original guideline document).

    The panel recommends vaccination with herpes zoster vaccine in RA patients already taking a DMARD. All vaccines should be given based on age and risk, and physicians should refer to vaccine instructions and CDC recommendations for details about dosing and timing issues related to vaccinations.

Definitions:

Level of Evidence

  • Level of Evidence A: Data derived from multiple randomized clinical trials.
  • Level of Evidence B: Data derived from a single randomized trial, or nonrandomized studies.
  • Level of Evidence C: Only consensus opinion of experts, case studies, or standard-of-care.

Note: Level C evidence often denoted a circumstance where medical literature addressed the general topic under discussion but it did not address the specific clinical situations or scenarios reviewed by the panel.

 

 

Clinical Algorithm(s)

Clinical algorithms are provided in the original guideline document for the following:

  • 2012 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommendations update for the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis (RA), defined as a disease duration <6 months
  • 2012 ACR recommendations update for the treatment of established RA, defined as a disease duration ≥6 months or meeting the 1987 ACR classification criteria
  • 2012 ACR recommendations update for tuberculosis (TB) screening with biologic agent use

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Major Recommendations

The levels of evidence supporting the recommendations (A-C) are defined at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Recommendations for the Use of Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs (DMARDs) and Biologic Agents in Patients Who Qualify for Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA)

This 2012 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommendations update incorporates the evidence from systematic literature review synthesis and recommendations from 2008 and rates updated and new clinical scenarios regarding the use of DMARDs and biologic agents for the treatment of RA. Terms used in the recommendations are defined in Table 2 of the original guideline document. The 2012 recommendations are listed in the 4 sections below and in the following order:

  1. Indications for and switching DMARDs and biologic agents: early RA (indications, see Figure 1 in the original guideline document) followed by established RA (indications and switching, see Figure 2 in the original guideline document), along with details of the level of evidence supporting these recommendations (see Supplementary Appendix 7, available in the online version at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)2151-4658 
    )
  2. Use of biologic agents in patients with hepatitis, malignancy, or congestive heart failure (CHF) who qualify for RA management (see Table 4 in the original guideline document)
  3. Screening for tuberculosis (TB) in patients starting or currently receiving biologic agents as part of their RA therapy (see Figure 3 in the original guideline document)
  4. Vaccination in patients starting or currently receiving DMARDs or biologic agents as part of their RA therapy (see Table 5 in the original guideline document)

The recommendations in the text below and in Tables 4 and 5 in the original guideline document represent the results of the 2012 update only, whereas Figures 1–3 in the original guideline document also incorporate some of the 2008 ACR RA recommendations that did not change. Areas of uncertainty by the panel (that did not lead to recommendations) are noted in Supplementary Appendix 8 (available in the online version of this article at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)2151-4658 

).

  1. Indications for Starting, Resuming, Adding, or Switching DMARDs or Biologic Agents

    The panel first describes a recommendation targeting remission or low disease activity in RA (section 1A). This is followed by recommendations for DMARD or biologic agent use in early RA (section 1B). Next, the panel provides recommendations for initiating and switching between DMARDs and biologic agents in established RA (section 1C).

    1A. Target Low Disease Activity or Remission

    The panel recommends targeting either low disease activity (see Table 3 in the original guideline document) or remission (see Table 2 in the original guideline document) in all patients with early RA (see Figure 1 in the original guideline document; level of evidence C) and established RA (see Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence C) receiving any DMARD or biologic agent.

    1B. Early RA (Disease Duration <6 Months)

    In patients with early RA, the panel recommends the use of DMARD monotherapy both for low disease activity and for moderate or high disease activity with the absence of poor prognostic features (see Figure 1 in the original guideline document; level of evidence A–C) (details are shown in Supplementary Appendix 7, available in the online version of this article at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)2151-4658 

    ).

    In patients with early RA, the panel recommends the use of DMARD combination therapy (including double and triple therapy) in patients with moderate or high disease activity plus poor prognostic features (see Figure 1 in the original guideline document; level of evidence A–C).

    In patients with early RA, the panel also recommends the use of an anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) biologic with or without methotrexate in patients who have high disease activity with poor prognostic features (see Figure 1 in the original guideline document; level of evidence A and B). Infliximab is the only exception and the recommendation is to use it in combination with methotrexate, but not as monotherapy.

    1C. Established RA (Disease Duration ≥6 Months or Meeting the 1987 ACR RA Classification Criteria)

    The remainder of panel recommendations regarding indications for DMARDs and biologic agents are for patients with established RA. The 3 subsections below define recommendations for initiating and switching therapies in established RA (see Figure 2 in the original guideline document). Where the prognosis is not mentioned, the recommendation to use/switch to a DMARD or a biologic agent applies to all patients, regardless of prognostic features.

    Initiating and Switching Among DMARDs

    If after 3 months of DMARD monotherapy (in patients without poor prognostic features), a patient deteriorates from low to moderate/high disease activity, then methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, or leflunomide should be added (see rectangle A of Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence A and B).

    If after 3 months of methotrexate or methotrexate/DMARD combination, a patient still has moderate or high disease activity, then add another non-methotrexate DMARD or switch to a different non-methotrexate DMARD (see rectangle B of Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence B and C).

    Switching from DMARDs to Biologic Agents

    If a patient has moderate or high disease activity after 3 months of methotrexate monotherapy or DMARD combination therapy, as an alternative to the DMARD recommendation just noted above, the panel recommends adding or switching to an anti-TNF biologic, abatacept, or rituximab (see rectangles C and D of Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence A–C).

    If after 3 months of intensified DMARD combination therapy or after a second DMARD, a patient still has moderate or high disease activity, add or switch to an anti-TNF biologic (see rectangle C of Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence C).

    Switching Among Biologic Agents Due to Lack of Benefit or Loss of Benefit

    If a patient still has moderate or high disease activity after 3 months of anti-TNF biologic therapy and this is due to a lack or loss of benefit, switching to another anti-TNF biologic or a non-TNF biologic is recommended (see rectangles F and G of Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence B and C).

    If a patient still has moderate or high disease activity after 6 months of a non-TNF biologic and the failure is due to a lack or loss of benefit, switch to another non-TNF biologic or an anti-TNF biologic (see rectangles F and G of Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence B and C). An assessment period of 6 months was chosen rather than 3 months, due to the anticipation that a longer time may be required for efficacy of a non-TNF biologic.

    Switching Among Biologic Agents Due to Harms/Adverse Events

    If a patient has high disease activity after failing an anti-TNF biologic because of a serious adverse event, switch to a non-TNF biologic (see rectangle E of Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence C).

    If a patient has moderate or high disease activity after failing an anti-TNF biologic because of a nonserious adverse event, switch to another anti-TNF biologic or a non-TNF biologic (see rectangle F of Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence B and C).

    If a patient has moderate or high disease activity after failing a non-TNF biologic because of an adverse event (serious or nonserious), switch to another non-TNF biologic or an anti-TNF biologic (see rectangle F of Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence C).

  1. Use of Biologic Agents in RA Patients With Hepatitis, Malignancy, or Chronic Heart Failure (CHF), Qualifying for More Aggressive Treatment (level of evidence C for all recommendations)

    Hepatitis B or C

    The panel recommends that etanercept could potentially be used in RA patients with hepatitis C requiring RA treatment (see Table 4 in the original guideline document).

    The panel also recommends not using biologic agents in RA patients with untreated chronic hepatitis B (disease not treated due to contraindications to treatment or intolerable adverse events) and in RA patients with treated chronic hepatitis B with Child-Pugh class B and higher (see Table 4 in the original guideline document; for details of Child-Pugh classification, see Table 2 in the original guideline document). The panel did not make recommendations regarding the use of any biologic agent for treatment in RA patients with a history of hepatitis B and a positive hepatitis B core antibody.

    Malignancies

    For patients who have been treated for solid malignancies more than 5 years ago or who have been treated for nonmelanoma skin cancer more than 5 years ago, the panel recommends starting or resuming any biologic agent if those patients would otherwise qualify for this RA management strategy (see Table 4 in the original guideline document).

    The panel only recommends starting or resuming rituximab in RA patients with: 1) a previously treated solid malignancy within the last 5 years, 2) a previously treated nonmelanoma skin cancer within the last 5 years, 3) a previously treated melanoma skin cancer, or 4) a previously treated lymphoproliferative malignancy. Little is known about the effects of biologic therapy in patients with a history of a solid cancer within the past 5 years owing to the exclusion of such patients from participation in clinical trials and the lack of studies examining the risk of recurrent cancer in this subgroup of patients.

    CHF

    The panel recommends not using an anti-TNF biologic in RA patients with CHF that is New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV and who have an ejection fraction of 50% or less (see Table 4 in the original guideline document).

  1. TB Screening for Biologic Agents (level of evidence C for all recommendations except for initiation of biologic agents in patients being treated for latent TB infection [LTBI], where the level of evidence is B)

    The panel recommends screening to identify LTBI in all RA patients being considered for therapy with biologic agents, regardless of the presence of risk factors for LTBI (see diamond A of Figure 3 in the original guideline document). It recommends that clinicians assess the patient's medical history to identify risk factors for TB (specified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]) (see Table 2 in the original guideline document).

    The panel recommends the tuberculin skin test (TST) or interferon-gamma–release assays (IGRAs) as the initial test in all RA patients starting biologic agents, regardless of risk factors for LTBI (see diamond A of Figure 3 in the original guideline document). It recommends the use of the IGRA over the TST in patients who had previously received a bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccination, due to the high false-positive test rates for TST (see Figure 3 in the original guideline document).

    The panel recommends that RA patients with a positive initial or repeat TST or IGRA should have a chest radiograph and, if suggestive of active TB, a subsequent sputum examination to check for the presence of active TB (see diamonds B and C of Figure 3 in the original guideline document). RA patients with a negative screening TST or IGRA may not need further evaluation in the absence of risk factors and/or clinical suspicion for TB. Since patients with RA may have false-negative TST or IGRA results due to immunosuppression, a negative TST or IGRA should not be interpreted as excluding the possibility that a patient has LTBI. Accordingly, in immunosuppressed RA patients with risk factors for LTBI and negative initial screening tests, the panel recommends that a repeat TST or IGRA could be considered 1–3 weeks after the initial negative screening (see diamond A of Figure 3 in the original guideline document).

    If the RA patient has active or latent TB based on the test results, the panel recommends appropriate antitubercular treatment and consideration of referral to a specialist. Treatment with biologic agents can be initiated or resumed after 1 month of latent TB treatment with antitubercular medications and after completion of the treatment of active TB, as applicable (see Figure 3 in the original guideline document).

    The panel recommends annual testing in RA patients who live, travel, or work in situations where TB exposure is likely while they continue treatment with biologic agents (see diamond D of Figure 3 in the original guideline document). Patients who test positive for TST or IGRA at baseline can remain positive for these tests even after successful treatment of TB. These patients need monitoring for clinical signs and symptoms of recurrent TB, since repeating tests will not help in the diagnosis of recurrent TB.

  1. Vaccination in Patients Starting or Currently Receiving DMARDs or Biologic Agents as Part of Their RA Therapy (level of evidence C for all recommendations)

    The panel recommends that all killed (pneumococcal, influenza intramuscular, and hepatitis B), recombinant (human papillomavirus [HPV] vaccine for cervical cancer), and live attenuated (herpes zoster) vaccinations should be undertaken before starting a DMARD or a biologic agent (see Table 5 in the original guideline document).

    It also recommends that, if not previously done, vaccination with indicated pneumococcal (killed), influenza intramuscular (killed), hepatitis B (killed), and HPV vaccine (recombinant) should be undertaken in RA patients already taking a DMARD or a biologic agent (see Table 5 in the original guideline document).

    The panel recommends vaccination with herpes zoster vaccine in RA patients already taking a DMARD. All vaccines should be given based on age and risk, and physicians should refer to vaccine instructions and CDC recommendations for details about dosing and timing issues related to vaccinations.

Definitions:

Level of Evidence

  • Level of Evidence A: Data derived from multiple randomized clinical trials.
  • Level of Evidence B: Data derived from a single randomized trial, or nonrandomized studies.
  • Level of Evidence C: Only consensus opinion of experts, case studies, or standard-of-care.

Note: Level C evidence often denoted a circumstance where medical literature addressed the general topic under discussion but it did not address the specific clinical situations or scenarios reviewed by the panel.

 

 

Clinical Algorithm(s)

Clinical algorithms are provided in the original guideline document for the following:

  • 2012 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommendations update for the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis (RA), defined as a disease duration <6 months
  • 2012 ACR recommendations update for the treatment of established RA, defined as a disease duration ≥6 months or meeting the 1987 ACR classification criteria
  • 2012 ACR recommendations update for tuberculosis (TB) screening with biologic agent use

Major Recommendations

The levels of evidence supporting the recommendations (A-C) are defined at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Recommendations for the Use of Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs (DMARDs) and Biologic Agents in Patients Who Qualify for Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA)

This 2012 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommendations update incorporates the evidence from systematic literature review synthesis and recommendations from 2008 and rates updated and new clinical scenarios regarding the use of DMARDs and biologic agents for the treatment of RA. Terms used in the recommendations are defined in Table 2 of the original guideline document. The 2012 recommendations are listed in the 4 sections below and in the following order:

  1. Indications for and switching DMARDs and biologic agents: early RA (indications, see Figure 1 in the original guideline document) followed by established RA (indications and switching, see Figure 2 in the original guideline document), along with details of the level of evidence supporting these recommendations (see Supplementary Appendix 7, available in the online version at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)2151-4658 
    )
  2. Use of biologic agents in patients with hepatitis, malignancy, or congestive heart failure (CHF) who qualify for RA management (see Table 4 in the original guideline document)
  3. Screening for tuberculosis (TB) in patients starting or currently receiving biologic agents as part of their RA therapy (see Figure 3 in the original guideline document)
  4. Vaccination in patients starting or currently receiving DMARDs or biologic agents as part of their RA therapy (see Table 5 in the original guideline document)

The recommendations in the text below and in Tables 4 and 5 in the original guideline document represent the results of the 2012 update only, whereas Figures 1–3 in the original guideline document also incorporate some of the 2008 ACR RA recommendations that did not change. Areas of uncertainty by the panel (that did not lead to recommendations) are noted in Supplementary Appendix 8 (available in the online version of this article at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)2151-4658 

).

  1. Indications for Starting, Resuming, Adding, or Switching DMARDs or Biologic Agents

    The panel first describes a recommendation targeting remission or low disease activity in RA (section 1A). This is followed by recommendations for DMARD or biologic agent use in early RA (section 1B). Next, the panel provides recommendations for initiating and switching between DMARDs and biologic agents in established RA (section 1C).

    1A. Target Low Disease Activity or Remission

    The panel recommends targeting either low disease activity (see Table 3 in the original guideline document) or remission (see Table 2 in the original guideline document) in all patients with early RA (see Figure 1 in the original guideline document; level of evidence C) and established RA (see Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence C) receiving any DMARD or biologic agent.

    1B. Early RA (Disease Duration <6 Months)

    In patients with early RA, the panel recommends the use of DMARD monotherapy both for low disease activity and for moderate or high disease activity with the absence of poor prognostic features (see Figure 1 in the original guideline document; level of evidence A–C) (details are shown in Supplementary Appendix 7, available in the online version of this article at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)2151-4658 

    ).

    In patients with early RA, the panel recommends the use of DMARD combination therapy (including double and triple therapy) in patients with moderate or high disease activity plus poor prognostic features (see Figure 1 in the original guideline document; level of evidence A–C).

    In patients with early RA, the panel also recommends the use of an anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) biologic with or without methotrexate in patients who have high disease activity with poor prognostic features (see Figure 1 in the original guideline document; level of evidence A and B). Infliximab is the only exception and the recommendation is to use it in combination with methotrexate, but not as monotherapy.

    1C. Established RA (Disease Duration ≥6 Months or Meeting the 1987 ACR RA Classification Criteria)

    The remainder of panel recommendations regarding indications for DMARDs and biologic agents are for patients with established RA. The 3 subsections below define recommendations for initiating and switching therapies in established RA (see Figure 2 in the original guideline document). Where the prognosis is not mentioned, the recommendation to use/switch to a DMARD or a biologic agent applies to all patients, regardless of prognostic features.

    Initiating and Switching Among DMARDs

    If after 3 months of DMARD monotherapy (in patients without poor prognostic features), a patient deteriorates from low to moderate/high disease activity, then methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, or leflunomide should be added (see rectangle A of Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence A and B).

    If after 3 months of methotrexate or methotrexate/DMARD combination, a patient still has moderate or high disease activity, then add another non-methotrexate DMARD or switch to a different non-methotrexate DMARD (see rectangle B of Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence B and C).

    Switching from DMARDs to Biologic Agents

    If a patient has moderate or high disease activity after 3 months of methotrexate monotherapy or DMARD combination therapy, as an alternative to the DMARD recommendation just noted above, the panel recommends adding or switching to an anti-TNF biologic, abatacept, or rituximab (see rectangles C and D of Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence A–C).

    If after 3 months of intensified DMARD combination therapy or after a second DMARD, a patient still has moderate or high disease activity, add or switch to an anti-TNF biologic (see rectangle C of Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence C).

    Switching Among Biologic Agents Due to Lack of Benefit or Loss of Benefit

    If a patient still has moderate or high disease activity after 3 months of anti-TNF biologic therapy and this is due to a lack or loss of benefit, switching to another anti-TNF biologic or a non-TNF biologic is recommended (see rectangles F and G of Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence B and C).

    If a patient still has moderate or high disease activity after 6 months of a non-TNF biologic and the failure is due to a lack or loss of benefit, switch to another non-TNF biologic or an anti-TNF biologic (see rectangles F and G of Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence B and C). An assessment period of 6 months was chosen rather than 3 months, due to the anticipation that a longer time may be required for efficacy of a non-TNF biologic.

    Switching Among Biologic Agents Due to Harms/Adverse Events

    If a patient has high disease activity after failing an anti-TNF biologic because of a serious adverse event, switch to a non-TNF biologic (see rectangle E of Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence C).

    If a patient has moderate or high disease activity after failing an anti-TNF biologic because of a nonserious adverse event, switch to another anti-TNF biologic or a non-TNF biologic (see rectangle F of Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence B and C).

    If a patient has moderate or high disease activity after failing a non-TNF biologic because of an adverse event (serious or nonserious), switch to another non-TNF biologic or an anti-TNF biologic (see rectangle F of Figure 2 in the original guideline document; level of evidence C).

  1. Use of Biologic Agents in RA Patients With Hepatitis, Malignancy, or Chronic Heart Failure (CHF), Qualifying for More Aggressive Treatment (level of evidence C for all recommendations)

    Hepatitis B or C

    The panel recommends that etanercept could potentially be used in RA patients with hepatitis C requiring RA treatment (see Table 4 in the original guideline document).

    The panel also recommends not using biologic agents in RA patients with untreated chronic hepatitis B (disease not treated due to contraindications to treatment or intolerable adverse events) and in RA patients with treated chronic hepatitis B with Child-Pugh class B and higher (see Table 4 in the original guideline document; for details of Child-Pugh classification, see Table 2 in the original guideline document). The panel did not make recommendations regarding the use of any biologic agent for treatment in RA patients with a history of hepatitis B and a positive hepatitis B core antibody.

    Malignancies

    For patients who have been treated for solid malignancies more than 5 years ago or who have been treated for nonmelanoma skin cancer more than 5 years ago, the panel recommends starting or resuming any biologic agent if those patients would otherwise qualify for this RA management strategy (see Table 4 in the original guideline document).

    The panel only recommends starting or resuming rituximab in RA patients with: 1) a previously treated solid malignancy within the last 5 years, 2) a previously treated nonmelanoma skin cancer within the last 5 years, 3) a previously treated melanoma skin cancer, or 4) a previously treated lymphoproliferative malignancy. Little is known about the effects of biologic therapy in patients with a history of a solid cancer within the past 5 years owing to the exclusion of such patients from participation in clinical trials and the lack of studies examining the risk of recurrent cancer in this subgroup of patients.

    CHF

    The panel recommends not using an anti-TNF biologic in RA patients with CHF that is New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV and who have an ejection fraction of 50% or less (see Table 4 in the original guideline document).

  1. TB Screening for Biologic Agents (level of evidence C for all recommendations except for initiation of biologic agents in patients being treated for latent TB infection [LTBI], where the level of evidence is B)

    The panel recommends screening to identify LTBI in all RA patients being considered for therapy with biologic agents, regardless of the presence of risk factors for LTBI (see diamond A of Figure 3 in the original guideline document). It recommends that clinicians assess the patient's medical history to identify risk factors for TB (specified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]) (see Table 2 in the original guideline document).

    The panel recommends the tuberculin skin test (TST) or interferon-gamma–release assays (IGRAs) as the initial test in all RA patients starting biologic agents, regardless of risk factors for LTBI (see diamond A of Figure 3 in the original guideline document). It recommends the use of the IGRA over the TST in patients who had previously received a bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccination, due to the high false-positive test rates for TST (see Figure 3 in the original guideline document).

    The panel recommends that RA patients with a positive initial or repeat TST or IGRA should have a chest radiograph and, if suggestive of active TB, a subsequent sputum examination to check for the presence of active TB (see diamonds B and C of Figure 3 in the original guideline document). RA patients with a negative screening TST or IGRA may not need further evaluation in the absence of risk factors and/or clinical suspicion for TB. Since patients with RA may have false-negative TST or IGRA results due to immunosuppression, a negative TST or IGRA should not be interpreted as excluding the possibility that a patient has LTBI. Accordingly, in immunosuppressed RA patients with risk factors for LTBI and negative initial screening tests, the panel recommends that a repeat TST or IGRA could be considered 1–3 weeks after the initial negative screening (see diamond A of Figure 3 in the original guideline document).

    If the RA patient has active or latent TB based on the test results, the panel recommends appropriate antitubercular treatment and consideration of referral to a specialist. Treatment with biologic agents can be initiated or resumed after 1 month of latent TB treatment with antitubercular medications and after completion of the treatment of active TB, as applicable (see Figure 3 in the original guideline document).

    The panel recommends annual testing in RA patients who live, travel, or work in situations where TB exposure is likely while they continue treatment with biologic agents (see diamond D of Figure 3 in the original guideline document). Patients who test positive for TST or IGRA at baseline can remain positive for these tests even after successful treatment of TB. These patients need monitoring for clinical signs and symptoms of recurrent TB, since repeating tests will not help in the diagnosis of recurrent TB.

  1. Vaccination in Patients Starting or Currently Receiving DMARDs or Biologic Agents as Part of Their RA Therapy (level of evidence C for all recommendations)

    The panel recommends that all killed (pneumococcal, influenza intramuscular, and hepatitis B), recombinant (human papillomavirus [HPV] vaccine for cervical cancer), and live attenuated (herpes zoster) vaccinations should be undertaken before starting a DMARD or a biologic agent (see Table 5 in the original guideline document).

    It also recommends that, if not previously done, vaccination with indicated pneumococcal (killed), influenza intramuscular (killed), hepatitis B (killed), and HPV vaccine (recombinant) should be undertaken in RA patients already taking a DMARD or a biologic agent (see Table 5 in the original guideline document).

    The panel recommends vaccination with herpes zoster vaccine in RA patients already taking a DMARD. All vaccines should be given based on age and risk, and physicians should refer to vaccine instructions and CDC recommendations for details about dosing and timing issues related to vaccinations.

Definitions:

Level of Evidence

  • Level of Evidence A: Data derived from multiple randomized clinical trials.
  • Level of Evidence B: Data derived from a single randomized trial, or nonrandomized studies.
  • Level of Evidence C: Only consensus opinion of experts, case studies, or standard-of-care.

Note: Level C evidence often denoted a circumstance where medical literature addressed the general topic under discussion but it did not address the specific clinical situations or scenarios reviewed by the panel.

 

 

Clinical Algorithm(s)

Clinical algorithms are provided in the original guideline document for the following:

  • 2012 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommendations update for the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis (RA), defined as a disease duration <6 months
  • 2012 ACR recommendations update for the treatment of established RA, defined as a disease duration ≥6 months or meeting the 1987 ACR classification criteria
  • 2012 ACR recommendations update for tuberculosis (TB) screening with biologic agent use

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
2012 update of the 2008 American College of Rheumatology recommendations for the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis
Display Headline
2012 update of the 2008 American College of Rheumatology recommendations for the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Vitals

OBJECTIVE:

-To simplify the treatment algorithms for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and providers

-To provide clinicians with choices for treatments of patients with active RA, both in early and established disease phases

-To provide guidance regarding treatment choices in RA patients with comorbidities such as hepatitis, congestive heart failure (CHF), and malignancy

Guidelines are copyright © 2012 American College of Rheumatology. All rights reserved. The summary is provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.


American College of Rheumatology guidelines for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 13:54
Display Headline
American College of Rheumatology guidelines for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis

Major Recommendations

The levels of evidence supporting the recommendations (A-C) are defined at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Renal Biopsy and Histology

The Task Force Panel recommended that all patients with clinical evidence of active lupus nephritis (LN), previously untreated, undergo renal biopsy (unless strongly contraindicated) so that glomerular disease can be classified by current International Society of Nephrology/Renal Pathology Society (ISN/RPS) classification (level C evidence) (see Table 1 in the original guideline document for ISN/RPS classification of LN). In addition, disease can be evaluated for activity and chronicity and for tubular and vascular changes. Finally, biopsies may identify additional or alternative causes of renal disease, such as tubular necrosis related to medications, hypovolemia, or hypotension. Biopsy is most highly recommended in patients with the characteristics indicated in the following table.

Table. Indications for Renal Biopsy in Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

  Level of Evidence
Increasing serum creatinine without compelling alternative causes (such as sepsis, hypovolemia, or medication) C
Confirmed proteinuria of ≥1.0 gm per 24 hours (either 24-hour urine specimens or spot protein/creatinine ratios are acceptable) C
Combinations of the following, assuming the findings are confirmed in at least two tests done within a short period of time and in the absence of alternative causes:
  1. Proteinuria ≥0.5 gm per 24 hours plus hematuria, defined as ≥5 RBCs per hpf
  2. Proteinuria ≥0.5 gm per 24 hours plus cellular casts
C

RBCs = red blood cells; hpf = high-power field.

The Task Force Panel recommended that treatment be based in large part on the classification of type of LN by these ISN/RPS criteria. As a result, the following recommendations are presented according to the histologic classification of nephritis. The Task Force Panel agreed that class I (minimal mesangial immune deposits on immunofluorescence with normal light microscopy) and class II (mesangial hypercellularity or matrix expansion on light microscopy with immune deposits confined to mesangium on immunofluorescence) generally do not require immunosuppressive treatment (level C evidence). In general, patients with class III (subendothelial immune deposits and proliferative changes in <50% of glomeruli) and class IV (subendothelial deposits and proliferative glomerular changes involving ≥50% of glomeruli) require aggressive therapy with glucocorticoids and immunosuppressive agents. Class V (subepithelial immune deposits and membranous thickening of glomerular capillaries) when combined with class III or IV should be treated in the same manner as class III or IV. Class V alone ("pure membranous LN") may be approached somewhat differently, as indicated below under "Recommendations for Induction of Improvement in Patients with Class V 'Pure Membranous' LN". Histologic class VI (sclerosis of ≥90% of glomeruli) generally requires preparation for renal replacement therapy rather than immunosuppression. The designations "A" and "C" indicate whether active or chronic changes are present; the higher the chronicity the less likely that the nephritis will respond to immunosuppression. However, A or C classifications were not included in the entry criteria for clinical trials in LN published to date, and therefore they are not considered in the recommendations.

Adjunctive Treatments

The Task Force Panel recommended that all systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients with nephritis be treated with a background of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ; level C evidence), unless there is a contraindication.

All LN patients with proteinuria ≥0.5 gm per 24 hours (or equivalent by protein/creatinine ratios on spot urine samples) should have blockade of the renin–angiotensin system, which drives intraglomerular pressure (level A evidence for nondiabetic chronic renal disease). Treatment with either angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) reduces proteinuria by approximately 30%, and significantly delays doubling of serum creatinine and progression to end-stage renal disease in patients with nondiabetic chronic renal disease. These classes of medications are contraindicated in pregnancy. The use of combination ACE inhibitors/ARB therapies is controversial. ACE inhibitors or ARB treatments are superior to calcium-channel blockers and diuretics alone in preserving renal function in chronic kidney disease.

The Task Force Panel recommended that careful attention be paid to control of hypertension, with a target of ≤130/80 mm Hg (level A evidence for nondiabetic chronic renal disease). The Task Force Panel also recommended that statin therapy be introduced in patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol >100 mg/dl (level C evidence). Note that a glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/minute/1.73 m2 (equivalent to a serum creatinine level >1.5 mg/dl or 133 µmoles/liter) is a risk factor for accelerated atherosclerosis. SLE itself is also an independent risk factor for accelerated atherosclerosis.

Finally, the Task Force Panel recommended that women of child-bearing potential with active or prior LN receive counseling regarding pregnancy risks conferred by the disease and its treatments (level C evidence).

Recommendations for Induction of Improvement in Patients with ISN Class III/IV Lupus Glomerulonephritis

The Task Force Panel recommended mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (2–3 gm total daily orally) or intravenous (IV) cyclophosphamide (CYC) along with glucocorticoids (level A evidence) (see Figure 2 in the original guideline document). MMF and CYC are considered equivalent based on recent high-quality studies, a meta-analysis, and expert opinion. Long-term studies with MMF are not as abundant as those with CYC; data show good results for induction therapy with MMF of 3 gm total dose daily for 6 months, followed by maintenance with lower doses of MMF for 3 years. MMF has been similar in efficacy in all races studied to date (whites, Asians, African Americans, and Latin/Hispanic Americans). The Aspreva Lupus Management Study (ALMS) trial comparing response rates of LN to MMF plus glucocorticoids showed similar improvement in whites, Asians, and other races (primarily African Americans and Hispanics). However, The Task Force Panel voted that Asians compared to non-Asians might require lower doses of MMF for similar efficacy (level C evidence). Therefore, the physician might aim for 3 gm per day total daily highest dose in non-Asians and 2 gm per day in Asians. There is evidence that African Americans and Hispanics with LN respond less well to IV CYC than do patients of white or Asian races. MMF/mycophenolic acid (MPA) may be an initial choice more likely to induce improvement in patients who are African American or Hispanic.

The exact suggested dose of MMF varied based on the clinical scenario: for those with class III/IV without cellular crescents and for those with proteinuria and a stable creatinine for whom a renal biopsy sample cannot be obtained, both 2 gm and 3 gm total daily doses were acceptable to the Task Force Panel, while a dose of 3 gm daily was favored for those with class III/IV and crescents and for those with proteinuria and a recent significant rise in creatinine.

Some evidence suggests that MPA and enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium are less likely than MMF to cause nausea and diarrhea, but this is controversial, and the exact equivalency of the preparations is not firmly established. The Core Expert Panel recommended that MMF and MPA are likely to be equivalent in inducing improvement of LN, with 1,440–2,160 mg total daily dose of MPA roughly equivalent to 2,000–3,000 mg total daily dose of MMF. Some investigators have suggested that serum levels of MPA, the active metabolite of MMF, should be measured at the trough or peak (1 hour after a dose), and treatment of SLE should be guided by these levels. However, there are not enough data at this time to make recommendations for monitoring of drug levels.

There are two regimens of IV CYC recommended by the Task Force Panel: 1) low-dose "Euro-Lupus" CYC (500 mg IV once every 2 weeks for a total of 6 doses), followed by maintenance therapy with daily oral azathioprine (AZA) or daily oral MMF (level B evidence), and 2) high-dose CYC (500–1,000 mg/m2 IV once a month for 6 doses), followed by maintenance treatment with MMF or AZA (level A evidence) (see Figure 2 in the original guideline document). If CYC is being considered for treatment, the Core Expert Panel recommended IV CYC at the low "Euro-Lupus" dose for white patients with Western European or Southern European racial/ethnic backgrounds (level B evidence). In European study patients, the low- and high-dose regimens were equivalent in efficacy, and serious infections were less frequent with the lower doses. The low- and high-dose regimens have not been compared in nonwhite racial groups. Ten years of followup comparing low- and high-dose regimens showed similar rates of LN flares, end-stage renal disease, and doubling of the serum creatinine.

Pulse IV glucocorticoids (500–1,000 mg methylprednisolone daily for 3 doses) in combination with immunosuppressive therapy is recommended by the Task Force Panel, followed by daily oral glucocorticoids (0.5–1 mg/kg/day), followed by a taper to the minimal amount necessary to control disease (level C evidence). There are insufficient data to recommend a specific steroid taper because the nephritis and extrarenal manifestations vary from patient to patient. There was no consensus reached regarding the use of monthly IV methylprednisolone with monthly IV CYC.

Although AZA has been used to treat LN, the Task Force Panel did not recommend it as one of the first choices for induction therapy.

The panel recommends that most patients be followed for 6 months after initiation of induction treatment with either CYC or MMF before making major changes in treatment other than alteration of glucocorticoid doses, unless there is clear evidence of worsening at 3 months (50% or more worsening of proteinuria or serum creatinine; level A evidence).

Fertility issues are often a concern for young SLE patients with nephritis. In a discussion, the Task Force Panel recommended that MMF was preferable to CYC for patients who express a major concern with fertility preservation, since high-dose CYC can cause permanent infertility in both women and men (level A evidence of gonadal toxicity). Six months of high-dose IV CYC was associated with approximately 10% sustained infertility in young women, and higher rates in older women. If 6 months of CYC were followed by quarterly doses, there was a higher rate of infertility. The Task Force Panel did not reach a consensus on the use of leuprolide in patients with SLE receiving CYC as a means to preserve fertility. They also noted that MMF is teratogenic (class D in US Food and Drug Administration [FDA] ranking). Therefore, the physician should be sure that a patient is not pregnant before prescribing MMF or MPA, and the medications should be stopped for at least 6 weeks before pregnancy is attempted.

Recommendations for Induction of Improvement in Patients with Class IV or IV/V Plus Cellular Crescents

The Task Force Panel recommended either CYC or MMF for induction of improvement in this type of LN (level C evidence), along with IV pulses of high-dose glucocorticoid and initiation of oral glucocorticoids at the higher-range dosage, 1 mg/kg/day orally (see Figure 2 in the original guideline document). For the purpose of these recommendations statements, the presence of any crescents on a renal biopsy sample was considered crescentic LN. Until recently, experts have favored high-dose IV CYC for treatment of LN with cellular crescents. In general, the presence of crescents indicates a poorer prognosis, even with appropriate treatment. Further recommendations for a pregnant patient with crescentic glomerulonephritis are provided in the section on "Treatment of LN in Patients Who Are Pregnant," below.

Recommendations for Induction of Improvement in Patients with Class V "Pure Membranous" LN

The Task Force Panel recommends that patients with pure class V LN and with nephrotic range proteinuria be started on prednisone (0.5 mg/kg/day) plus MMF 2–3 gm total daily dose (level A evidence) (see Figure 3 in the original guideline document).

Other therapies for membranous LN have been reported; however, the Task Force Panel did not reach consensus on a recommendation regarding those therapies.

Recommendations for Maintaining Improvement in Patients Who Respond to Induction Therapy

The Task Force Panel recommended that either AZA or MMF be used for maintenance therapy (level A evidence) (see Figure 2 in the original guideline document). The Task Force Panel did not vote on the rate of medication taper during the maintenance phase; to date, there are no adequate data to inform the physician regarding how rapidly AZA or MMF can be tapered or withdrawn.

Recommendations for Changing Therapies in Patients Who Do Not Respond Adequately to Induction Therapy

In patients who fail to respond after 6 months of treatment (based on the treating physician's clinical impression) with glucocorticoids plus MMF or CYC, the Task Force Panel recommends a switch of the immunosuppressive agent from either CYC to MMF, or from MMF to CYC, with these changes accompanied by IV pulses of glucocorticoids for 3 days (level C evidence) (see Figure 2 in the original guideline document). For CYC, either low dose or high dose can be used in white individuals, as discussed above in the section on "Recommendations for Induction of Improvement in Patients with ISN Class III/IV Lupus Glomerulonephritis," above. Evidence to support these opinions is not as strong as evidence for the efficacy of initial induction therapy. The panel also voted that in some cases rituximab can be used in patients whose nephritis fails to improve or worsens after 6 months of one induction therapy, or after the patient has failed both CYC and MMF treatments (level C evidence). The Task Force Panel did not reach consensus regarding the use of calcineurin inhibitors in this setting; however, there is evidence for their efficacy as an induction agent and in refractory disease.

There is evidence in open-label trials that LN may respond to rituximab treatment. Prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trials did not show a significant difference between rituximab and placebo (on a background of MMF and glucocorticoids) after 1 year of treatment.

Evidence to support the use of cyclosporine or tacrolimus in LN is from open trials and recent prospective clinical trials; additional prospective trials are in progress. In a recent prospective trial, tacrolimus was equivalent to high-dose IV CYC in inducing complete and partial remissions of LN over a 6-month period. In another 4-year–long prospective trial, cyclosporine was similar to AZA in preventing renal flares in patients receiving maintenance therapy.

If nephritis is worsening in patients treated for 3 months with glucocorticoids plus CYC or MMF, the Task Force Panel recommended that the clinician can choose any of the alternative treatments discussed (level C evidence). Although combinations of MMF and calcineurin inhibitors and of rituximab and MMF are being studied and might be considered for those who have failed the recommended induction therapies, data are not robust enough at this time to include them for voting scenarios.

The FDA has approved belimumab for use in seropositive patients with SLE who have active disease in spite of prior therapies.

Identification of Vascular Disease in Patients with SLE and Renal Abnormalities

Several types of vascular involvement can occur in renal tissue of SLE, including vasculitis, fibrinoid necrosis with narrowing of small arteries/arterioles ("bland" vasculopathy), thrombotic microangiopathy, and renal vein thrombosis. In general, vasculitis is treated similarly to the more common forms of LN discussed above. Bland vasculopathy is highly associated with hypertension; it is not clear which comes first, SLE or hypertension. Thrombotic microangiopathy can be associated with a thrombotic thrombocytopenia–like picture. The Task Force Panel recommended that thrombotic microangiopathy be treated primarily with plasma exchange therapy (level C evidence)

Treatment of LN in Patients Who Are Pregnant

The Task Force Panel recommended several approaches for management of LN in women who are pregnant (all level C evidence) (see Figure 4 in the original guideline document). In patients with prior LN but no current evidence of systemic or renal disease activity, no nephritis medications are necessary. Patients with mild systemic activity may be treated with HCQ; this probably reduces activity of SLE during pregnancy. If clinically active nephritis is present, or there is substantial extrarenal disease activity, the clinician may prescribe glucocorticoids at doses necessary to control disease activity, and if necessary AZA can be added. High-dose glucocorticoid therapy in patients with SLE is associated with a high risk of maternal complications such as hypertension and diabetes mellitus. MMF, CYC, and methotrexate should be avoided because they are teratogenic in humans. Although AZA is listed as pregnancy category D in Micromedex, cross-sectional studies have shown that the risk of fetal abnormalities is low. The dose of AZA should not exceed 2 mg/kg in a pregnant woman. For patients with a persistently active nephritis with documented or suspected class III or IV with crescents, consideration of delivery after 28 weeks for a viable fetus is recommended.

Monitoring Activity of LN

Recommendations for monitoring LN are shown in the following table, and result from votes of the Task Force Panel (level C evidence).

Table. Recommended Monitoring of Lupus Nephritis*

  Blood Pressure Urinalysis Protein/Creatinine Ratio Serum Creatinine C3/C4 Levels Anti-DNA
Active nephritis at onset of treatment 1 1 1 1 2 3
Previous active nephritis, none currently 3 3 3 3 3 6
Pregnant with active GN at onset of treatment 1 1 1 1 1 1
Pregnant with previous nephritis, none currently 1 1 3 3 3 3
No prior or current nephritis 3 6 6 6 6 6

*Values are the monthly intervals suggested as the minimum frequency at which the indicated laboratory tests should be measured in the systemic lupus erythematosus scenarios shown in the left-hand column. GN = glomerulonephritis.
†Opinion of authors based on a study published after the Task Force Panel had voted.

Definitions:

Level of Evidence

  • Level of Evidence A: Data derived from multiple randomized clinical trials
  • Level of Evidence B: Data derived from a single randomized trial, or nonrandomized studies
  • Level of Evidence C: Only consensus opinion of experts, case studies, or standard-of-care
 

 

Clinical Algorithm(s)

The original guideline document contains clinical algorithms for:

  • Class III/IV induction therapy for lupus nephritis (LN)
  • Treatment of class V LN without proliferative changes and with nephrotic range proteinuria (>3 gm/24 hours)
  • Treatment of class III, IV, and V LN in patients who are pregnant
References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Major Recommendations

The levels of evidence supporting the recommendations (A-C) are defined at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Renal Biopsy and Histology

The Task Force Panel recommended that all patients with clinical evidence of active lupus nephritis (LN), previously untreated, undergo renal biopsy (unless strongly contraindicated) so that glomerular disease can be classified by current International Society of Nephrology/Renal Pathology Society (ISN/RPS) classification (level C evidence) (see Table 1 in the original guideline document for ISN/RPS classification of LN). In addition, disease can be evaluated for activity and chronicity and for tubular and vascular changes. Finally, biopsies may identify additional or alternative causes of renal disease, such as tubular necrosis related to medications, hypovolemia, or hypotension. Biopsy is most highly recommended in patients with the characteristics indicated in the following table.

Table. Indications for Renal Biopsy in Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

  Level of Evidence
Increasing serum creatinine without compelling alternative causes (such as sepsis, hypovolemia, or medication) C
Confirmed proteinuria of ≥1.0 gm per 24 hours (either 24-hour urine specimens or spot protein/creatinine ratios are acceptable) C
Combinations of the following, assuming the findings are confirmed in at least two tests done within a short period of time and in the absence of alternative causes:
  1. Proteinuria ≥0.5 gm per 24 hours plus hematuria, defined as ≥5 RBCs per hpf
  2. Proteinuria ≥0.5 gm per 24 hours plus cellular casts
C

RBCs = red blood cells; hpf = high-power field.

The Task Force Panel recommended that treatment be based in large part on the classification of type of LN by these ISN/RPS criteria. As a result, the following recommendations are presented according to the histologic classification of nephritis. The Task Force Panel agreed that class I (minimal mesangial immune deposits on immunofluorescence with normal light microscopy) and class II (mesangial hypercellularity or matrix expansion on light microscopy with immune deposits confined to mesangium on immunofluorescence) generally do not require immunosuppressive treatment (level C evidence). In general, patients with class III (subendothelial immune deposits and proliferative changes in <50% of glomeruli) and class IV (subendothelial deposits and proliferative glomerular changes involving ≥50% of glomeruli) require aggressive therapy with glucocorticoids and immunosuppressive agents. Class V (subepithelial immune deposits and membranous thickening of glomerular capillaries) when combined with class III or IV should be treated in the same manner as class III or IV. Class V alone ("pure membranous LN") may be approached somewhat differently, as indicated below under "Recommendations for Induction of Improvement in Patients with Class V 'Pure Membranous' LN". Histologic class VI (sclerosis of ≥90% of glomeruli) generally requires preparation for renal replacement therapy rather than immunosuppression. The designations "A" and "C" indicate whether active or chronic changes are present; the higher the chronicity the less likely that the nephritis will respond to immunosuppression. However, A or C classifications were not included in the entry criteria for clinical trials in LN published to date, and therefore they are not considered in the recommendations.

Adjunctive Treatments

The Task Force Panel recommended that all systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients with nephritis be treated with a background of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ; level C evidence), unless there is a contraindication.

All LN patients with proteinuria ≥0.5 gm per 24 hours (or equivalent by protein/creatinine ratios on spot urine samples) should have blockade of the renin–angiotensin system, which drives intraglomerular pressure (level A evidence for nondiabetic chronic renal disease). Treatment with either angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) reduces proteinuria by approximately 30%, and significantly delays doubling of serum creatinine and progression to end-stage renal disease in patients with nondiabetic chronic renal disease. These classes of medications are contraindicated in pregnancy. The use of combination ACE inhibitors/ARB therapies is controversial. ACE inhibitors or ARB treatments are superior to calcium-channel blockers and diuretics alone in preserving renal function in chronic kidney disease.

The Task Force Panel recommended that careful attention be paid to control of hypertension, with a target of ≤130/80 mm Hg (level A evidence for nondiabetic chronic renal disease). The Task Force Panel also recommended that statin therapy be introduced in patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol >100 mg/dl (level C evidence). Note that a glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/minute/1.73 m2 (equivalent to a serum creatinine level >1.5 mg/dl or 133 µmoles/liter) is a risk factor for accelerated atherosclerosis. SLE itself is also an independent risk factor for accelerated atherosclerosis.

Finally, the Task Force Panel recommended that women of child-bearing potential with active or prior LN receive counseling regarding pregnancy risks conferred by the disease and its treatments (level C evidence).

Recommendations for Induction of Improvement in Patients with ISN Class III/IV Lupus Glomerulonephritis

The Task Force Panel recommended mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (2–3 gm total daily orally) or intravenous (IV) cyclophosphamide (CYC) along with glucocorticoids (level A evidence) (see Figure 2 in the original guideline document). MMF and CYC are considered equivalent based on recent high-quality studies, a meta-analysis, and expert opinion. Long-term studies with MMF are not as abundant as those with CYC; data show good results for induction therapy with MMF of 3 gm total dose daily for 6 months, followed by maintenance with lower doses of MMF for 3 years. MMF has been similar in efficacy in all races studied to date (whites, Asians, African Americans, and Latin/Hispanic Americans). The Aspreva Lupus Management Study (ALMS) trial comparing response rates of LN to MMF plus glucocorticoids showed similar improvement in whites, Asians, and other races (primarily African Americans and Hispanics). However, The Task Force Panel voted that Asians compared to non-Asians might require lower doses of MMF for similar efficacy (level C evidence). Therefore, the physician might aim for 3 gm per day total daily highest dose in non-Asians and 2 gm per day in Asians. There is evidence that African Americans and Hispanics with LN respond less well to IV CYC than do patients of white or Asian races. MMF/mycophenolic acid (MPA) may be an initial choice more likely to induce improvement in patients who are African American or Hispanic.

The exact suggested dose of MMF varied based on the clinical scenario: for those with class III/IV without cellular crescents and for those with proteinuria and a stable creatinine for whom a renal biopsy sample cannot be obtained, both 2 gm and 3 gm total daily doses were acceptable to the Task Force Panel, while a dose of 3 gm daily was favored for those with class III/IV and crescents and for those with proteinuria and a recent significant rise in creatinine.

Some evidence suggests that MPA and enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium are less likely than MMF to cause nausea and diarrhea, but this is controversial, and the exact equivalency of the preparations is not firmly established. The Core Expert Panel recommended that MMF and MPA are likely to be equivalent in inducing improvement of LN, with 1,440–2,160 mg total daily dose of MPA roughly equivalent to 2,000–3,000 mg total daily dose of MMF. Some investigators have suggested that serum levels of MPA, the active metabolite of MMF, should be measured at the trough or peak (1 hour after a dose), and treatment of SLE should be guided by these levels. However, there are not enough data at this time to make recommendations for monitoring of drug levels.

There are two regimens of IV CYC recommended by the Task Force Panel: 1) low-dose "Euro-Lupus" CYC (500 mg IV once every 2 weeks for a total of 6 doses), followed by maintenance therapy with daily oral azathioprine (AZA) or daily oral MMF (level B evidence), and 2) high-dose CYC (500–1,000 mg/m2 IV once a month for 6 doses), followed by maintenance treatment with MMF or AZA (level A evidence) (see Figure 2 in the original guideline document). If CYC is being considered for treatment, the Core Expert Panel recommended IV CYC at the low "Euro-Lupus" dose for white patients with Western European or Southern European racial/ethnic backgrounds (level B evidence). In European study patients, the low- and high-dose regimens were equivalent in efficacy, and serious infections were less frequent with the lower doses. The low- and high-dose regimens have not been compared in nonwhite racial groups. Ten years of followup comparing low- and high-dose regimens showed similar rates of LN flares, end-stage renal disease, and doubling of the serum creatinine.

Pulse IV glucocorticoids (500–1,000 mg methylprednisolone daily for 3 doses) in combination with immunosuppressive therapy is recommended by the Task Force Panel, followed by daily oral glucocorticoids (0.5–1 mg/kg/day), followed by a taper to the minimal amount necessary to control disease (level C evidence). There are insufficient data to recommend a specific steroid taper because the nephritis and extrarenal manifestations vary from patient to patient. There was no consensus reached regarding the use of monthly IV methylprednisolone with monthly IV CYC.

Although AZA has been used to treat LN, the Task Force Panel did not recommend it as one of the first choices for induction therapy.

The panel recommends that most patients be followed for 6 months after initiation of induction treatment with either CYC or MMF before making major changes in treatment other than alteration of glucocorticoid doses, unless there is clear evidence of worsening at 3 months (50% or more worsening of proteinuria or serum creatinine; level A evidence).

Fertility issues are often a concern for young SLE patients with nephritis. In a discussion, the Task Force Panel recommended that MMF was preferable to CYC for patients who express a major concern with fertility preservation, since high-dose CYC can cause permanent infertility in both women and men (level A evidence of gonadal toxicity). Six months of high-dose IV CYC was associated with approximately 10% sustained infertility in young women, and higher rates in older women. If 6 months of CYC were followed by quarterly doses, there was a higher rate of infertility. The Task Force Panel did not reach a consensus on the use of leuprolide in patients with SLE receiving CYC as a means to preserve fertility. They also noted that MMF is teratogenic (class D in US Food and Drug Administration [FDA] ranking). Therefore, the physician should be sure that a patient is not pregnant before prescribing MMF or MPA, and the medications should be stopped for at least 6 weeks before pregnancy is attempted.

Recommendations for Induction of Improvement in Patients with Class IV or IV/V Plus Cellular Crescents

The Task Force Panel recommended either CYC or MMF for induction of improvement in this type of LN (level C evidence), along with IV pulses of high-dose glucocorticoid and initiation of oral glucocorticoids at the higher-range dosage, 1 mg/kg/day orally (see Figure 2 in the original guideline document). For the purpose of these recommendations statements, the presence of any crescents on a renal biopsy sample was considered crescentic LN. Until recently, experts have favored high-dose IV CYC for treatment of LN with cellular crescents. In general, the presence of crescents indicates a poorer prognosis, even with appropriate treatment. Further recommendations for a pregnant patient with crescentic glomerulonephritis are provided in the section on "Treatment of LN in Patients Who Are Pregnant," below.

Recommendations for Induction of Improvement in Patients with Class V "Pure Membranous" LN

The Task Force Panel recommends that patients with pure class V LN and with nephrotic range proteinuria be started on prednisone (0.5 mg/kg/day) plus MMF 2–3 gm total daily dose (level A evidence) (see Figure 3 in the original guideline document).

Other therapies for membranous LN have been reported; however, the Task Force Panel did not reach consensus on a recommendation regarding those therapies.

Recommendations for Maintaining Improvement in Patients Who Respond to Induction Therapy

The Task Force Panel recommended that either AZA or MMF be used for maintenance therapy (level A evidence) (see Figure 2 in the original guideline document). The Task Force Panel did not vote on the rate of medication taper during the maintenance phase; to date, there are no adequate data to inform the physician regarding how rapidly AZA or MMF can be tapered or withdrawn.

Recommendations for Changing Therapies in Patients Who Do Not Respond Adequately to Induction Therapy

In patients who fail to respond after 6 months of treatment (based on the treating physician's clinical impression) with glucocorticoids plus MMF or CYC, the Task Force Panel recommends a switch of the immunosuppressive agent from either CYC to MMF, or from MMF to CYC, with these changes accompanied by IV pulses of glucocorticoids for 3 days (level C evidence) (see Figure 2 in the original guideline document). For CYC, either low dose or high dose can be used in white individuals, as discussed above in the section on "Recommendations for Induction of Improvement in Patients with ISN Class III/IV Lupus Glomerulonephritis," above. Evidence to support these opinions is not as strong as evidence for the efficacy of initial induction therapy. The panel also voted that in some cases rituximab can be used in patients whose nephritis fails to improve or worsens after 6 months of one induction therapy, or after the patient has failed both CYC and MMF treatments (level C evidence). The Task Force Panel did not reach consensus regarding the use of calcineurin inhibitors in this setting; however, there is evidence for their efficacy as an induction agent and in refractory disease.

There is evidence in open-label trials that LN may respond to rituximab treatment. Prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trials did not show a significant difference between rituximab and placebo (on a background of MMF and glucocorticoids) after 1 year of treatment.

Evidence to support the use of cyclosporine or tacrolimus in LN is from open trials and recent prospective clinical trials; additional prospective trials are in progress. In a recent prospective trial, tacrolimus was equivalent to high-dose IV CYC in inducing complete and partial remissions of LN over a 6-month period. In another 4-year–long prospective trial, cyclosporine was similar to AZA in preventing renal flares in patients receiving maintenance therapy.

If nephritis is worsening in patients treated for 3 months with glucocorticoids plus CYC or MMF, the Task Force Panel recommended that the clinician can choose any of the alternative treatments discussed (level C evidence). Although combinations of MMF and calcineurin inhibitors and of rituximab and MMF are being studied and might be considered for those who have failed the recommended induction therapies, data are not robust enough at this time to include them for voting scenarios.

The FDA has approved belimumab for use in seropositive patients with SLE who have active disease in spite of prior therapies.

Identification of Vascular Disease in Patients with SLE and Renal Abnormalities

Several types of vascular involvement can occur in renal tissue of SLE, including vasculitis, fibrinoid necrosis with narrowing of small arteries/arterioles ("bland" vasculopathy), thrombotic microangiopathy, and renal vein thrombosis. In general, vasculitis is treated similarly to the more common forms of LN discussed above. Bland vasculopathy is highly associated with hypertension; it is not clear which comes first, SLE or hypertension. Thrombotic microangiopathy can be associated with a thrombotic thrombocytopenia–like picture. The Task Force Panel recommended that thrombotic microangiopathy be treated primarily with plasma exchange therapy (level C evidence)

Treatment of LN in Patients Who Are Pregnant

The Task Force Panel recommended several approaches for management of LN in women who are pregnant (all level C evidence) (see Figure 4 in the original guideline document). In patients with prior LN but no current evidence of systemic or renal disease activity, no nephritis medications are necessary. Patients with mild systemic activity may be treated with HCQ; this probably reduces activity of SLE during pregnancy. If clinically active nephritis is present, or there is substantial extrarenal disease activity, the clinician may prescribe glucocorticoids at doses necessary to control disease activity, and if necessary AZA can be added. High-dose glucocorticoid therapy in patients with SLE is associated with a high risk of maternal complications such as hypertension and diabetes mellitus. MMF, CYC, and methotrexate should be avoided because they are teratogenic in humans. Although AZA is listed as pregnancy category D in Micromedex, cross-sectional studies have shown that the risk of fetal abnormalities is low. The dose of AZA should not exceed 2 mg/kg in a pregnant woman. For patients with a persistently active nephritis with documented or suspected class III or IV with crescents, consideration of delivery after 28 weeks for a viable fetus is recommended.

Monitoring Activity of LN

Recommendations for monitoring LN are shown in the following table, and result from votes of the Task Force Panel (level C evidence).

Table. Recommended Monitoring of Lupus Nephritis*

  Blood Pressure Urinalysis Protein/Creatinine Ratio Serum Creatinine C3/C4 Levels Anti-DNA
Active nephritis at onset of treatment 1 1 1 1 2 3
Previous active nephritis, none currently 3 3 3 3 3 6
Pregnant with active GN at onset of treatment 1 1 1 1 1 1
Pregnant with previous nephritis, none currently 1 1 3 3 3 3
No prior or current nephritis 3 6 6 6 6 6

*Values are the monthly intervals suggested as the minimum frequency at which the indicated laboratory tests should be measured in the systemic lupus erythematosus scenarios shown in the left-hand column. GN = glomerulonephritis.
†Opinion of authors based on a study published after the Task Force Panel had voted.

Definitions:

Level of Evidence

  • Level of Evidence A: Data derived from multiple randomized clinical trials
  • Level of Evidence B: Data derived from a single randomized trial, or nonrandomized studies
  • Level of Evidence C: Only consensus opinion of experts, case studies, or standard-of-care
 

 

Clinical Algorithm(s)

The original guideline document contains clinical algorithms for:

  • Class III/IV induction therapy for lupus nephritis (LN)
  • Treatment of class V LN without proliferative changes and with nephrotic range proteinuria (>3 gm/24 hours)
  • Treatment of class III, IV, and V LN in patients who are pregnant

Major Recommendations

The levels of evidence supporting the recommendations (A-C) are defined at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Renal Biopsy and Histology

The Task Force Panel recommended that all patients with clinical evidence of active lupus nephritis (LN), previously untreated, undergo renal biopsy (unless strongly contraindicated) so that glomerular disease can be classified by current International Society of Nephrology/Renal Pathology Society (ISN/RPS) classification (level C evidence) (see Table 1 in the original guideline document for ISN/RPS classification of LN). In addition, disease can be evaluated for activity and chronicity and for tubular and vascular changes. Finally, biopsies may identify additional or alternative causes of renal disease, such as tubular necrosis related to medications, hypovolemia, or hypotension. Biopsy is most highly recommended in patients with the characteristics indicated in the following table.

Table. Indications for Renal Biopsy in Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

  Level of Evidence
Increasing serum creatinine without compelling alternative causes (such as sepsis, hypovolemia, or medication) C
Confirmed proteinuria of ≥1.0 gm per 24 hours (either 24-hour urine specimens or spot protein/creatinine ratios are acceptable) C
Combinations of the following, assuming the findings are confirmed in at least two tests done within a short period of time and in the absence of alternative causes:
  1. Proteinuria ≥0.5 gm per 24 hours plus hematuria, defined as ≥5 RBCs per hpf
  2. Proteinuria ≥0.5 gm per 24 hours plus cellular casts
C

RBCs = red blood cells; hpf = high-power field.

The Task Force Panel recommended that treatment be based in large part on the classification of type of LN by these ISN/RPS criteria. As a result, the following recommendations are presented according to the histologic classification of nephritis. The Task Force Panel agreed that class I (minimal mesangial immune deposits on immunofluorescence with normal light microscopy) and class II (mesangial hypercellularity or matrix expansion on light microscopy with immune deposits confined to mesangium on immunofluorescence) generally do not require immunosuppressive treatment (level C evidence). In general, patients with class III (subendothelial immune deposits and proliferative changes in <50% of glomeruli) and class IV (subendothelial deposits and proliferative glomerular changes involving ≥50% of glomeruli) require aggressive therapy with glucocorticoids and immunosuppressive agents. Class V (subepithelial immune deposits and membranous thickening of glomerular capillaries) when combined with class III or IV should be treated in the same manner as class III or IV. Class V alone ("pure membranous LN") may be approached somewhat differently, as indicated below under "Recommendations for Induction of Improvement in Patients with Class V 'Pure Membranous' LN". Histologic class VI (sclerosis of ≥90% of glomeruli) generally requires preparation for renal replacement therapy rather than immunosuppression. The designations "A" and "C" indicate whether active or chronic changes are present; the higher the chronicity the less likely that the nephritis will respond to immunosuppression. However, A or C classifications were not included in the entry criteria for clinical trials in LN published to date, and therefore they are not considered in the recommendations.

Adjunctive Treatments

The Task Force Panel recommended that all systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients with nephritis be treated with a background of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ; level C evidence), unless there is a contraindication.

All LN patients with proteinuria ≥0.5 gm per 24 hours (or equivalent by protein/creatinine ratios on spot urine samples) should have blockade of the renin–angiotensin system, which drives intraglomerular pressure (level A evidence for nondiabetic chronic renal disease). Treatment with either angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) reduces proteinuria by approximately 30%, and significantly delays doubling of serum creatinine and progression to end-stage renal disease in patients with nondiabetic chronic renal disease. These classes of medications are contraindicated in pregnancy. The use of combination ACE inhibitors/ARB therapies is controversial. ACE inhibitors or ARB treatments are superior to calcium-channel blockers and diuretics alone in preserving renal function in chronic kidney disease.

The Task Force Panel recommended that careful attention be paid to control of hypertension, with a target of ≤130/80 mm Hg (level A evidence for nondiabetic chronic renal disease). The Task Force Panel also recommended that statin therapy be introduced in patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol >100 mg/dl (level C evidence). Note that a glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/minute/1.73 m2 (equivalent to a serum creatinine level >1.5 mg/dl or 133 µmoles/liter) is a risk factor for accelerated atherosclerosis. SLE itself is also an independent risk factor for accelerated atherosclerosis.

Finally, the Task Force Panel recommended that women of child-bearing potential with active or prior LN receive counseling regarding pregnancy risks conferred by the disease and its treatments (level C evidence).

Recommendations for Induction of Improvement in Patients with ISN Class III/IV Lupus Glomerulonephritis

The Task Force Panel recommended mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (2–3 gm total daily orally) or intravenous (IV) cyclophosphamide (CYC) along with glucocorticoids (level A evidence) (see Figure 2 in the original guideline document). MMF and CYC are considered equivalent based on recent high-quality studies, a meta-analysis, and expert opinion. Long-term studies with MMF are not as abundant as those with CYC; data show good results for induction therapy with MMF of 3 gm total dose daily for 6 months, followed by maintenance with lower doses of MMF for 3 years. MMF has been similar in efficacy in all races studied to date (whites, Asians, African Americans, and Latin/Hispanic Americans). The Aspreva Lupus Management Study (ALMS) trial comparing response rates of LN to MMF plus glucocorticoids showed similar improvement in whites, Asians, and other races (primarily African Americans and Hispanics). However, The Task Force Panel voted that Asians compared to non-Asians might require lower doses of MMF for similar efficacy (level C evidence). Therefore, the physician might aim for 3 gm per day total daily highest dose in non-Asians and 2 gm per day in Asians. There is evidence that African Americans and Hispanics with LN respond less well to IV CYC than do patients of white or Asian races. MMF/mycophenolic acid (MPA) may be an initial choice more likely to induce improvement in patients who are African American or Hispanic.

The exact suggested dose of MMF varied based on the clinical scenario: for those with class III/IV without cellular crescents and for those with proteinuria and a stable creatinine for whom a renal biopsy sample cannot be obtained, both 2 gm and 3 gm total daily doses were acceptable to the Task Force Panel, while a dose of 3 gm daily was favored for those with class III/IV and crescents and for those with proteinuria and a recent significant rise in creatinine.

Some evidence suggests that MPA and enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium are less likely than MMF to cause nausea and diarrhea, but this is controversial, and the exact equivalency of the preparations is not firmly established. The Core Expert Panel recommended that MMF and MPA are likely to be equivalent in inducing improvement of LN, with 1,440–2,160 mg total daily dose of MPA roughly equivalent to 2,000–3,000 mg total daily dose of MMF. Some investigators have suggested that serum levels of MPA, the active metabolite of MMF, should be measured at the trough or peak (1 hour after a dose), and treatment of SLE should be guided by these levels. However, there are not enough data at this time to make recommendations for monitoring of drug levels.

There are two regimens of IV CYC recommended by the Task Force Panel: 1) low-dose "Euro-Lupus" CYC (500 mg IV once every 2 weeks for a total of 6 doses), followed by maintenance therapy with daily oral azathioprine (AZA) or daily oral MMF (level B evidence), and 2) high-dose CYC (500–1,000 mg/m2 IV once a month for 6 doses), followed by maintenance treatment with MMF or AZA (level A evidence) (see Figure 2 in the original guideline document). If CYC is being considered for treatment, the Core Expert Panel recommended IV CYC at the low "Euro-Lupus" dose for white patients with Western European or Southern European racial/ethnic backgrounds (level B evidence). In European study patients, the low- and high-dose regimens were equivalent in efficacy, and serious infections were less frequent with the lower doses. The low- and high-dose regimens have not been compared in nonwhite racial groups. Ten years of followup comparing low- and high-dose regimens showed similar rates of LN flares, end-stage renal disease, and doubling of the serum creatinine.

Pulse IV glucocorticoids (500–1,000 mg methylprednisolone daily for 3 doses) in combination with immunosuppressive therapy is recommended by the Task Force Panel, followed by daily oral glucocorticoids (0.5–1 mg/kg/day), followed by a taper to the minimal amount necessary to control disease (level C evidence). There are insufficient data to recommend a specific steroid taper because the nephritis and extrarenal manifestations vary from patient to patient. There was no consensus reached regarding the use of monthly IV methylprednisolone with monthly IV CYC.

Although AZA has been used to treat LN, the Task Force Panel did not recommend it as one of the first choices for induction therapy.

The panel recommends that most patients be followed for 6 months after initiation of induction treatment with either CYC or MMF before making major changes in treatment other than alteration of glucocorticoid doses, unless there is clear evidence of worsening at 3 months (50% or more worsening of proteinuria or serum creatinine; level A evidence).

Fertility issues are often a concern for young SLE patients with nephritis. In a discussion, the Task Force Panel recommended that MMF was preferable to CYC for patients who express a major concern with fertility preservation, since high-dose CYC can cause permanent infertility in both women and men (level A evidence of gonadal toxicity). Six months of high-dose IV CYC was associated with approximately 10% sustained infertility in young women, and higher rates in older women. If 6 months of CYC were followed by quarterly doses, there was a higher rate of infertility. The Task Force Panel did not reach a consensus on the use of leuprolide in patients with SLE receiving CYC as a means to preserve fertility. They also noted that MMF is teratogenic (class D in US Food and Drug Administration [FDA] ranking). Therefore, the physician should be sure that a patient is not pregnant before prescribing MMF or MPA, and the medications should be stopped for at least 6 weeks before pregnancy is attempted.

Recommendations for Induction of Improvement in Patients with Class IV or IV/V Plus Cellular Crescents

The Task Force Panel recommended either CYC or MMF for induction of improvement in this type of LN (level C evidence), along with IV pulses of high-dose glucocorticoid and initiation of oral glucocorticoids at the higher-range dosage, 1 mg/kg/day orally (see Figure 2 in the original guideline document). For the purpose of these recommendations statements, the presence of any crescents on a renal biopsy sample was considered crescentic LN. Until recently, experts have favored high-dose IV CYC for treatment of LN with cellular crescents. In general, the presence of crescents indicates a poorer prognosis, even with appropriate treatment. Further recommendations for a pregnant patient with crescentic glomerulonephritis are provided in the section on "Treatment of LN in Patients Who Are Pregnant," below.

Recommendations for Induction of Improvement in Patients with Class V "Pure Membranous" LN

The Task Force Panel recommends that patients with pure class V LN and with nephrotic range proteinuria be started on prednisone (0.5 mg/kg/day) plus MMF 2–3 gm total daily dose (level A evidence) (see Figure 3 in the original guideline document).

Other therapies for membranous LN have been reported; however, the Task Force Panel did not reach consensus on a recommendation regarding those therapies.

Recommendations for Maintaining Improvement in Patients Who Respond to Induction Therapy

The Task Force Panel recommended that either AZA or MMF be used for maintenance therapy (level A evidence) (see Figure 2 in the original guideline document). The Task Force Panel did not vote on the rate of medication taper during the maintenance phase; to date, there are no adequate data to inform the physician regarding how rapidly AZA or MMF can be tapered or withdrawn.

Recommendations for Changing Therapies in Patients Who Do Not Respond Adequately to Induction Therapy

In patients who fail to respond after 6 months of treatment (based on the treating physician's clinical impression) with glucocorticoids plus MMF or CYC, the Task Force Panel recommends a switch of the immunosuppressive agent from either CYC to MMF, or from MMF to CYC, with these changes accompanied by IV pulses of glucocorticoids for 3 days (level C evidence) (see Figure 2 in the original guideline document). For CYC, either low dose or high dose can be used in white individuals, as discussed above in the section on "Recommendations for Induction of Improvement in Patients with ISN Class III/IV Lupus Glomerulonephritis," above. Evidence to support these opinions is not as strong as evidence for the efficacy of initial induction therapy. The panel also voted that in some cases rituximab can be used in patients whose nephritis fails to improve or worsens after 6 months of one induction therapy, or after the patient has failed both CYC and MMF treatments (level C evidence). The Task Force Panel did not reach consensus regarding the use of calcineurin inhibitors in this setting; however, there is evidence for their efficacy as an induction agent and in refractory disease.

There is evidence in open-label trials that LN may respond to rituximab treatment. Prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trials did not show a significant difference between rituximab and placebo (on a background of MMF and glucocorticoids) after 1 year of treatment.

Evidence to support the use of cyclosporine or tacrolimus in LN is from open trials and recent prospective clinical trials; additional prospective trials are in progress. In a recent prospective trial, tacrolimus was equivalent to high-dose IV CYC in inducing complete and partial remissions of LN over a 6-month period. In another 4-year–long prospective trial, cyclosporine was similar to AZA in preventing renal flares in patients receiving maintenance therapy.

If nephritis is worsening in patients treated for 3 months with glucocorticoids plus CYC or MMF, the Task Force Panel recommended that the clinician can choose any of the alternative treatments discussed (level C evidence). Although combinations of MMF and calcineurin inhibitors and of rituximab and MMF are being studied and might be considered for those who have failed the recommended induction therapies, data are not robust enough at this time to include them for voting scenarios.

The FDA has approved belimumab for use in seropositive patients with SLE who have active disease in spite of prior therapies.

Identification of Vascular Disease in Patients with SLE and Renal Abnormalities

Several types of vascular involvement can occur in renal tissue of SLE, including vasculitis, fibrinoid necrosis with narrowing of small arteries/arterioles ("bland" vasculopathy), thrombotic microangiopathy, and renal vein thrombosis. In general, vasculitis is treated similarly to the more common forms of LN discussed above. Bland vasculopathy is highly associated with hypertension; it is not clear which comes first, SLE or hypertension. Thrombotic microangiopathy can be associated with a thrombotic thrombocytopenia–like picture. The Task Force Panel recommended that thrombotic microangiopathy be treated primarily with plasma exchange therapy (level C evidence)

Treatment of LN in Patients Who Are Pregnant

The Task Force Panel recommended several approaches for management of LN in women who are pregnant (all level C evidence) (see Figure 4 in the original guideline document). In patients with prior LN but no current evidence of systemic or renal disease activity, no nephritis medications are necessary. Patients with mild systemic activity may be treated with HCQ; this probably reduces activity of SLE during pregnancy. If clinically active nephritis is present, or there is substantial extrarenal disease activity, the clinician may prescribe glucocorticoids at doses necessary to control disease activity, and if necessary AZA can be added. High-dose glucocorticoid therapy in patients with SLE is associated with a high risk of maternal complications such as hypertension and diabetes mellitus. MMF, CYC, and methotrexate should be avoided because they are teratogenic in humans. Although AZA is listed as pregnancy category D in Micromedex, cross-sectional studies have shown that the risk of fetal abnormalities is low. The dose of AZA should not exceed 2 mg/kg in a pregnant woman. For patients with a persistently active nephritis with documented or suspected class III or IV with crescents, consideration of delivery after 28 weeks for a viable fetus is recommended.

Monitoring Activity of LN

Recommendations for monitoring LN are shown in the following table, and result from votes of the Task Force Panel (level C evidence).

Table. Recommended Monitoring of Lupus Nephritis*

  Blood Pressure Urinalysis Protein/Creatinine Ratio Serum Creatinine C3/C4 Levels Anti-DNA
Active nephritis at onset of treatment 1 1 1 1 2 3
Previous active nephritis, none currently 3 3 3 3 3 6
Pregnant with active GN at onset of treatment 1 1 1 1 1 1
Pregnant with previous nephritis, none currently 1 1 3 3 3 3
No prior or current nephritis 3 6 6 6 6 6

*Values are the monthly intervals suggested as the minimum frequency at which the indicated laboratory tests should be measured in the systemic lupus erythematosus scenarios shown in the left-hand column. GN = glomerulonephritis.
†Opinion of authors based on a study published after the Task Force Panel had voted.

Definitions:

Level of Evidence

  • Level of Evidence A: Data derived from multiple randomized clinical trials
  • Level of Evidence B: Data derived from a single randomized trial, or nonrandomized studies
  • Level of Evidence C: Only consensus opinion of experts, case studies, or standard-of-care
 

 

Clinical Algorithm(s)

The original guideline document contains clinical algorithms for:

  • Class III/IV induction therapy for lupus nephritis (LN)
  • Treatment of class V LN without proliferative changes and with nephrotic range proteinuria (>3 gm/24 hours)
  • Treatment of class III, IV, and V LN in patients who are pregnant
References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
American College of Rheumatology guidelines for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis
Display Headline
American College of Rheumatology guidelines for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Vitals

OBJECTIVE: To provide a new set of management recommendations for lupus nephritis (LN) for adults with lupus nephritis (LN), particularly to those receiving care in the United States.

Guidelines are copyright © 2012 American College of Rheumatology. All rights reserved. The summary is provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.


More patients with multidrug-resistant TB respond quickly to bedaquiline

Higher mortality an important concern
Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 13:53
Display Headline
More patients with multidrug-resistant TB respond quickly to bedaquiline

Adding bedaquiline to a five-drug background regimen for multidrug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis significantly accelerated the time at which sputum cultures showed clearance of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in a phase IIb clinical trial, which was published online Aug. 21 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The addition of 6 months of oral bedaquiline – a diarylquinoline that inhibits mycobacterial ATP synthase and depletes cellular energy stores – also significantly increased the number of patients who achieved such culture conversion (a surrogate for clinical cure), compared with adding placebo, in this industry-sponsored study. Bedaquiline "is the first antituberculosis drug with a new mechanism of action to be approved for use in multidrug-resistant TB in 40 years," said Dr. Andreas H. Diacon of the National Research Foundation Centre of Excellence for Biomedical Tuberculosis Research at Stellenbosch University in Cape Town, South Africa, and his associates.

©CDC/ Elizabeth
Adding bedaquiline significantly accelerated the time at which cultures showed clearance of Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

Bedaquiline was approved in 2012 under the Food and Drug Administration’s accelerated-approval regulations for drugs that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing therapies for serious or life-threatening conditions. The drug is approved only for patients for whom an effective treatment regimen cannot be constructed without it, a population in whom the benefits outweigh the risks.

In the trial, 160 adults with multidrug-resistant pulmonary TB were randomly assigned to receive either oral bedaquiline (79 patients) or matching placebo tablets (81 patients) for 24 weeks at medical centers in Brazil, India, Latvia, Peru, the Philippines, Russia, South Africa, and Thailand, in addition to the five-drug background regimen of antituberculosis drugs preferred at each location. They continued the background therapy for a further 96 weeks and had a final follow-up exam at the conclusion of that treatment. Sixty participants (38%) left the study prematurely, usually because of withdrawal of consent, adverse effects, nonadherence, loss to follow-up, and pregnancy. The number of and reasons for these discontinuations were similar between the two study groups.

The primary endpoint of the study was the median time to sputum conversion. This was significantly faster in the intervention group (83 days) than in the control group (125 days) in both the modified intention-to-treat analysis and the full intention-to-treat analysis. Moreover, more patients in the intervention group (79%) than in the placebo group (58%) showed culture conversion at 24 weeks, as well as at 120 weeks (62% vs 44%). And according to the World Health Organization definition of "cure," nearly twice as many patients in the bedaquiline group (58%) were cured as in the placebo group (32%) at 120 weeks, Dr. Diacon and his associates said (N. Engl. J. Med. 2014;371:723-32 [doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1313865]).

Fewer patients taking bedaquiline (2) than taking placebo (16) developed new resistance to at least one antituberculosis agent during the study. Rates, types, and severity of adverse events were comparable between the two study groups. However, mortality was significantly higher with bedaquiline (10 patients, 13% mortality) than with placebo (2 patients, 2% mortality), for reasons that are not yet understood but do not appear to be related to the study drug.

"A planned phase III study will enroll a larger number of patients, including HIV-positive patients receiving antiretroviral therapy," the investigators noted.

This study was funded by Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Diacon reported no financial conflicts of interest. His associates reported ties to Janssen; to its parent company, Johnson & Johnson; and to Quintiles.

References

Body

The Food and Drug Administration approved the limited use of bedaquiline despite the unexpected finding of significantly increased mortality in the intervention group (13%) than in the control group (2%), because the length of time between the last receipt of bedaquiline and death – 329 days – makes it difficult to discern a mechanism by which the drug could be directly related to the deaths, even if bedaquiline’s long half-life is taken into consideration.

This imbalance in mortality is an important concern. However, 1 of the 10 deaths that occurred in patients who received bedaquiline was because of a motor vehicle accident, 5 were from disease progression (as were both deaths in the placebo group), and the remaining 4 had no apparent commonality. A confirmatory trial, a condition of the accelerated approval of the drug, should shed more light on this discrepancy in mortality.

Dr. Edward Cox and Dr. Katherine Laessig are in the Office of Antimicrobial Products and the Office of New Drugs, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, at the FDA. They made their remarks in a perspective piece accompanying Dr. Diacon’s report (N. Engl. J. Med. 2014;371:689-91 [doi:10.1056/NEJMp1314385]). They reported no financial conflicts of interest.

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Legacy Keywords
bedaquiline, background regimen, pulmonary tuberculosis, Mycobacterium, tuberculosis,
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Body

The Food and Drug Administration approved the limited use of bedaquiline despite the unexpected finding of significantly increased mortality in the intervention group (13%) than in the control group (2%), because the length of time between the last receipt of bedaquiline and death – 329 days – makes it difficult to discern a mechanism by which the drug could be directly related to the deaths, even if bedaquiline’s long half-life is taken into consideration.

This imbalance in mortality is an important concern. However, 1 of the 10 deaths that occurred in patients who received bedaquiline was because of a motor vehicle accident, 5 were from disease progression (as were both deaths in the placebo group), and the remaining 4 had no apparent commonality. A confirmatory trial, a condition of the accelerated approval of the drug, should shed more light on this discrepancy in mortality.

Dr. Edward Cox and Dr. Katherine Laessig are in the Office of Antimicrobial Products and the Office of New Drugs, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, at the FDA. They made their remarks in a perspective piece accompanying Dr. Diacon’s report (N. Engl. J. Med. 2014;371:689-91 [doi:10.1056/NEJMp1314385]). They reported no financial conflicts of interest.

Body

The Food and Drug Administration approved the limited use of bedaquiline despite the unexpected finding of significantly increased mortality in the intervention group (13%) than in the control group (2%), because the length of time between the last receipt of bedaquiline and death – 329 days – makes it difficult to discern a mechanism by which the drug could be directly related to the deaths, even if bedaquiline’s long half-life is taken into consideration.

This imbalance in mortality is an important concern. However, 1 of the 10 deaths that occurred in patients who received bedaquiline was because of a motor vehicle accident, 5 were from disease progression (as were both deaths in the placebo group), and the remaining 4 had no apparent commonality. A confirmatory trial, a condition of the accelerated approval of the drug, should shed more light on this discrepancy in mortality.

Dr. Edward Cox and Dr. Katherine Laessig are in the Office of Antimicrobial Products and the Office of New Drugs, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, at the FDA. They made their remarks in a perspective piece accompanying Dr. Diacon’s report (N. Engl. J. Med. 2014;371:689-91 [doi:10.1056/NEJMp1314385]). They reported no financial conflicts of interest.

Title
Higher mortality an important concern
Higher mortality an important concern

Adding bedaquiline to a five-drug background regimen for multidrug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis significantly accelerated the time at which sputum cultures showed clearance of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in a phase IIb clinical trial, which was published online Aug. 21 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The addition of 6 months of oral bedaquiline – a diarylquinoline that inhibits mycobacterial ATP synthase and depletes cellular energy stores – also significantly increased the number of patients who achieved such culture conversion (a surrogate for clinical cure), compared with adding placebo, in this industry-sponsored study. Bedaquiline "is the first antituberculosis drug with a new mechanism of action to be approved for use in multidrug-resistant TB in 40 years," said Dr. Andreas H. Diacon of the National Research Foundation Centre of Excellence for Biomedical Tuberculosis Research at Stellenbosch University in Cape Town, South Africa, and his associates.

©CDC/ Elizabeth
Adding bedaquiline significantly accelerated the time at which cultures showed clearance of Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

Bedaquiline was approved in 2012 under the Food and Drug Administration’s accelerated-approval regulations for drugs that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing therapies for serious or life-threatening conditions. The drug is approved only for patients for whom an effective treatment regimen cannot be constructed without it, a population in whom the benefits outweigh the risks.

In the trial, 160 adults with multidrug-resistant pulmonary TB were randomly assigned to receive either oral bedaquiline (79 patients) or matching placebo tablets (81 patients) for 24 weeks at medical centers in Brazil, India, Latvia, Peru, the Philippines, Russia, South Africa, and Thailand, in addition to the five-drug background regimen of antituberculosis drugs preferred at each location. They continued the background therapy for a further 96 weeks and had a final follow-up exam at the conclusion of that treatment. Sixty participants (38%) left the study prematurely, usually because of withdrawal of consent, adverse effects, nonadherence, loss to follow-up, and pregnancy. The number of and reasons for these discontinuations were similar between the two study groups.

The primary endpoint of the study was the median time to sputum conversion. This was significantly faster in the intervention group (83 days) than in the control group (125 days) in both the modified intention-to-treat analysis and the full intention-to-treat analysis. Moreover, more patients in the intervention group (79%) than in the placebo group (58%) showed culture conversion at 24 weeks, as well as at 120 weeks (62% vs 44%). And according to the World Health Organization definition of "cure," nearly twice as many patients in the bedaquiline group (58%) were cured as in the placebo group (32%) at 120 weeks, Dr. Diacon and his associates said (N. Engl. J. Med. 2014;371:723-32 [doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1313865]).

Fewer patients taking bedaquiline (2) than taking placebo (16) developed new resistance to at least one antituberculosis agent during the study. Rates, types, and severity of adverse events were comparable between the two study groups. However, mortality was significantly higher with bedaquiline (10 patients, 13% mortality) than with placebo (2 patients, 2% mortality), for reasons that are not yet understood but do not appear to be related to the study drug.

"A planned phase III study will enroll a larger number of patients, including HIV-positive patients receiving antiretroviral therapy," the investigators noted.

This study was funded by Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Diacon reported no financial conflicts of interest. His associates reported ties to Janssen; to its parent company, Johnson & Johnson; and to Quintiles.

Adding bedaquiline to a five-drug background regimen for multidrug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis significantly accelerated the time at which sputum cultures showed clearance of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in a phase IIb clinical trial, which was published online Aug. 21 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The addition of 6 months of oral bedaquiline – a diarylquinoline that inhibits mycobacterial ATP synthase and depletes cellular energy stores – also significantly increased the number of patients who achieved such culture conversion (a surrogate for clinical cure), compared with adding placebo, in this industry-sponsored study. Bedaquiline "is the first antituberculosis drug with a new mechanism of action to be approved for use in multidrug-resistant TB in 40 years," said Dr. Andreas H. Diacon of the National Research Foundation Centre of Excellence for Biomedical Tuberculosis Research at Stellenbosch University in Cape Town, South Africa, and his associates.

©CDC/ Elizabeth
Adding bedaquiline significantly accelerated the time at which cultures showed clearance of Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

Bedaquiline was approved in 2012 under the Food and Drug Administration’s accelerated-approval regulations for drugs that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing therapies for serious or life-threatening conditions. The drug is approved only for patients for whom an effective treatment regimen cannot be constructed without it, a population in whom the benefits outweigh the risks.

In the trial, 160 adults with multidrug-resistant pulmonary TB were randomly assigned to receive either oral bedaquiline (79 patients) or matching placebo tablets (81 patients) for 24 weeks at medical centers in Brazil, India, Latvia, Peru, the Philippines, Russia, South Africa, and Thailand, in addition to the five-drug background regimen of antituberculosis drugs preferred at each location. They continued the background therapy for a further 96 weeks and had a final follow-up exam at the conclusion of that treatment. Sixty participants (38%) left the study prematurely, usually because of withdrawal of consent, adverse effects, nonadherence, loss to follow-up, and pregnancy. The number of and reasons for these discontinuations were similar between the two study groups.

The primary endpoint of the study was the median time to sputum conversion. This was significantly faster in the intervention group (83 days) than in the control group (125 days) in both the modified intention-to-treat analysis and the full intention-to-treat analysis. Moreover, more patients in the intervention group (79%) than in the placebo group (58%) showed culture conversion at 24 weeks, as well as at 120 weeks (62% vs 44%). And according to the World Health Organization definition of "cure," nearly twice as many patients in the bedaquiline group (58%) were cured as in the placebo group (32%) at 120 weeks, Dr. Diacon and his associates said (N. Engl. J. Med. 2014;371:723-32 [doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1313865]).

Fewer patients taking bedaquiline (2) than taking placebo (16) developed new resistance to at least one antituberculosis agent during the study. Rates, types, and severity of adverse events were comparable between the two study groups. However, mortality was significantly higher with bedaquiline (10 patients, 13% mortality) than with placebo (2 patients, 2% mortality), for reasons that are not yet understood but do not appear to be related to the study drug.

"A planned phase III study will enroll a larger number of patients, including HIV-positive patients receiving antiretroviral therapy," the investigators noted.

This study was funded by Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Diacon reported no financial conflicts of interest. His associates reported ties to Janssen; to its parent company, Johnson & Johnson; and to Quintiles.

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
More patients with multidrug-resistant TB respond quickly to bedaquiline
Display Headline
More patients with multidrug-resistant TB respond quickly to bedaquiline
Legacy Keywords
bedaquiline, background regimen, pulmonary tuberculosis, Mycobacterium, tuberculosis,
Legacy Keywords
bedaquiline, background regimen, pulmonary tuberculosis, Mycobacterium, tuberculosis,
Sections
Article Source

FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Vitals

Key clinical point: Bedaquiline may offer an alternative treatment for multidrug-resistant TB.

Major finding: The primary endpoint of the study – the median time to sputum conversion – was significantly faster in the intervention group (83 days) than in the control group (125 days), and more patients in the intervention group (79%) than in the placebo group (58%) showed culture conversion at 24 weeks, as well as at 120 weeks (62% vs 44%).

Data source: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIb clinical trial involving 160 adults with multidrug-resistant pulmonary TB treated for 24 weeks in eight countries.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Diacon reported no financial conflicts of interest. His associates reported ties to Janssen; to its parent company, Johnson & Johnson; and to Quintiles.

Evidence-based guideline update: vagus nerve stimulation for the treatment of epilepsy: Report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 13:53
Display Headline
Evidence-based guideline update: vagus nerve stimulation for the treatment of epilepsy: Report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology

Major Recommendations

Definitions of the levels of the recommendations (A, B, C, U) and classification of the evidence (Class I-IV) are provided at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

In Children with Epilepsy, Is Using Adjunctive Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) Therapy for Seizure Frequency Reduction Better Than Not Using Adjunctive VNS therapy for Seizure Frequency Reduction?

Conclusion

Based on data from 14 Class III studies, VNS is possibly effective in achieving >50% seizure frequency reduction (responder rate). In the pooled analysis of 481 children, the responder rate was 55% (95% confidence interval [CI] 51%–59%), but there was significant heterogeneity in the data. Two of the 16 studies were not included in the analysis because either they did not provide information about responder rate or they included a significant number (>20%) of adults in their population. The pooled seizure freedom rate was 7% (95% CI 5%–10%).

Recommendation

VNS may be considered as adjunctive treatment for children with partial or generalized epilepsy (Level C).

Clinical Context

VNS may be considered a possibly effective option after a child with medication-resistant epilepsy has been declared a poor surgical candidate or has had unsuccessful surgery.

In Patients with Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome (LGS), Is Using Adjunctive VNS Therapy for Seizure Frequency Reduction Better Than Not Using Adjunctive VNS Therapy for Seizure Frequency Reduction?

Conclusion

Based on data from 4 Class III studies, VNS is possibly effective in achieving >50% seizure frequency reduction in patients with LGS. The pooled analysis of 113 patients with LGS (including data from articles with multiple seizure types where LGS data were parsed out) yielded a 55% (95% CI 46%–64%) responder rate.

Recommendation

VNS may be considered in patients with LGS (Level C).

Clinical Context

The responder rate for patients with LGS does not appear to differ from that of the general population of patients with medication-resistant epilepsy.

In Patients with Epilepsy, Is Using VNS Associated with Mood Improvement?

Conclusion

Based on data from 2 Class III studies, VNS is possibly effective for mood improvement in adults with epilepsy.

Recommendation

In adult patients receiving VNS for epilepsy, improvement in mood may be an additional benefit (Level C).

Clinical Context

Depression is a common comorbidity for people with epilepsy. VNS may provide an additional benefit by improving mood in some patients; however, the potential for mood improvement should be considered a secondary rather than a primary reason for VNS implantation. The evidence does not clearly support an independent effect on mood in this complex population.

In Patients with Epilepsy, Is VNS Use Associated with Reduced Seizure Frequency Over Time?

Conclusion

Based on data from 2 Class III studies, VNS is possibly associated with an increase in ≥50% seizure frequency reduction rates of 7% from 1 to 5 years postimplantation.

Recommendation

VNS may be considered progressively effective in patients over multiple years of exposure (Level C).

Clinical Context

The loss of medication efficacy over time is a challenging aspect of epilepsy management. The evidence of maintained efficacy in the long term and the trend toward improvement over time make VNS an option.

In Patients Undergoing VNS Therapy, Does Rapid Stimulation (Usual VNS Settings Are 7 Seconds "On" and 30 Seconds "Off") Improve Seizure Frequency More Often Than Standard Stimulation Settings (30 Seconds "On" and 300 Seconds "Off")?

Conclusion

These 3 Class III studies were underpowered to detect a difference in efficacy between rapid stimulation (7 seconds "on," 30 seconds "off") used either after standard stimulation (30 seconds "on," 300 seconds "off") was unsuccessful or as an initial treatment setting.

Recommendation

Optimal VNS settings are still unknown, and the evidence is insufficient to support a recommendation for the use of standard stimulation vs. rapid stimulation to reduce seizure occurrence (Level U).

Clinical Context

Rapid cycling increases the duty cycle and hastens the need for battery replacement; therefore, when used, the efficacy of rapid cycling should be carefully assessed.

In Patients Undergoing VNS Therapy, Does Using Additional Magnet-Activated Stimulation Trains for Auras or at Seizure Onset Interrupt Seizures Relative to Not Using Additional Magnet-Induced Stimulation Trains for Auras or at Seizure Onset?

Conclusion

Based on data from 2 Class III studies, seizure abortion with magnet-activated stimulation is possibly associated with overall response to VNS therapy. Based on 3 Class III studies, magnet-activated stimulation may be expected to abort seizures one-fourth to two-thirds of the time when used during seizure auras (one Class III study omitted because it was not generalizable).

Recommendation

Patients may be counseled that VNS magnet activation may be associated with seizure abortion when used at the time of seizure auras (Level C) and that seizure abortion with magnet use may be associated with overall response to VNS treatment (Level C).

In Patients Undergoing VNS Therapy, Have New Safety Concerns Emerged Since the Last Assessment?

Clinical Context

Current physician attention to intraoperative rhythm disturbances from VNS use need not be changed. The paroxysmal nature of epilepsy poses a challenge for identifying a cardiac rhythm disturbance as device-related rather than as an additional seizure manifestation. Video electroencephalogram (EEG) and electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring of new-onset events that might be cardiac-related would be warranted to exclude this possibility in what is likely to be a small number of patients. Reduced sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) rates over time is an important finding associated with VNS therapy; in a cohort of 1,819 individuals followed 3,176.3 person-years from VNS implantation, the SUDEP rate was 5.5 per 1,000 over the first 2 years but only 1.7 per 1,000 thereafter. The clinical importance of the effect of VNS on sleep apnea and treatment is unclear, but caution regarding VNS use in this setting is suggested.

In Children Undergoing VNS Therapy, Do Adverse Events (AEs) Differ from Those in Adults?

Clinical Context

Children may have greater risk for wound infection than adults due to behaviors more common in children. Extra vigilance in monitoring for occurrence of site infection in children should be undertaken.

Definitions:

Classification of Evidence for Therapeutic Intervention

Class I: A randomized, controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest with masked or objective outcome assessment, in a representative population. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

The following are also required:

  1. Concealed allocation
  2. Primary outcome(s) clearly defined
  3. Exclusion/inclusion criteria clearly defined
  4. Adequate accounting for dropouts (with at least 80% of enrolled subjects completing the study) and crossovers with numbers sufficiently low to have minimal potential for bias.
  5. For noninferiority or equivalence trials claiming to prove efficacy for one or both drugs, the following are also required*
    1. The authors explicitly state the clinically meaningful difference to be excluded by defining the threshold for equivalence or noninferiority.
    2. The standard treatment used in the study is substantially similar to that used in previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment (e.g., for a drug, the mode of administration, dose and dosage adjustments are similar to those previously shown to be effective).
    3. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for patient selection and the outcomes of patients on the standard treatment are comparable to those of previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment.
    4. The interpretation of the results of the study is based upon a per protocol analysis that takes into account dropouts or crossovers.

Class II: A randomized controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest in a representative population with masked or objective outcome assessment that lacks one criteria a–e above or a prospective matched cohort study with masked or objective outcome assessment in a representative population that meets b–e above. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

Class III: All other controlled trials (including well-defined natural history controls or patients serving as own controls) in a representative population, where outcome is independently assessed, or independently derived by objective outcome measurement.**

Class IV: Studies not meeting Class I, II, or III criteria including consensus or expert opinion.

*Note that numbers 1-3 in Class Ie are required for Class II in equivalence trials. If any one of the three is missing, the class is automatically downgraded to Class III.

**Objective outcome measurement: an outcome measure that is unlikely to be affected by an observer's (patient, treating physician, investigator) expectation or bias (e.g., blood tests, administrative outcome data).

Classification of Recommendations

Level A = Established as effective, ineffective or harmful (or established as useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level A rating requires at least two consistent Class I studies.*)

Level B = Probably effective, ineffective or harmful (or probably useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level B rating requires at least one Class I study or two consistent Class II studies.)

Level C = Possibly effective, ineffective or harmful (or possibly useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level C rating requires at least one Class II study or two consistent Class III studies.)

Level U = Data inadequate or conflicting; given current knowledge, treatment (test, predictor) is unproven.

*In exceptional cases, one convincing Class I study may suffice for an "A" recommendation if 1) all criteria are met, 2) the magnitude of effect is large (relative rate improved outcome >5 and the lower limit of the confidence interval is >2).

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Major Recommendations

Definitions of the levels of the recommendations (A, B, C, U) and classification of the evidence (Class I-IV) are provided at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

In Children with Epilepsy, Is Using Adjunctive Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) Therapy for Seizure Frequency Reduction Better Than Not Using Adjunctive VNS therapy for Seizure Frequency Reduction?

Conclusion

Based on data from 14 Class III studies, VNS is possibly effective in achieving >50% seizure frequency reduction (responder rate). In the pooled analysis of 481 children, the responder rate was 55% (95% confidence interval [CI] 51%–59%), but there was significant heterogeneity in the data. Two of the 16 studies were not included in the analysis because either they did not provide information about responder rate or they included a significant number (>20%) of adults in their population. The pooled seizure freedom rate was 7% (95% CI 5%–10%).

Recommendation

VNS may be considered as adjunctive treatment for children with partial or generalized epilepsy (Level C).

Clinical Context

VNS may be considered a possibly effective option after a child with medication-resistant epilepsy has been declared a poor surgical candidate or has had unsuccessful surgery.

In Patients with Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome (LGS), Is Using Adjunctive VNS Therapy for Seizure Frequency Reduction Better Than Not Using Adjunctive VNS Therapy for Seizure Frequency Reduction?

Conclusion

Based on data from 4 Class III studies, VNS is possibly effective in achieving >50% seizure frequency reduction in patients with LGS. The pooled analysis of 113 patients with LGS (including data from articles with multiple seizure types where LGS data were parsed out) yielded a 55% (95% CI 46%–64%) responder rate.

Recommendation

VNS may be considered in patients with LGS (Level C).

Clinical Context

The responder rate for patients with LGS does not appear to differ from that of the general population of patients with medication-resistant epilepsy.

In Patients with Epilepsy, Is Using VNS Associated with Mood Improvement?

Conclusion

Based on data from 2 Class III studies, VNS is possibly effective for mood improvement in adults with epilepsy.

Recommendation

In adult patients receiving VNS for epilepsy, improvement in mood may be an additional benefit (Level C).

Clinical Context

Depression is a common comorbidity for people with epilepsy. VNS may provide an additional benefit by improving mood in some patients; however, the potential for mood improvement should be considered a secondary rather than a primary reason for VNS implantation. The evidence does not clearly support an independent effect on mood in this complex population.

In Patients with Epilepsy, Is VNS Use Associated with Reduced Seizure Frequency Over Time?

Conclusion

Based on data from 2 Class III studies, VNS is possibly associated with an increase in ≥50% seizure frequency reduction rates of 7% from 1 to 5 years postimplantation.

Recommendation

VNS may be considered progressively effective in patients over multiple years of exposure (Level C).

Clinical Context

The loss of medication efficacy over time is a challenging aspect of epilepsy management. The evidence of maintained efficacy in the long term and the trend toward improvement over time make VNS an option.

In Patients Undergoing VNS Therapy, Does Rapid Stimulation (Usual VNS Settings Are 7 Seconds "On" and 30 Seconds "Off") Improve Seizure Frequency More Often Than Standard Stimulation Settings (30 Seconds "On" and 300 Seconds "Off")?

Conclusion

These 3 Class III studies were underpowered to detect a difference in efficacy between rapid stimulation (7 seconds "on," 30 seconds "off") used either after standard stimulation (30 seconds "on," 300 seconds "off") was unsuccessful or as an initial treatment setting.

Recommendation

Optimal VNS settings are still unknown, and the evidence is insufficient to support a recommendation for the use of standard stimulation vs. rapid stimulation to reduce seizure occurrence (Level U).

Clinical Context

Rapid cycling increases the duty cycle and hastens the need for battery replacement; therefore, when used, the efficacy of rapid cycling should be carefully assessed.

In Patients Undergoing VNS Therapy, Does Using Additional Magnet-Activated Stimulation Trains for Auras or at Seizure Onset Interrupt Seizures Relative to Not Using Additional Magnet-Induced Stimulation Trains for Auras or at Seizure Onset?

Conclusion

Based on data from 2 Class III studies, seizure abortion with magnet-activated stimulation is possibly associated with overall response to VNS therapy. Based on 3 Class III studies, magnet-activated stimulation may be expected to abort seizures one-fourth to two-thirds of the time when used during seizure auras (one Class III study omitted because it was not generalizable).

Recommendation

Patients may be counseled that VNS magnet activation may be associated with seizure abortion when used at the time of seizure auras (Level C) and that seizure abortion with magnet use may be associated with overall response to VNS treatment (Level C).

In Patients Undergoing VNS Therapy, Have New Safety Concerns Emerged Since the Last Assessment?

Clinical Context

Current physician attention to intraoperative rhythm disturbances from VNS use need not be changed. The paroxysmal nature of epilepsy poses a challenge for identifying a cardiac rhythm disturbance as device-related rather than as an additional seizure manifestation. Video electroencephalogram (EEG) and electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring of new-onset events that might be cardiac-related would be warranted to exclude this possibility in what is likely to be a small number of patients. Reduced sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) rates over time is an important finding associated with VNS therapy; in a cohort of 1,819 individuals followed 3,176.3 person-years from VNS implantation, the SUDEP rate was 5.5 per 1,000 over the first 2 years but only 1.7 per 1,000 thereafter. The clinical importance of the effect of VNS on sleep apnea and treatment is unclear, but caution regarding VNS use in this setting is suggested.

In Children Undergoing VNS Therapy, Do Adverse Events (AEs) Differ from Those in Adults?

Clinical Context

Children may have greater risk for wound infection than adults due to behaviors more common in children. Extra vigilance in monitoring for occurrence of site infection in children should be undertaken.

Definitions:

Classification of Evidence for Therapeutic Intervention

Class I: A randomized, controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest with masked or objective outcome assessment, in a representative population. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

The following are also required:

  1. Concealed allocation
  2. Primary outcome(s) clearly defined
  3. Exclusion/inclusion criteria clearly defined
  4. Adequate accounting for dropouts (with at least 80% of enrolled subjects completing the study) and crossovers with numbers sufficiently low to have minimal potential for bias.
  5. For noninferiority or equivalence trials claiming to prove efficacy for one or both drugs, the following are also required*
    1. The authors explicitly state the clinically meaningful difference to be excluded by defining the threshold for equivalence or noninferiority.
    2. The standard treatment used in the study is substantially similar to that used in previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment (e.g., for a drug, the mode of administration, dose and dosage adjustments are similar to those previously shown to be effective).
    3. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for patient selection and the outcomes of patients on the standard treatment are comparable to those of previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment.
    4. The interpretation of the results of the study is based upon a per protocol analysis that takes into account dropouts or crossovers.

Class II: A randomized controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest in a representative population with masked or objective outcome assessment that lacks one criteria a–e above or a prospective matched cohort study with masked or objective outcome assessment in a representative population that meets b–e above. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

Class III: All other controlled trials (including well-defined natural history controls or patients serving as own controls) in a representative population, where outcome is independently assessed, or independently derived by objective outcome measurement.**

Class IV: Studies not meeting Class I, II, or III criteria including consensus or expert opinion.

*Note that numbers 1-3 in Class Ie are required for Class II in equivalence trials. If any one of the three is missing, the class is automatically downgraded to Class III.

**Objective outcome measurement: an outcome measure that is unlikely to be affected by an observer's (patient, treating physician, investigator) expectation or bias (e.g., blood tests, administrative outcome data).

Classification of Recommendations

Level A = Established as effective, ineffective or harmful (or established as useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level A rating requires at least two consistent Class I studies.*)

Level B = Probably effective, ineffective or harmful (or probably useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level B rating requires at least one Class I study or two consistent Class II studies.)

Level C = Possibly effective, ineffective or harmful (or possibly useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level C rating requires at least one Class II study or two consistent Class III studies.)

Level U = Data inadequate or conflicting; given current knowledge, treatment (test, predictor) is unproven.

*In exceptional cases, one convincing Class I study may suffice for an "A" recommendation if 1) all criteria are met, 2) the magnitude of effect is large (relative rate improved outcome >5 and the lower limit of the confidence interval is >2).

Major Recommendations

Definitions of the levels of the recommendations (A, B, C, U) and classification of the evidence (Class I-IV) are provided at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

In Children with Epilepsy, Is Using Adjunctive Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) Therapy for Seizure Frequency Reduction Better Than Not Using Adjunctive VNS therapy for Seizure Frequency Reduction?

Conclusion

Based on data from 14 Class III studies, VNS is possibly effective in achieving >50% seizure frequency reduction (responder rate). In the pooled analysis of 481 children, the responder rate was 55% (95% confidence interval [CI] 51%–59%), but there was significant heterogeneity in the data. Two of the 16 studies were not included in the analysis because either they did not provide information about responder rate or they included a significant number (>20%) of adults in their population. The pooled seizure freedom rate was 7% (95% CI 5%–10%).

Recommendation

VNS may be considered as adjunctive treatment for children with partial or generalized epilepsy (Level C).

Clinical Context

VNS may be considered a possibly effective option after a child with medication-resistant epilepsy has been declared a poor surgical candidate or has had unsuccessful surgery.

In Patients with Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome (LGS), Is Using Adjunctive VNS Therapy for Seizure Frequency Reduction Better Than Not Using Adjunctive VNS Therapy for Seizure Frequency Reduction?

Conclusion

Based on data from 4 Class III studies, VNS is possibly effective in achieving >50% seizure frequency reduction in patients with LGS. The pooled analysis of 113 patients with LGS (including data from articles with multiple seizure types where LGS data were parsed out) yielded a 55% (95% CI 46%–64%) responder rate.

Recommendation

VNS may be considered in patients with LGS (Level C).

Clinical Context

The responder rate for patients with LGS does not appear to differ from that of the general population of patients with medication-resistant epilepsy.

In Patients with Epilepsy, Is Using VNS Associated with Mood Improvement?

Conclusion

Based on data from 2 Class III studies, VNS is possibly effective for mood improvement in adults with epilepsy.

Recommendation

In adult patients receiving VNS for epilepsy, improvement in mood may be an additional benefit (Level C).

Clinical Context

Depression is a common comorbidity for people with epilepsy. VNS may provide an additional benefit by improving mood in some patients; however, the potential for mood improvement should be considered a secondary rather than a primary reason for VNS implantation. The evidence does not clearly support an independent effect on mood in this complex population.

In Patients with Epilepsy, Is VNS Use Associated with Reduced Seizure Frequency Over Time?

Conclusion

Based on data from 2 Class III studies, VNS is possibly associated with an increase in ≥50% seizure frequency reduction rates of 7% from 1 to 5 years postimplantation.

Recommendation

VNS may be considered progressively effective in patients over multiple years of exposure (Level C).

Clinical Context

The loss of medication efficacy over time is a challenging aspect of epilepsy management. The evidence of maintained efficacy in the long term and the trend toward improvement over time make VNS an option.

In Patients Undergoing VNS Therapy, Does Rapid Stimulation (Usual VNS Settings Are 7 Seconds "On" and 30 Seconds "Off") Improve Seizure Frequency More Often Than Standard Stimulation Settings (30 Seconds "On" and 300 Seconds "Off")?

Conclusion

These 3 Class III studies were underpowered to detect a difference in efficacy between rapid stimulation (7 seconds "on," 30 seconds "off") used either after standard stimulation (30 seconds "on," 300 seconds "off") was unsuccessful or as an initial treatment setting.

Recommendation

Optimal VNS settings are still unknown, and the evidence is insufficient to support a recommendation for the use of standard stimulation vs. rapid stimulation to reduce seizure occurrence (Level U).

Clinical Context

Rapid cycling increases the duty cycle and hastens the need for battery replacement; therefore, when used, the efficacy of rapid cycling should be carefully assessed.

In Patients Undergoing VNS Therapy, Does Using Additional Magnet-Activated Stimulation Trains for Auras or at Seizure Onset Interrupt Seizures Relative to Not Using Additional Magnet-Induced Stimulation Trains for Auras or at Seizure Onset?

Conclusion

Based on data from 2 Class III studies, seizure abortion with magnet-activated stimulation is possibly associated with overall response to VNS therapy. Based on 3 Class III studies, magnet-activated stimulation may be expected to abort seizures one-fourth to two-thirds of the time when used during seizure auras (one Class III study omitted because it was not generalizable).

Recommendation

Patients may be counseled that VNS magnet activation may be associated with seizure abortion when used at the time of seizure auras (Level C) and that seizure abortion with magnet use may be associated with overall response to VNS treatment (Level C).

In Patients Undergoing VNS Therapy, Have New Safety Concerns Emerged Since the Last Assessment?

Clinical Context

Current physician attention to intraoperative rhythm disturbances from VNS use need not be changed. The paroxysmal nature of epilepsy poses a challenge for identifying a cardiac rhythm disturbance as device-related rather than as an additional seizure manifestation. Video electroencephalogram (EEG) and electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring of new-onset events that might be cardiac-related would be warranted to exclude this possibility in what is likely to be a small number of patients. Reduced sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) rates over time is an important finding associated with VNS therapy; in a cohort of 1,819 individuals followed 3,176.3 person-years from VNS implantation, the SUDEP rate was 5.5 per 1,000 over the first 2 years but only 1.7 per 1,000 thereafter. The clinical importance of the effect of VNS on sleep apnea and treatment is unclear, but caution regarding VNS use in this setting is suggested.

In Children Undergoing VNS Therapy, Do Adverse Events (AEs) Differ from Those in Adults?

Clinical Context

Children may have greater risk for wound infection than adults due to behaviors more common in children. Extra vigilance in monitoring for occurrence of site infection in children should be undertaken.

Definitions:

Classification of Evidence for Therapeutic Intervention

Class I: A randomized, controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest with masked or objective outcome assessment, in a representative population. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

The following are also required:

  1. Concealed allocation
  2. Primary outcome(s) clearly defined
  3. Exclusion/inclusion criteria clearly defined
  4. Adequate accounting for dropouts (with at least 80% of enrolled subjects completing the study) and crossovers with numbers sufficiently low to have minimal potential for bias.
  5. For noninferiority or equivalence trials claiming to prove efficacy for one or both drugs, the following are also required*
    1. The authors explicitly state the clinically meaningful difference to be excluded by defining the threshold for equivalence or noninferiority.
    2. The standard treatment used in the study is substantially similar to that used in previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment (e.g., for a drug, the mode of administration, dose and dosage adjustments are similar to those previously shown to be effective).
    3. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for patient selection and the outcomes of patients on the standard treatment are comparable to those of previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment.
    4. The interpretation of the results of the study is based upon a per protocol analysis that takes into account dropouts or crossovers.

Class II: A randomized controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest in a representative population with masked or objective outcome assessment that lacks one criteria a–e above or a prospective matched cohort study with masked or objective outcome assessment in a representative population that meets b–e above. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

Class III: All other controlled trials (including well-defined natural history controls or patients serving as own controls) in a representative population, where outcome is independently assessed, or independently derived by objective outcome measurement.**

Class IV: Studies not meeting Class I, II, or III criteria including consensus or expert opinion.

*Note that numbers 1-3 in Class Ie are required for Class II in equivalence trials. If any one of the three is missing, the class is automatically downgraded to Class III.

**Objective outcome measurement: an outcome measure that is unlikely to be affected by an observer's (patient, treating physician, investigator) expectation or bias (e.g., blood tests, administrative outcome data).

Classification of Recommendations

Level A = Established as effective, ineffective or harmful (or established as useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level A rating requires at least two consistent Class I studies.*)

Level B = Probably effective, ineffective or harmful (or probably useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level B rating requires at least one Class I study or two consistent Class II studies.)

Level C = Possibly effective, ineffective or harmful (or possibly useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level C rating requires at least one Class II study or two consistent Class III studies.)

Level U = Data inadequate or conflicting; given current knowledge, treatment (test, predictor) is unproven.

*In exceptional cases, one convincing Class I study may suffice for an "A" recommendation if 1) all criteria are met, 2) the magnitude of effect is large (relative rate improved outcome >5 and the lower limit of the confidence interval is >2).

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Evidence-based guideline update: vagus nerve stimulation for the treatment of epilepsy: Report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology
Display Headline
Evidence-based guideline update: vagus nerve stimulation for the treatment of epilepsy: Report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Vitals

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence since the 1999 assessment regarding efficacy and safety of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) for epilepsy, currently approved as adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures in patients >12 years.

METHODS: We reviewed the literature and identified relevant published studies. We classified these studies according to the American Academy of Neurology evidence-based methodology.

Guidelines are copyright © 2014 American Academy of Neurology. All rights reserved. The summary is provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.


Management of acute atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter in non-pregnant hospitalized adults.

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 13:53
Display Headline
Management of acute atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter in non-pregnant hospitalized adults.

Major Recommendations

Note from the University of Michigan Health System (UMHS) and the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC): The following guidance was current as of May 2014. Because UMHS occasionally releases minor revisions to its guidance based on new information, users may wish to consult the original guideline document 

for the most current version.

Note from NGC: The following key points summarize the content of the guideline. Refer to the full text of the original guideline document for detailed information on each of the screening procedures.

The strength of recommendation (I-III) and levels of evidence (A-D) are defined at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Key Points

Clinical Presentation

Patients presenting with palpitations, irregular pulse, chest pain, dyspnea, fatigue, lightheadedness, syncope, cardio-embolic disease and new or recurrent heart failure should be evaluated for atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter (AF/AFL). While AF may be asymptomatic and found incidentally, AFL is usually highly symptomatic.

Diagnosis

Electrocardiogram (ECG) is essential in the diagnosis of AF/AFL. The initial evaluation is summarized in Table 1 in the original guideline document and should include:

  • Physical exam
  • Laboratory evaluation: complete blood count (CBC), basic metabolic profile, magnesium, thyroid-stimulating hormone, and cardiac enzymes as indicated
  • Imaging: chest X-ray, echocardiogram
  • Continuous telemetry monitoring in the hospital

Treatment

Initial treatment of AF/AFL depends on hemodynamic stability.

Unstable AF/AFL (refer to Figure 1 in the original guideline document):

  • Begin resuscitation and consider other conditions contributing to instability.
  • If instability due to AF/AFL - immediate direct current cardioversion.

Stable AF/AFL (refer to Figure 2 in the original guideline document):

  • For emergency department (ED) patients: Screen for early cardioversion in the ED (refer to Figure 4 in the original guideline document).
  • Administer rate controlling agents as indicated (refer to Table 4 in the original guideline document) – [I, B].
    • Electrophysiology (EP) consult for uncontrolled rate despite adequate trial of rate controlling agents.
  • Consider the appropriateness of a rhythm control strategy (refer to Table 3 in the original guideline document) – [I, B].
    • If rhythm control strategy is appropriate/desired, consult EP and start immediate anticoagulation (refer to Figure 3 in the original guideline document).
  • Consider anticoagulation based on CHA2DS2-VASc score (refer to Table 2 and Figure 3 in the original guideline document) – [I, A].
    • The choice of anticoagulant will depend on the patient's clinical circumstances and renal function (refer to Figure 3 in the original guideline document).
    • Obtain Neurology consult prior to initiation of anticoagulation for patients with recent ischemic stroke within the prior two weeks.
    • Patients with valvular disease and those requiring concomitant treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy should be anticoagulated with warfarin.
    • Target-specific oral anticoagulants are preferred over warfarin in many cases.

Definitions:

Levels of Evidence

  1. Randomized controlled trials
  2. Controlled trials, no randomization
  3. Observational trials
  4. Opinion of expert panel

Strength of Recommendation

  1. Generally should be performed
  2. May be reasonable to perform
  3. Generally should not be performed
Clinical Algorithm(s)

The following algorithms are provided in the original guideline document:

  • Acute management of UNSTABLE atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter (AF/AFL)
  • Acute management of STABLE atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter with rapid ventricular response
  • Management of anticoagulation therapy in atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter
  • Emergency department screening for early cardioversion of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter

An algorithm titled "Management of acute atrial fibrillation/flutter after thoracic surgery" is also provided in Appendix C in the original guideline document.

Evidence Supporting the Recommendations

Type of Evidence Supporting the Recommendations

The type of supporting evidence is identified and graded for selected recommendations (see the "Major Recommendations" field).

Conclusions were based on prospective randomized clinical trials (RCTs) if available, to the exclusion of other data; if RCTs were not available, observational studies were admitted to consideration. If no such data were available for a given link in the problem formulation, expert opinion was used to estimate effect size.

Benefits/Harms of Implementing the Guideline Recommendations

Potential Benefits

It is hoped that standardization of care will result in improved patient outcomes, shorter length of hospital stay, lower readmission rates, and overall cost savings for the system.

Potential Harms
  • Calcium channel blockers can cause hypotension and atrioventricular (AV) nodal block.
  • Beta-blockers can cause hypotension and AV nodal block. Use metoprolol with caution in patients with decompensated heart failure.
  • Amiodarone can cause hypotension (when given intravenously), pulmonary toxicity (so patients with severe lung disease are poor candidates for long-term administration), hepatic toxicity, hypo/hyperthyroidism, and ocular side effects.
  • Digoxin can cause AV nodal block and digoxin toxicity.
  • Anticoagulants are associated with risk of bleeding.

Refer to Table 4 and Appendices A and B in the original guideline document for more information on specific drugs.

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Major Recommendations

Note from the University of Michigan Health System (UMHS) and the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC): The following guidance was current as of May 2014. Because UMHS occasionally releases minor revisions to its guidance based on new information, users may wish to consult the original guideline document 

for the most current version.

Note from NGC: The following key points summarize the content of the guideline. Refer to the full text of the original guideline document for detailed information on each of the screening procedures.

The strength of recommendation (I-III) and levels of evidence (A-D) are defined at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Key Points

Clinical Presentation

Patients presenting with palpitations, irregular pulse, chest pain, dyspnea, fatigue, lightheadedness, syncope, cardio-embolic disease and new or recurrent heart failure should be evaluated for atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter (AF/AFL). While AF may be asymptomatic and found incidentally, AFL is usually highly symptomatic.

Diagnosis

Electrocardiogram (ECG) is essential in the diagnosis of AF/AFL. The initial evaluation is summarized in Table 1 in the original guideline document and should include:

  • Physical exam
  • Laboratory evaluation: complete blood count (CBC), basic metabolic profile, magnesium, thyroid-stimulating hormone, and cardiac enzymes as indicated
  • Imaging: chest X-ray, echocardiogram
  • Continuous telemetry monitoring in the hospital

Treatment

Initial treatment of AF/AFL depends on hemodynamic stability.

Unstable AF/AFL (refer to Figure 1 in the original guideline document):

  • Begin resuscitation and consider other conditions contributing to instability.
  • If instability due to AF/AFL - immediate direct current cardioversion.

Stable AF/AFL (refer to Figure 2 in the original guideline document):

  • For emergency department (ED) patients: Screen for early cardioversion in the ED (refer to Figure 4 in the original guideline document).
  • Administer rate controlling agents as indicated (refer to Table 4 in the original guideline document) – [I, B].
    • Electrophysiology (EP) consult for uncontrolled rate despite adequate trial of rate controlling agents.
  • Consider the appropriateness of a rhythm control strategy (refer to Table 3 in the original guideline document) – [I, B].
    • If rhythm control strategy is appropriate/desired, consult EP and start immediate anticoagulation (refer to Figure 3 in the original guideline document).
  • Consider anticoagulation based on CHA2DS2-VASc score (refer to Table 2 and Figure 3 in the original guideline document) – [I, A].
    • The choice of anticoagulant will depend on the patient's clinical circumstances and renal function (refer to Figure 3 in the original guideline document).
    • Obtain Neurology consult prior to initiation of anticoagulation for patients with recent ischemic stroke within the prior two weeks.
    • Patients with valvular disease and those requiring concomitant treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy should be anticoagulated with warfarin.
    • Target-specific oral anticoagulants are preferred over warfarin in many cases.

Definitions:

Levels of Evidence

  1. Randomized controlled trials
  2. Controlled trials, no randomization
  3. Observational trials
  4. Opinion of expert panel

Strength of Recommendation

  1. Generally should be performed
  2. May be reasonable to perform
  3. Generally should not be performed
Clinical Algorithm(s)

The following algorithms are provided in the original guideline document:

  • Acute management of UNSTABLE atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter (AF/AFL)
  • Acute management of STABLE atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter with rapid ventricular response
  • Management of anticoagulation therapy in atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter
  • Emergency department screening for early cardioversion of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter

An algorithm titled "Management of acute atrial fibrillation/flutter after thoracic surgery" is also provided in Appendix C in the original guideline document.

Evidence Supporting the Recommendations

Type of Evidence Supporting the Recommendations

The type of supporting evidence is identified and graded for selected recommendations (see the "Major Recommendations" field).

Conclusions were based on prospective randomized clinical trials (RCTs) if available, to the exclusion of other data; if RCTs were not available, observational studies were admitted to consideration. If no such data were available for a given link in the problem formulation, expert opinion was used to estimate effect size.

Benefits/Harms of Implementing the Guideline Recommendations

Potential Benefits

It is hoped that standardization of care will result in improved patient outcomes, shorter length of hospital stay, lower readmission rates, and overall cost savings for the system.

Potential Harms
  • Calcium channel blockers can cause hypotension and atrioventricular (AV) nodal block.
  • Beta-blockers can cause hypotension and AV nodal block. Use metoprolol with caution in patients with decompensated heart failure.
  • Amiodarone can cause hypotension (when given intravenously), pulmonary toxicity (so patients with severe lung disease are poor candidates for long-term administration), hepatic toxicity, hypo/hyperthyroidism, and ocular side effects.
  • Digoxin can cause AV nodal block and digoxin toxicity.
  • Anticoagulants are associated with risk of bleeding.

Refer to Table 4 and Appendices A and B in the original guideline document for more information on specific drugs.

Major Recommendations

Note from the University of Michigan Health System (UMHS) and the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC): The following guidance was current as of May 2014. Because UMHS occasionally releases minor revisions to its guidance based on new information, users may wish to consult the original guideline document 

for the most current version.

Note from NGC: The following key points summarize the content of the guideline. Refer to the full text of the original guideline document for detailed information on each of the screening procedures.

The strength of recommendation (I-III) and levels of evidence (A-D) are defined at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Key Points

Clinical Presentation

Patients presenting with palpitations, irregular pulse, chest pain, dyspnea, fatigue, lightheadedness, syncope, cardio-embolic disease and new or recurrent heart failure should be evaluated for atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter (AF/AFL). While AF may be asymptomatic and found incidentally, AFL is usually highly symptomatic.

Diagnosis

Electrocardiogram (ECG) is essential in the diagnosis of AF/AFL. The initial evaluation is summarized in Table 1 in the original guideline document and should include:

  • Physical exam
  • Laboratory evaluation: complete blood count (CBC), basic metabolic profile, magnesium, thyroid-stimulating hormone, and cardiac enzymes as indicated
  • Imaging: chest X-ray, echocardiogram
  • Continuous telemetry monitoring in the hospital

Treatment

Initial treatment of AF/AFL depends on hemodynamic stability.

Unstable AF/AFL (refer to Figure 1 in the original guideline document):

  • Begin resuscitation and consider other conditions contributing to instability.
  • If instability due to AF/AFL - immediate direct current cardioversion.

Stable AF/AFL (refer to Figure 2 in the original guideline document):

  • For emergency department (ED) patients: Screen for early cardioversion in the ED (refer to Figure 4 in the original guideline document).
  • Administer rate controlling agents as indicated (refer to Table 4 in the original guideline document) – [I, B].
    • Electrophysiology (EP) consult for uncontrolled rate despite adequate trial of rate controlling agents.
  • Consider the appropriateness of a rhythm control strategy (refer to Table 3 in the original guideline document) – [I, B].
    • If rhythm control strategy is appropriate/desired, consult EP and start immediate anticoagulation (refer to Figure 3 in the original guideline document).
  • Consider anticoagulation based on CHA2DS2-VASc score (refer to Table 2 and Figure 3 in the original guideline document) – [I, A].
    • The choice of anticoagulant will depend on the patient's clinical circumstances and renal function (refer to Figure 3 in the original guideline document).
    • Obtain Neurology consult prior to initiation of anticoagulation for patients with recent ischemic stroke within the prior two weeks.
    • Patients with valvular disease and those requiring concomitant treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy should be anticoagulated with warfarin.
    • Target-specific oral anticoagulants are preferred over warfarin in many cases.

Definitions:

Levels of Evidence

  1. Randomized controlled trials
  2. Controlled trials, no randomization
  3. Observational trials
  4. Opinion of expert panel

Strength of Recommendation

  1. Generally should be performed
  2. May be reasonable to perform
  3. Generally should not be performed
Clinical Algorithm(s)

The following algorithms are provided in the original guideline document:

  • Acute management of UNSTABLE atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter (AF/AFL)
  • Acute management of STABLE atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter with rapid ventricular response
  • Management of anticoagulation therapy in atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter
  • Emergency department screening for early cardioversion of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter

An algorithm titled "Management of acute atrial fibrillation/flutter after thoracic surgery" is also provided in Appendix C in the original guideline document.

Evidence Supporting the Recommendations

Type of Evidence Supporting the Recommendations

The type of supporting evidence is identified and graded for selected recommendations (see the "Major Recommendations" field).

Conclusions were based on prospective randomized clinical trials (RCTs) if available, to the exclusion of other data; if RCTs were not available, observational studies were admitted to consideration. If no such data were available for a given link in the problem formulation, expert opinion was used to estimate effect size.

Benefits/Harms of Implementing the Guideline Recommendations

Potential Benefits

It is hoped that standardization of care will result in improved patient outcomes, shorter length of hospital stay, lower readmission rates, and overall cost savings for the system.

Potential Harms
  • Calcium channel blockers can cause hypotension and atrioventricular (AV) nodal block.
  • Beta-blockers can cause hypotension and AV nodal block. Use metoprolol with caution in patients with decompensated heart failure.
  • Amiodarone can cause hypotension (when given intravenously), pulmonary toxicity (so patients with severe lung disease are poor candidates for long-term administration), hepatic toxicity, hypo/hyperthyroidism, and ocular side effects.
  • Digoxin can cause AV nodal block and digoxin toxicity.
  • Anticoagulants are associated with risk of bleeding.

Refer to Table 4 and Appendices A and B in the original guideline document for more information on specific drugs.

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Management of acute atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter in non-pregnant hospitalized adults.
Display Headline
Management of acute atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter in non-pregnant hospitalized adults.
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Vitals

OBJECTIVE: To provide an evidence-based blue print for the acute care of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFL) at the University of Michigan Health System and to assure consistent care delivery for patients with AF across the inpatient services.

Guidelines are copyright © 2014 University of Michigan Health System. All rights reserved. The summary is provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.


Evidence-based guideline: assessment and management of psychiatric disorders in individuals with MS. Report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 13:52
Display Headline
Evidence-based guideline: assessment and management of psychiatric disorders in individuals with MS. Report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology

Major Recommendations

Definitions of the levels of the recommendations (A, B, C, U) and classification of the evidence (Class I-IV) are provided at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Screening and Diagnosis

What Clinical Evaluation Procedures and Screening and Diagnostic Tools Can Be Used to Accurately Identify Symptoms and Make Diagnoses of Emotional Disorders in Individuals with Multiple Sclerosis (MS)?

Conclusions and Recommendations

In individuals with MS, the Center for Neurologic Study Emotional Lability Scale (CNS-LS) is possibly effective and may be considered for screening for pseudobulbar affect (PBA) (Level C, 1 Class II study [Smith et al., 2004]). The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) (Goldberg & Hillier, 1979) is possibly effective and may be considered for identifying individuals with broadly defined emotional disturbances (Level C, 1 Class II study [Rabins & Brooks, 1981]). The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) (Beck et al., 1961) and a 2-question screen (Whooley et al., 1997) are possibly effective and may be considered for identifying individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) (Level C, 1 Class II study each [Sullivan et al., 1995; Mohr et al., 2007]). There is insufficient evidence to support/refute using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Rating Scale (CES-D) (Radloff, 1977) to screen for depressive symptoms (Pandya, Metz, & Patten, 2005) or a single question to screen for MDD (Vahter et al., 2007) (Level U, 1 Class III study each); the possibility that somatic or neurovegetative symptoms negatively affect the accuracy of BDI results (Level U, 2 conflicting Class III studies) (Mohr et al., 1997; Randolph et al., 2000); and the use of specific instruments or clinical evaluation procedures to diagnose emotional disorders in individuals with MS (Level U).

Clinical Context

Because emotional disorders may be unrecognized in medical settings, validated screening tools might improve identification of individuals who could benefit from further evaluation and treatment. The true positive rate of a screening tool depends not only on its sensitivity but also on the point prevalence of the disorder in the population under study. Clinically, false-positive results are not a major concern because individuals with the conditions typically identified (e.g., adjustment and subthreshold depressive disorders) can benefit from further assessment. Administratively, however, screening tools with high false-positive rates unnecessarily increase resource use.

Treatments

What Are the Effective Treatments for Disorders of Mood in Individuals with MS?

Conclusion and Recommendations

For individuals with MS, a 16-week program of individual telephone-administered cognitive behavioral therapy (T-CBT) program is possibly effective and may be considered in treating depressive symptoms (Level C, 1 Class II study [Mohr et al., 2005], 1 Class III study [Mohr, et al., 2000]). There is insufficient evidence to support/refute the efficacy and use of 1) sertraline (Mohr et al., 2001), desipramine (Schiffer & Wineman, 1990), paroxetine (Ehde et al., 2008), individual in-person cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) (Mohr et al., 2001), individual in-person CBT plus relaxation training (Foley et al., 1987), or CBT-based group therapy (Forman & Lincoln, 2010) for depressive symptoms; or 2) individual in-person CBT plus relaxation training (Foley et al., 1987), group relaxation and imagery (Maguire, 1996), or CBT-based group therapy (Forman & Lincoln, 2010) for anxiety (Level U, 1 Class III study each).

Clinical Context

There is evidence supporting the efficacy of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for depressed mood and anxiety in individuals without MS. Despite the lack of evidence in individuals with MS, these therapies are frequently used to treat emotional disorders in this population.

What Are the Effective Treatments for Disorders of Affect in Individuals with MS?

Conclusion and Recommendations

Dextromethorphan and quinidine (DM/Q) is possibly effective and safe and may be considered for treating individuals with MS with PBA (Level C, 1 Class II study) (Panitch et al., 2006).

Clinical Context

DM/Q is the only drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for PBA treatment, although other drugs are used in clinical practice (e.g., selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants). There are no randomized placebo-controlled trials of these other agents.

Definitions:

Classification of Evidence

Screening Articles

Class I: A statistical, population based sample of patients studied at a uniform point in time (usually early) during the course of the condition. All patients undergo the intervention of interest. The outcome, if not objective, is determined in an evaluation that is masked to the patients' clinical presentations.

Class II: A statistical, non-referral clinic based sample of patients studied at a uniform point in time (usually early) during the course of the condition. Most patients undergo the intervention of interest. The outcome, if not objective, is determined in an evaluation that is masked to the patients' clinical presentations.

Class III: A sample of patients studied during the course of the condition. Some patients undergo the intervention of interest. The outcome, if not objective, is determined in an evaluation by someone other than the treating physician.

Class IV: Studies not meeting Class I, II, or III criteria, including consensus, expert opinion or a case report.

Diagnostic Articles

Class I: A cohort study with prospective data collection of a broad spectrum of persons with the suspected condition, using an acceptable reference standard for case definition. The diagnostic test is objective or performed and interpreted without knowledge of the patient's clinical status. Study results allow calculation of measures of diagnostic accuracy.

Class II: A case control study of a broad spectrum of persons with the condition established by an acceptable reference standard compared to a broad spectrum of controls or a cohort study where a broad spectrum of persons with the suspected condition where the data was collected retrospectively. The diagnostic test is objective or performed and interpreted without knowledge of disease status. Study results allow calculation of measures of diagnostic accuracy.

Class III: A case control study or cohort study where either persons with the condition or controls are of a narrow spectrum. The condition is established by an acceptable reference standard. The reference standard and diagnostic test are objective or performed and interpreted by different observers. Study results allow calculation of measures of diagnostic accuracy.

Class IV: Studies not meeting Class I, II, or III criteria including consensus, expert opinion, or a case report.

Therapeutic Articles

Class I: A randomized, controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest with masked or objective outcome assessment, in a representative population. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

The following are also required:

  1. Concealed allocation
  2. Primary outcome(s) clearly defined
  3. Exclusion/inclusion criteria clearly defined
  4. Adequate accounting for dropouts (with at least 80% of enrolled subjects completing the study) and crossovers with numbers sufficiently low to have minimal potential for bias.
  5. For noninferiority or equivalence trials claiming to prove efficacy for one or both drugs, the following are also required*:
    1. The authors explicitly state the clinically meaningful difference to be excluded by defining the threshold for equivalence or noninferiority.
    2. The standard treatment used in the study is substantially similar to that used in previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment (e.g., for a drug, the mode of administration, dose and dosage adjustments are similar to those previously shown to be effective).
    3. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for patient selection and the outcomes of patients on the standard treatment are comparable to those of previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment.
    4. The interpretation of the results of the study is based upon a per protocol analysis that takes into account dropouts or crossovers.

Class II: A randomized controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest in a representative population with masked or objective outcome assessment that lacks one criteria a–e above or a prospective matched cohort study with masked or objective outcome assessment in a representative population that meets b–e above. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

Class III: All other controlled trials (including well-defined natural history controls or patients serving as own controls) in a representative population, where outcome is independently assessed, or independently derived by objective outcome measurement.**

Class IV: Studies not meeting Class I, II, or III criteria including consensus or expert opinion.

*Note that numbers 1-3 in Class Ie are required for Class II in equivalence trials. If any one of the three is missing, the class is automatically downgraded to Class III.

**Objective outcome measurement: an outcome measure that is unlikely to be affected by an observer's (patient, treating physician, investigator) expectation or bias (e.g., blood tests, administrative outcome data).

Classification of Recommendations

Level A = Established as effective, ineffective or harmful (or established as useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level A rating requires at least two consistent Class I studies.)*

Level B = Probably effective, ineffective or harmful (or probably useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level B rating requires at least one Class I study or two consistent Class II studies.)

Level C = Possibly effective, ineffective or harmful (or possibly useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level C rating requires at least one Class II study or two consistent Class III studies.)

Level U = Data inadequate or conflicting; given current knowledge, treatment (test, predictor) is unproven.

* In exceptional cases, one convincing Class I study may suffice for an "A" recommendation if 1) all criteria are met, 2) the magnitude of effect is large (relative rate improved outcome >5 and the lower limit of the confidence interval is >2).

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Major Recommendations

Definitions of the levels of the recommendations (A, B, C, U) and classification of the evidence (Class I-IV) are provided at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Screening and Diagnosis

What Clinical Evaluation Procedures and Screening and Diagnostic Tools Can Be Used to Accurately Identify Symptoms and Make Diagnoses of Emotional Disorders in Individuals with Multiple Sclerosis (MS)?

Conclusions and Recommendations

In individuals with MS, the Center for Neurologic Study Emotional Lability Scale (CNS-LS) is possibly effective and may be considered for screening for pseudobulbar affect (PBA) (Level C, 1 Class II study [Smith et al., 2004]). The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) (Goldberg & Hillier, 1979) is possibly effective and may be considered for identifying individuals with broadly defined emotional disturbances (Level C, 1 Class II study [Rabins & Brooks, 1981]). The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) (Beck et al., 1961) and a 2-question screen (Whooley et al., 1997) are possibly effective and may be considered for identifying individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) (Level C, 1 Class II study each [Sullivan et al., 1995; Mohr et al., 2007]). There is insufficient evidence to support/refute using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Rating Scale (CES-D) (Radloff, 1977) to screen for depressive symptoms (Pandya, Metz, & Patten, 2005) or a single question to screen for MDD (Vahter et al., 2007) (Level U, 1 Class III study each); the possibility that somatic or neurovegetative symptoms negatively affect the accuracy of BDI results (Level U, 2 conflicting Class III studies) (Mohr et al., 1997; Randolph et al., 2000); and the use of specific instruments or clinical evaluation procedures to diagnose emotional disorders in individuals with MS (Level U).

Clinical Context

Because emotional disorders may be unrecognized in medical settings, validated screening tools might improve identification of individuals who could benefit from further evaluation and treatment. The true positive rate of a screening tool depends not only on its sensitivity but also on the point prevalence of the disorder in the population under study. Clinically, false-positive results are not a major concern because individuals with the conditions typically identified (e.g., adjustment and subthreshold depressive disorders) can benefit from further assessment. Administratively, however, screening tools with high false-positive rates unnecessarily increase resource use.

Treatments

What Are the Effective Treatments for Disorders of Mood in Individuals with MS?

Conclusion and Recommendations

For individuals with MS, a 16-week program of individual telephone-administered cognitive behavioral therapy (T-CBT) program is possibly effective and may be considered in treating depressive symptoms (Level C, 1 Class II study [Mohr et al., 2005], 1 Class III study [Mohr, et al., 2000]). There is insufficient evidence to support/refute the efficacy and use of 1) sertraline (Mohr et al., 2001), desipramine (Schiffer & Wineman, 1990), paroxetine (Ehde et al., 2008), individual in-person cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) (Mohr et al., 2001), individual in-person CBT plus relaxation training (Foley et al., 1987), or CBT-based group therapy (Forman & Lincoln, 2010) for depressive symptoms; or 2) individual in-person CBT plus relaxation training (Foley et al., 1987), group relaxation and imagery (Maguire, 1996), or CBT-based group therapy (Forman & Lincoln, 2010) for anxiety (Level U, 1 Class III study each).

Clinical Context

There is evidence supporting the efficacy of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for depressed mood and anxiety in individuals without MS. Despite the lack of evidence in individuals with MS, these therapies are frequently used to treat emotional disorders in this population.

What Are the Effective Treatments for Disorders of Affect in Individuals with MS?

Conclusion and Recommendations

Dextromethorphan and quinidine (DM/Q) is possibly effective and safe and may be considered for treating individuals with MS with PBA (Level C, 1 Class II study) (Panitch et al., 2006).

Clinical Context

DM/Q is the only drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for PBA treatment, although other drugs are used in clinical practice (e.g., selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants). There are no randomized placebo-controlled trials of these other agents.

Definitions:

Classification of Evidence

Screening Articles

Class I: A statistical, population based sample of patients studied at a uniform point in time (usually early) during the course of the condition. All patients undergo the intervention of interest. The outcome, if not objective, is determined in an evaluation that is masked to the patients' clinical presentations.

Class II: A statistical, non-referral clinic based sample of patients studied at a uniform point in time (usually early) during the course of the condition. Most patients undergo the intervention of interest. The outcome, if not objective, is determined in an evaluation that is masked to the patients' clinical presentations.

Class III: A sample of patients studied during the course of the condition. Some patients undergo the intervention of interest. The outcome, if not objective, is determined in an evaluation by someone other than the treating physician.

Class IV: Studies not meeting Class I, II, or III criteria, including consensus, expert opinion or a case report.

Diagnostic Articles

Class I: A cohort study with prospective data collection of a broad spectrum of persons with the suspected condition, using an acceptable reference standard for case definition. The diagnostic test is objective or performed and interpreted without knowledge of the patient's clinical status. Study results allow calculation of measures of diagnostic accuracy.

Class II: A case control study of a broad spectrum of persons with the condition established by an acceptable reference standard compared to a broad spectrum of controls or a cohort study where a broad spectrum of persons with the suspected condition where the data was collected retrospectively. The diagnostic test is objective or performed and interpreted without knowledge of disease status. Study results allow calculation of measures of diagnostic accuracy.

Class III: A case control study or cohort study where either persons with the condition or controls are of a narrow spectrum. The condition is established by an acceptable reference standard. The reference standard and diagnostic test are objective or performed and interpreted by different observers. Study results allow calculation of measures of diagnostic accuracy.

Class IV: Studies not meeting Class I, II, or III criteria including consensus, expert opinion, or a case report.

Therapeutic Articles

Class I: A randomized, controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest with masked or objective outcome assessment, in a representative population. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

The following are also required:

  1. Concealed allocation
  2. Primary outcome(s) clearly defined
  3. Exclusion/inclusion criteria clearly defined
  4. Adequate accounting for dropouts (with at least 80% of enrolled subjects completing the study) and crossovers with numbers sufficiently low to have minimal potential for bias.
  5. For noninferiority or equivalence trials claiming to prove efficacy for one or both drugs, the following are also required*:
    1. The authors explicitly state the clinically meaningful difference to be excluded by defining the threshold for equivalence or noninferiority.
    2. The standard treatment used in the study is substantially similar to that used in previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment (e.g., for a drug, the mode of administration, dose and dosage adjustments are similar to those previously shown to be effective).
    3. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for patient selection and the outcomes of patients on the standard treatment are comparable to those of previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment.
    4. The interpretation of the results of the study is based upon a per protocol analysis that takes into account dropouts or crossovers.

Class II: A randomized controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest in a representative population with masked or objective outcome assessment that lacks one criteria a–e above or a prospective matched cohort study with masked or objective outcome assessment in a representative population that meets b–e above. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

Class III: All other controlled trials (including well-defined natural history controls or patients serving as own controls) in a representative population, where outcome is independently assessed, or independently derived by objective outcome measurement.**

Class IV: Studies not meeting Class I, II, or III criteria including consensus or expert opinion.

*Note that numbers 1-3 in Class Ie are required for Class II in equivalence trials. If any one of the three is missing, the class is automatically downgraded to Class III.

**Objective outcome measurement: an outcome measure that is unlikely to be affected by an observer's (patient, treating physician, investigator) expectation or bias (e.g., blood tests, administrative outcome data).

Classification of Recommendations

Level A = Established as effective, ineffective or harmful (or established as useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level A rating requires at least two consistent Class I studies.)*

Level B = Probably effective, ineffective or harmful (or probably useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level B rating requires at least one Class I study or two consistent Class II studies.)

Level C = Possibly effective, ineffective or harmful (or possibly useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level C rating requires at least one Class II study or two consistent Class III studies.)

Level U = Data inadequate or conflicting; given current knowledge, treatment (test, predictor) is unproven.

* In exceptional cases, one convincing Class I study may suffice for an "A" recommendation if 1) all criteria are met, 2) the magnitude of effect is large (relative rate improved outcome >5 and the lower limit of the confidence interval is >2).

Major Recommendations

Definitions of the levels of the recommendations (A, B, C, U) and classification of the evidence (Class I-IV) are provided at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Screening and Diagnosis

What Clinical Evaluation Procedures and Screening and Diagnostic Tools Can Be Used to Accurately Identify Symptoms and Make Diagnoses of Emotional Disorders in Individuals with Multiple Sclerosis (MS)?

Conclusions and Recommendations

In individuals with MS, the Center for Neurologic Study Emotional Lability Scale (CNS-LS) is possibly effective and may be considered for screening for pseudobulbar affect (PBA) (Level C, 1 Class II study [Smith et al., 2004]). The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) (Goldberg & Hillier, 1979) is possibly effective and may be considered for identifying individuals with broadly defined emotional disturbances (Level C, 1 Class II study [Rabins & Brooks, 1981]). The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) (Beck et al., 1961) and a 2-question screen (Whooley et al., 1997) are possibly effective and may be considered for identifying individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) (Level C, 1 Class II study each [Sullivan et al., 1995; Mohr et al., 2007]). There is insufficient evidence to support/refute using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Rating Scale (CES-D) (Radloff, 1977) to screen for depressive symptoms (Pandya, Metz, & Patten, 2005) or a single question to screen for MDD (Vahter et al., 2007) (Level U, 1 Class III study each); the possibility that somatic or neurovegetative symptoms negatively affect the accuracy of BDI results (Level U, 2 conflicting Class III studies) (Mohr et al., 1997; Randolph et al., 2000); and the use of specific instruments or clinical evaluation procedures to diagnose emotional disorders in individuals with MS (Level U).

Clinical Context

Because emotional disorders may be unrecognized in medical settings, validated screening tools might improve identification of individuals who could benefit from further evaluation and treatment. The true positive rate of a screening tool depends not only on its sensitivity but also on the point prevalence of the disorder in the population under study. Clinically, false-positive results are not a major concern because individuals with the conditions typically identified (e.g., adjustment and subthreshold depressive disorders) can benefit from further assessment. Administratively, however, screening tools with high false-positive rates unnecessarily increase resource use.

Treatments

What Are the Effective Treatments for Disorders of Mood in Individuals with MS?

Conclusion and Recommendations

For individuals with MS, a 16-week program of individual telephone-administered cognitive behavioral therapy (T-CBT) program is possibly effective and may be considered in treating depressive symptoms (Level C, 1 Class II study [Mohr et al., 2005], 1 Class III study [Mohr, et al., 2000]). There is insufficient evidence to support/refute the efficacy and use of 1) sertraline (Mohr et al., 2001), desipramine (Schiffer & Wineman, 1990), paroxetine (Ehde et al., 2008), individual in-person cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) (Mohr et al., 2001), individual in-person CBT plus relaxation training (Foley et al., 1987), or CBT-based group therapy (Forman & Lincoln, 2010) for depressive symptoms; or 2) individual in-person CBT plus relaxation training (Foley et al., 1987), group relaxation and imagery (Maguire, 1996), or CBT-based group therapy (Forman & Lincoln, 2010) for anxiety (Level U, 1 Class III study each).

Clinical Context

There is evidence supporting the efficacy of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for depressed mood and anxiety in individuals without MS. Despite the lack of evidence in individuals with MS, these therapies are frequently used to treat emotional disorders in this population.

What Are the Effective Treatments for Disorders of Affect in Individuals with MS?

Conclusion and Recommendations

Dextromethorphan and quinidine (DM/Q) is possibly effective and safe and may be considered for treating individuals with MS with PBA (Level C, 1 Class II study) (Panitch et al., 2006).

Clinical Context

DM/Q is the only drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for PBA treatment, although other drugs are used in clinical practice (e.g., selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants). There are no randomized placebo-controlled trials of these other agents.

Definitions:

Classification of Evidence

Screening Articles

Class I: A statistical, population based sample of patients studied at a uniform point in time (usually early) during the course of the condition. All patients undergo the intervention of interest. The outcome, if not objective, is determined in an evaluation that is masked to the patients' clinical presentations.

Class II: A statistical, non-referral clinic based sample of patients studied at a uniform point in time (usually early) during the course of the condition. Most patients undergo the intervention of interest. The outcome, if not objective, is determined in an evaluation that is masked to the patients' clinical presentations.

Class III: A sample of patients studied during the course of the condition. Some patients undergo the intervention of interest. The outcome, if not objective, is determined in an evaluation by someone other than the treating physician.

Class IV: Studies not meeting Class I, II, or III criteria, including consensus, expert opinion or a case report.

Diagnostic Articles

Class I: A cohort study with prospective data collection of a broad spectrum of persons with the suspected condition, using an acceptable reference standard for case definition. The diagnostic test is objective or performed and interpreted without knowledge of the patient's clinical status. Study results allow calculation of measures of diagnostic accuracy.

Class II: A case control study of a broad spectrum of persons with the condition established by an acceptable reference standard compared to a broad spectrum of controls or a cohort study where a broad spectrum of persons with the suspected condition where the data was collected retrospectively. The diagnostic test is objective or performed and interpreted without knowledge of disease status. Study results allow calculation of measures of diagnostic accuracy.

Class III: A case control study or cohort study where either persons with the condition or controls are of a narrow spectrum. The condition is established by an acceptable reference standard. The reference standard and diagnostic test are objective or performed and interpreted by different observers. Study results allow calculation of measures of diagnostic accuracy.

Class IV: Studies not meeting Class I, II, or III criteria including consensus, expert opinion, or a case report.

Therapeutic Articles

Class I: A randomized, controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest with masked or objective outcome assessment, in a representative population. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

The following are also required:

  1. Concealed allocation
  2. Primary outcome(s) clearly defined
  3. Exclusion/inclusion criteria clearly defined
  4. Adequate accounting for dropouts (with at least 80% of enrolled subjects completing the study) and crossovers with numbers sufficiently low to have minimal potential for bias.
  5. For noninferiority or equivalence trials claiming to prove efficacy for one or both drugs, the following are also required*:
    1. The authors explicitly state the clinically meaningful difference to be excluded by defining the threshold for equivalence or noninferiority.
    2. The standard treatment used in the study is substantially similar to that used in previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment (e.g., for a drug, the mode of administration, dose and dosage adjustments are similar to those previously shown to be effective).
    3. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for patient selection and the outcomes of patients on the standard treatment are comparable to those of previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment.
    4. The interpretation of the results of the study is based upon a per protocol analysis that takes into account dropouts or crossovers.

Class II: A randomized controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest in a representative population with masked or objective outcome assessment that lacks one criteria a–e above or a prospective matched cohort study with masked or objective outcome assessment in a representative population that meets b–e above. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

Class III: All other controlled trials (including well-defined natural history controls or patients serving as own controls) in a representative population, where outcome is independently assessed, or independently derived by objective outcome measurement.**

Class IV: Studies not meeting Class I, II, or III criteria including consensus or expert opinion.

*Note that numbers 1-3 in Class Ie are required for Class II in equivalence trials. If any one of the three is missing, the class is automatically downgraded to Class III.

**Objective outcome measurement: an outcome measure that is unlikely to be affected by an observer's (patient, treating physician, investigator) expectation or bias (e.g., blood tests, administrative outcome data).

Classification of Recommendations

Level A = Established as effective, ineffective or harmful (or established as useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level A rating requires at least two consistent Class I studies.)*

Level B = Probably effective, ineffective or harmful (or probably useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level B rating requires at least one Class I study or two consistent Class II studies.)

Level C = Possibly effective, ineffective or harmful (or possibly useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level C rating requires at least one Class II study or two consistent Class III studies.)

Level U = Data inadequate or conflicting; given current knowledge, treatment (test, predictor) is unproven.

* In exceptional cases, one convincing Class I study may suffice for an "A" recommendation if 1) all criteria are met, 2) the magnitude of effect is large (relative rate improved outcome >5 and the lower limit of the confidence interval is >2).

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Evidence-based guideline: assessment and management of psychiatric disorders in individuals with MS. Report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology
Display Headline
Evidence-based guideline: assessment and management of psychiatric disorders in individuals with MS. Report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Vitals

OBJECTIVE: To make evidence-based recommendations for screening, diagnosing, and treating psychiatric disorders in individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS).

METHODS: We reviewed the literature (1950 to August 2011) and evaluated the available evidence.

Guidelines are copyright © 2014 American Academy of Neurology. All rights reserved. The summary is provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.


Summary of evidence-based guideline: complementary and alternative medicine in multiple sclerosis. Report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 13:52
Display Headline
Summary of evidence-based guideline: complementary and alternative medicine in multiple sclerosis. Report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology

Major Recommendations

Definitions of the levels of the recommendations (A, B, C, U) and classification of the evidence (Class I-IV) are provided at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Cannabinoids

Cannabinoid Practice Recommendations

Clinicians might offer oral cannabis extract (OCE) to patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) to reduce patient-reported symptoms of spasticity and pain (excluding central neuropathic pain) (Level A) and might counsel patients that this symptomatic benefit is possibly maintained for 1 year (Level C), although OCE is probably ineffective for improving objective spasticity measures (short-term) or tremor (Level B).

Clinicians might offer tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to patients with MS to reduce patient-reported symptoms of spasticity and pain (excluding central neuropathic pain) (Level B). Clinicians might counsel patients that this symptomatic benefit is possibly maintained for 1 year (Level C), although THC is probably ineffective for improving objective spasticity measures (short-term) or tremor (Level B).

Clinicians might offer Sativex oromucosal cannabinoid spray (nabiximols), where available, to reduce symptoms of spasticity, pain, or urinary frequency, although it is probably ineffective for improving objective spasticity measures or number of urinary incontinence episodes (Level B).

Clinicians might choose not to offer Sativex oromucosal cannabinoid spray to reduce MS-related tremor (Level C).

Data are inadequate to support or refute use of the following in MS (Level U):

  1. OCE/THC for bladder urge incontinence and overall symptoms
  2. Synthetic THC (Marinol) for central neuropathic pain
  3. Sativex oromucosal cannabinoid spray for overall bladder symptoms, anxiety symptoms/sleep problems, cognitive symptoms, quality of life (QOL), and fatigue
  4. Smoked cannabis for spasticity, pain, balance/posture, and cognition

Data are inadequate to determine the abuse potential or effect on psychopathologic symptoms of Sativex cannabinoid spray (Level U).

Clinical Context

The cannabinoid studies have limitations that physicians and patients must be aware of. Most studies were of short duration (6 to 15 weeks). Another limitation was the potential for central side effects to unmask patients to treatment assignment — a concern with regard to all masked trials involving treatments with prominent side effects. It is also important to recognize that the Ashworth scale used for objective measurement may be insensitive to spasticity changes. These factors may contribute to the discordant effects of cannabinoids on subjective and objective spasticity measures.

Ginkgo Biloba (GB)

GB Practice Recommendations

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that GB is established as ineffective for improving cognitive function (Level A).

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that GB is possibly effective for reducing fatigue (Level C).

Clinical Context

GB and other supplements are not U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulated. Their quality control may play a role in their effectiveness and adverse effect (AE) risk. Moreover, interactions of supplements with other medications, especially disease-modifying therapies for MS, are a clinical concern.

Low-Fat Diet with Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation (Omega-3)

Omega-3 Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients that a low-fat diet with fish oil supplementation is probably ineffective for reducing relapses, disability, or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) lesions, or for improving fatigue or QOL in MS (Level B).

Lofepramine

Lofepramine Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that lofepramine plus L-phenylalanine with vitamin B12 (Cari Loder regimen) is possibly ineffective for treating disability, symptoms, depression, or fatigue (Level C).

Reflexology

Reflexology Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that reflexology is possibly effective for reducing paresthesia (Level C).

Bee Venom

Bee Venom Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that bee sting therapy is possibly ineffective for reducing relapses, disability, fatigue, total MRI lesion burden, new gadolinium-enhancing lesion volume, or health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (Level C).

Clinical Context

Bee stings can be associated with anaphylactic reaction and possible death.

Magnetic Therapy

Magnetic Therapy Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that magnetic therapy is probably effective for reducing fatigue (Level B) and probably ineffective for reducing depression (Level B).

Other CAM Therapies Practice Recommendation

Clinicians should counsel patients with MS that the safety and efficacy of other reviewed CAM, or the interaction of CAM with disease-modifying therapies for MS, are unknown (Level U).

Definitions:

Classification of Evidence for Therapeutic Interventions

Class I: A randomized, controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest with masked or objective outcome assessment, in a representative population. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

The following are also required:

  1. Concealed allocation
  2. Primary outcome(s) clearly defined
  3. Exclusion/inclusion criteria clearly defined
  4. Adequate accounting for drop-outs (with at least 80% of enrolled subjects completing the study) and cross-overs with numbers sufficiently low to have minimal potential for bias.
  5. For noninferiority or equivalence trials claiming to prove efficacy for one or both drugs, the following are also required*:
    1. The authors explicitly state the clinically meaningful difference to be excluded by defining the threshold for equivalence or noninferiority.
    2. The standard treatment used in the study is substantially similar to that used in previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment (e.g., for a drug, the mode of administration, dose and dosage adjustments are similar to those previously shown to be effective).
    3. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for patient selection and the outcomes of patients on the standard treatment are comparable to those of previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment.
    4. The interpretation of the results of the study is based upon a per protocol analysis that takes into account dropouts or crossovers.

Class II: A randomized controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest in a representative population with masked or objective outcome assessment that lacks one criteria a-e above or a prospective matched cohort study with masked or objective outcome assessment in a representative population that meets b-e above. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

Class III: All other controlled trials (including well-defined natural history controls or patients serving as own controls) in a representative population, where outcome is independently assessed, or independently derived by objective outcome measurement.**

Class IV: Studies not meeting Class I, II or III criteria including consensus or expert opinion.

*Note that numbers 1-3 in Class Ie are required for Class II in equivalence trials. If any one of the three is missing, the class is automatically downgraded to Class III.

**Objective outcome measurement: an outcome measure that is unlikely to be affected by an observer's (patient, treating physician, investigator) expectation or bias (e.g., blood tests, administrative outcome data).

Classification of Recommendations

Level A = Established as effective, ineffective, or harmful (or established as useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level A rating requires at least two consistent Class I studies.)*

Level B = Probably effective, ineffective, or harmful (or probably useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level B rating requires at least one Class I study or at least two consistent Class II studies.)

Level C = Possibly effective, ineffective, or harmful (or possibly useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level C rating requires at least one Class II study or two consistent Class III studies.)

Level U = Data inadequate or conflicting; given current knowledge, treatment (test, predictor) is unproven.

*In exceptional cases, one convincing Class I study may suffice for an "A" recommendation if 1) all criteria are met, 2) the magnitude of effect is large (relative rate improved outcome >5 and the lower limit of the confidence interval is >2).

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Major Recommendations

Definitions of the levels of the recommendations (A, B, C, U) and classification of the evidence (Class I-IV) are provided at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Cannabinoids

Cannabinoid Practice Recommendations

Clinicians might offer oral cannabis extract (OCE) to patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) to reduce patient-reported symptoms of spasticity and pain (excluding central neuropathic pain) (Level A) and might counsel patients that this symptomatic benefit is possibly maintained for 1 year (Level C), although OCE is probably ineffective for improving objective spasticity measures (short-term) or tremor (Level B).

Clinicians might offer tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to patients with MS to reduce patient-reported symptoms of spasticity and pain (excluding central neuropathic pain) (Level B). Clinicians might counsel patients that this symptomatic benefit is possibly maintained for 1 year (Level C), although THC is probably ineffective for improving objective spasticity measures (short-term) or tremor (Level B).

Clinicians might offer Sativex oromucosal cannabinoid spray (nabiximols), where available, to reduce symptoms of spasticity, pain, or urinary frequency, although it is probably ineffective for improving objective spasticity measures or number of urinary incontinence episodes (Level B).

Clinicians might choose not to offer Sativex oromucosal cannabinoid spray to reduce MS-related tremor (Level C).

Data are inadequate to support or refute use of the following in MS (Level U):

  1. OCE/THC for bladder urge incontinence and overall symptoms
  2. Synthetic THC (Marinol) for central neuropathic pain
  3. Sativex oromucosal cannabinoid spray for overall bladder symptoms, anxiety symptoms/sleep problems, cognitive symptoms, quality of life (QOL), and fatigue
  4. Smoked cannabis for spasticity, pain, balance/posture, and cognition

Data are inadequate to determine the abuse potential or effect on psychopathologic symptoms of Sativex cannabinoid spray (Level U).

Clinical Context

The cannabinoid studies have limitations that physicians and patients must be aware of. Most studies were of short duration (6 to 15 weeks). Another limitation was the potential for central side effects to unmask patients to treatment assignment — a concern with regard to all masked trials involving treatments with prominent side effects. It is also important to recognize that the Ashworth scale used for objective measurement may be insensitive to spasticity changes. These factors may contribute to the discordant effects of cannabinoids on subjective and objective spasticity measures.

Ginkgo Biloba (GB)

GB Practice Recommendations

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that GB is established as ineffective for improving cognitive function (Level A).

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that GB is possibly effective for reducing fatigue (Level C).

Clinical Context

GB and other supplements are not U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulated. Their quality control may play a role in their effectiveness and adverse effect (AE) risk. Moreover, interactions of supplements with other medications, especially disease-modifying therapies for MS, are a clinical concern.

Low-Fat Diet with Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation (Omega-3)

Omega-3 Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients that a low-fat diet with fish oil supplementation is probably ineffective for reducing relapses, disability, or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) lesions, or for improving fatigue or QOL in MS (Level B).

Lofepramine

Lofepramine Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that lofepramine plus L-phenylalanine with vitamin B12 (Cari Loder regimen) is possibly ineffective for treating disability, symptoms, depression, or fatigue (Level C).

Reflexology

Reflexology Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that reflexology is possibly effective for reducing paresthesia (Level C).

Bee Venom

Bee Venom Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that bee sting therapy is possibly ineffective for reducing relapses, disability, fatigue, total MRI lesion burden, new gadolinium-enhancing lesion volume, or health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (Level C).

Clinical Context

Bee stings can be associated with anaphylactic reaction and possible death.

Magnetic Therapy

Magnetic Therapy Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that magnetic therapy is probably effective for reducing fatigue (Level B) and probably ineffective for reducing depression (Level B).

Other CAM Therapies Practice Recommendation

Clinicians should counsel patients with MS that the safety and efficacy of other reviewed CAM, or the interaction of CAM with disease-modifying therapies for MS, are unknown (Level U).

Definitions:

Classification of Evidence for Therapeutic Interventions

Class I: A randomized, controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest with masked or objective outcome assessment, in a representative population. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

The following are also required:

  1. Concealed allocation
  2. Primary outcome(s) clearly defined
  3. Exclusion/inclusion criteria clearly defined
  4. Adequate accounting for drop-outs (with at least 80% of enrolled subjects completing the study) and cross-overs with numbers sufficiently low to have minimal potential for bias.
  5. For noninferiority or equivalence trials claiming to prove efficacy for one or both drugs, the following are also required*:
    1. The authors explicitly state the clinically meaningful difference to be excluded by defining the threshold for equivalence or noninferiority.
    2. The standard treatment used in the study is substantially similar to that used in previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment (e.g., for a drug, the mode of administration, dose and dosage adjustments are similar to those previously shown to be effective).
    3. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for patient selection and the outcomes of patients on the standard treatment are comparable to those of previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment.
    4. The interpretation of the results of the study is based upon a per protocol analysis that takes into account dropouts or crossovers.

Class II: A randomized controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest in a representative population with masked or objective outcome assessment that lacks one criteria a-e above or a prospective matched cohort study with masked or objective outcome assessment in a representative population that meets b-e above. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

Class III: All other controlled trials (including well-defined natural history controls or patients serving as own controls) in a representative population, where outcome is independently assessed, or independently derived by objective outcome measurement.**

Class IV: Studies not meeting Class I, II or III criteria including consensus or expert opinion.

*Note that numbers 1-3 in Class Ie are required for Class II in equivalence trials. If any one of the three is missing, the class is automatically downgraded to Class III.

**Objective outcome measurement: an outcome measure that is unlikely to be affected by an observer's (patient, treating physician, investigator) expectation or bias (e.g., blood tests, administrative outcome data).

Classification of Recommendations

Level A = Established as effective, ineffective, or harmful (or established as useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level A rating requires at least two consistent Class I studies.)*

Level B = Probably effective, ineffective, or harmful (or probably useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level B rating requires at least one Class I study or at least two consistent Class II studies.)

Level C = Possibly effective, ineffective, or harmful (or possibly useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level C rating requires at least one Class II study or two consistent Class III studies.)

Level U = Data inadequate or conflicting; given current knowledge, treatment (test, predictor) is unproven.

*In exceptional cases, one convincing Class I study may suffice for an "A" recommendation if 1) all criteria are met, 2) the magnitude of effect is large (relative rate improved outcome >5 and the lower limit of the confidence interval is >2).

Major Recommendations

Definitions of the levels of the recommendations (A, B, C, U) and classification of the evidence (Class I-IV) are provided at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Cannabinoids

Cannabinoid Practice Recommendations

Clinicians might offer oral cannabis extract (OCE) to patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) to reduce patient-reported symptoms of spasticity and pain (excluding central neuropathic pain) (Level A) and might counsel patients that this symptomatic benefit is possibly maintained for 1 year (Level C), although OCE is probably ineffective for improving objective spasticity measures (short-term) or tremor (Level B).

Clinicians might offer tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to patients with MS to reduce patient-reported symptoms of spasticity and pain (excluding central neuropathic pain) (Level B). Clinicians might counsel patients that this symptomatic benefit is possibly maintained for 1 year (Level C), although THC is probably ineffective for improving objective spasticity measures (short-term) or tremor (Level B).

Clinicians might offer Sativex oromucosal cannabinoid spray (nabiximols), where available, to reduce symptoms of spasticity, pain, or urinary frequency, although it is probably ineffective for improving objective spasticity measures or number of urinary incontinence episodes (Level B).

Clinicians might choose not to offer Sativex oromucosal cannabinoid spray to reduce MS-related tremor (Level C).

Data are inadequate to support or refute use of the following in MS (Level U):

  1. OCE/THC for bladder urge incontinence and overall symptoms
  2. Synthetic THC (Marinol) for central neuropathic pain
  3. Sativex oromucosal cannabinoid spray for overall bladder symptoms, anxiety symptoms/sleep problems, cognitive symptoms, quality of life (QOL), and fatigue
  4. Smoked cannabis for spasticity, pain, balance/posture, and cognition

Data are inadequate to determine the abuse potential or effect on psychopathologic symptoms of Sativex cannabinoid spray (Level U).

Clinical Context

The cannabinoid studies have limitations that physicians and patients must be aware of. Most studies were of short duration (6 to 15 weeks). Another limitation was the potential for central side effects to unmask patients to treatment assignment — a concern with regard to all masked trials involving treatments with prominent side effects. It is also important to recognize that the Ashworth scale used for objective measurement may be insensitive to spasticity changes. These factors may contribute to the discordant effects of cannabinoids on subjective and objective spasticity measures.

Ginkgo Biloba (GB)

GB Practice Recommendations

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that GB is established as ineffective for improving cognitive function (Level A).

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that GB is possibly effective for reducing fatigue (Level C).

Clinical Context

GB and other supplements are not U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulated. Their quality control may play a role in their effectiveness and adverse effect (AE) risk. Moreover, interactions of supplements with other medications, especially disease-modifying therapies for MS, are a clinical concern.

Low-Fat Diet with Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation (Omega-3)

Omega-3 Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients that a low-fat diet with fish oil supplementation is probably ineffective for reducing relapses, disability, or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) lesions, or for improving fatigue or QOL in MS (Level B).

Lofepramine

Lofepramine Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that lofepramine plus L-phenylalanine with vitamin B12 (Cari Loder regimen) is possibly ineffective for treating disability, symptoms, depression, or fatigue (Level C).

Reflexology

Reflexology Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that reflexology is possibly effective for reducing paresthesia (Level C).

Bee Venom

Bee Venom Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that bee sting therapy is possibly ineffective for reducing relapses, disability, fatigue, total MRI lesion burden, new gadolinium-enhancing lesion volume, or health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (Level C).

Clinical Context

Bee stings can be associated with anaphylactic reaction and possible death.

Magnetic Therapy

Magnetic Therapy Practice Recommendation

Clinicians might counsel patients with MS that magnetic therapy is probably effective for reducing fatigue (Level B) and probably ineffective for reducing depression (Level B).

Other CAM Therapies Practice Recommendation

Clinicians should counsel patients with MS that the safety and efficacy of other reviewed CAM, or the interaction of CAM with disease-modifying therapies for MS, are unknown (Level U).

Definitions:

Classification of Evidence for Therapeutic Interventions

Class I: A randomized, controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest with masked or objective outcome assessment, in a representative population. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

The following are also required:

  1. Concealed allocation
  2. Primary outcome(s) clearly defined
  3. Exclusion/inclusion criteria clearly defined
  4. Adequate accounting for drop-outs (with at least 80% of enrolled subjects completing the study) and cross-overs with numbers sufficiently low to have minimal potential for bias.
  5. For noninferiority or equivalence trials claiming to prove efficacy for one or both drugs, the following are also required*:
    1. The authors explicitly state the clinically meaningful difference to be excluded by defining the threshold for equivalence or noninferiority.
    2. The standard treatment used in the study is substantially similar to that used in previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment (e.g., for a drug, the mode of administration, dose and dosage adjustments are similar to those previously shown to be effective).
    3. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for patient selection and the outcomes of patients on the standard treatment are comparable to those of previous studies establishing efficacy of the standard treatment.
    4. The interpretation of the results of the study is based upon a per protocol analysis that takes into account dropouts or crossovers.

Class II: A randomized controlled clinical trial of the intervention of interest in a representative population with masked or objective outcome assessment that lacks one criteria a-e above or a prospective matched cohort study with masked or objective outcome assessment in a representative population that meets b-e above. Relevant baseline characteristics are presented and substantially equivalent among treatment groups or there is appropriate statistical adjustment for differences.

Class III: All other controlled trials (including well-defined natural history controls or patients serving as own controls) in a representative population, where outcome is independently assessed, or independently derived by objective outcome measurement.**

Class IV: Studies not meeting Class I, II or III criteria including consensus or expert opinion.

*Note that numbers 1-3 in Class Ie are required for Class II in equivalence trials. If any one of the three is missing, the class is automatically downgraded to Class III.

**Objective outcome measurement: an outcome measure that is unlikely to be affected by an observer's (patient, treating physician, investigator) expectation or bias (e.g., blood tests, administrative outcome data).

Classification of Recommendations

Level A = Established as effective, ineffective, or harmful (or established as useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level A rating requires at least two consistent Class I studies.)*

Level B = Probably effective, ineffective, or harmful (or probably useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level B rating requires at least one Class I study or at least two consistent Class II studies.)

Level C = Possibly effective, ineffective, or harmful (or possibly useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population. (Level C rating requires at least one Class II study or two consistent Class III studies.)

Level U = Data inadequate or conflicting; given current knowledge, treatment (test, predictor) is unproven.

*In exceptional cases, one convincing Class I study may suffice for an "A" recommendation if 1) all criteria are met, 2) the magnitude of effect is large (relative rate improved outcome >5 and the lower limit of the confidence interval is >2).

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Summary of evidence-based guideline: complementary and alternative medicine in multiple sclerosis. Report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology
Display Headline
Summary of evidence-based guideline: complementary and alternative medicine in multiple sclerosis. Report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Vitals

OBJECTIVE:

To develop evidence-based recommendations for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in multiple sclerosis (MS).

METHODS:

We searched the literature (1970-March 2011; March 2011-September 2013 MEDLINE search), classified articles, and linked recommendations to evidence.

Guidelines are copyright © 2014 American Academy of Neurology. All rights reserved. The summary is provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.


Guideline for overactive bladder adds new treatments

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 13:52
Display Headline
Guideline for overactive bladder adds new treatments

Updated recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of non-neurogenic overactive bladder incorporate two new treatments approved since 2012 – oral mirabegron and intradetrusor injection of onabotulinumtoxinA.

The 2014 update from the American Urological Association and the Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction (AUA/SUFU) also recognizes the growing number of therapeutic options by stressing the need to take a methodical approach and give an adequate trial of individual treatments before combining them.

Dr. Emily Cole

"As we have more and more options on the market, you don’t want to stack one on top of another," Dr. Emily Cole said in an interview.

"All of these methodologies have some side effects. What you don’t want to do is have added side effects if something is not working," said Dr. Cole, a urologist specializing in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery in a group practice in San Diego.

Compared with the 2012 AUA/SUFU recommendations, the 2014 guideline on "Diagnosis and Treatment of Overactive Bladder (Non-Neurogenic) in Adults" adds the beta3-adrenoceptor agonist mirabegron (Myrbetriq, Astellas Pharma) as a first- or second-line treatment option for some patients. OnabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, Allergan) has been upgraded to a "Standard Option" among third-line treatments instead of a nonapproved, off-label therapy.

The Food and Drug Administration approved mirabegron for adults with overactive bladder in June 2012. The FDA approved onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, Allergan) in January 2013 for adults with overactive bladder who can’t use or don’t respond adequately to anticholinergics.

Clinicians always should start with first- and second-line therapies to reduce symptoms of overactive bladder, Dr. Cole said. By the time patients come to her, they typically have failed those options, but she offers them hope with third-line treatments.

"In most cases, we can really help patients. We may not make you completely dry," she said, but "we have enough tools now that we can make marked improvements."

That’s a big change in recent years, she added. "When I started out, we had two medications that had horrible side effects," she said. Dr. Cole was not involved in creation of the AUA/SUFU guideline.

The AUA/SUFU based the 2012 guideline on 151 articles on the treatment of overactive bladder and reviewed 72 more articles on treatment for the 2014 update.

The recommendations on diagnosis have not changed since 2012 and are based on expert opinion and clinical principles due to insufficient evidence for stronger recommendations.

First-line treatments are behavioral therapies such as bladder training and bladder control strategies or pelvic floor muscle training, which may be combined with pharmacologic management, the guideline states.

Second-line treatments include oral antimuscarinic drugs or mirabegron, preferably in an extended-release formulation if available to reduce the likelihood of dry mouth from immediate-release formulations. A transdermal patch that delivers the antimuscarinic drug oxybutynin became available to adult women over the counter (without a prescription) in 2013.

If a first antimuscarinic medication doesn’t work or causes unacceptable side effects, modify the dose or offer a different antimuscarinic or beta3-adrenoceptor agonist, the guideline states. If an antimuscarinic is effective but causes constipation or dry mouth, don’t give up on that drug class without trying to manage side effects through bowel management, fluid management, modifying the dose, or trying another antimuscarinic.

Be extremely cautious in using antimuscarinics in patients with impaired gastric emptying or a history of urinary retention, and don’t use antimuscarinics in patients with narrow-angle glaucoma without approval from a treating ophthalmologist. If a patient is on other medications with anticholinergic properties, be cautious about prescribing antimuscarinics.

Patients who fail first- and second-line therapies should be evaluated by a specialist if they still desire treatment, according to the guideline.

Among third-line treatment options, sacral neuromodulation may be offered to patients with severe refractory overactive bladder or patients who are not candidates for second-line treatments and who are willing to undergo a surgical procedure. Peripheral tibial nerve stimulation is another option in carefully selected patients.

Intradetrusor injections of Botox may be appropriate for carefully selected and "thoroughly counseled" patients who failed first- and second-line treatments if they are able and willing to return for frequent postvoid residual evaluations and to perform self-catheterization if necessary.

The guideline does not recommend indwelling catheters for management of overactive bladder except as a last resort in some patients, and says that augmentation cystoplasty or urinary diversion may be considered in rare cases of severe, refractory, complicated overactive bladder.

Dr. Cole has been a speaker for Allergan, which markets Botox.

sboschert@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @sherryboschert

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Legacy Keywords
non-neurogenic, overactive bladder, oral mirabegron, intradetrusor injection, onabotulinumtoxinA, Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine,
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Updated recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of non-neurogenic overactive bladder incorporate two new treatments approved since 2012 – oral mirabegron and intradetrusor injection of onabotulinumtoxinA.

The 2014 update from the American Urological Association and the Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction (AUA/SUFU) also recognizes the growing number of therapeutic options by stressing the need to take a methodical approach and give an adequate trial of individual treatments before combining them.

Dr. Emily Cole

"As we have more and more options on the market, you don’t want to stack one on top of another," Dr. Emily Cole said in an interview.

"All of these methodologies have some side effects. What you don’t want to do is have added side effects if something is not working," said Dr. Cole, a urologist specializing in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery in a group practice in San Diego.

Compared with the 2012 AUA/SUFU recommendations, the 2014 guideline on "Diagnosis and Treatment of Overactive Bladder (Non-Neurogenic) in Adults" adds the beta3-adrenoceptor agonist mirabegron (Myrbetriq, Astellas Pharma) as a first- or second-line treatment option for some patients. OnabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, Allergan) has been upgraded to a "Standard Option" among third-line treatments instead of a nonapproved, off-label therapy.

The Food and Drug Administration approved mirabegron for adults with overactive bladder in June 2012. The FDA approved onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, Allergan) in January 2013 for adults with overactive bladder who can’t use or don’t respond adequately to anticholinergics.

Clinicians always should start with first- and second-line therapies to reduce symptoms of overactive bladder, Dr. Cole said. By the time patients come to her, they typically have failed those options, but she offers them hope with third-line treatments.

"In most cases, we can really help patients. We may not make you completely dry," she said, but "we have enough tools now that we can make marked improvements."

That’s a big change in recent years, she added. "When I started out, we had two medications that had horrible side effects," she said. Dr. Cole was not involved in creation of the AUA/SUFU guideline.

The AUA/SUFU based the 2012 guideline on 151 articles on the treatment of overactive bladder and reviewed 72 more articles on treatment for the 2014 update.

The recommendations on diagnosis have not changed since 2012 and are based on expert opinion and clinical principles due to insufficient evidence for stronger recommendations.

First-line treatments are behavioral therapies such as bladder training and bladder control strategies or pelvic floor muscle training, which may be combined with pharmacologic management, the guideline states.

Second-line treatments include oral antimuscarinic drugs or mirabegron, preferably in an extended-release formulation if available to reduce the likelihood of dry mouth from immediate-release formulations. A transdermal patch that delivers the antimuscarinic drug oxybutynin became available to adult women over the counter (without a prescription) in 2013.

If a first antimuscarinic medication doesn’t work or causes unacceptable side effects, modify the dose or offer a different antimuscarinic or beta3-adrenoceptor agonist, the guideline states. If an antimuscarinic is effective but causes constipation or dry mouth, don’t give up on that drug class without trying to manage side effects through bowel management, fluid management, modifying the dose, or trying another antimuscarinic.

Be extremely cautious in using antimuscarinics in patients with impaired gastric emptying or a history of urinary retention, and don’t use antimuscarinics in patients with narrow-angle glaucoma without approval from a treating ophthalmologist. If a patient is on other medications with anticholinergic properties, be cautious about prescribing antimuscarinics.

Patients who fail first- and second-line therapies should be evaluated by a specialist if they still desire treatment, according to the guideline.

Among third-line treatment options, sacral neuromodulation may be offered to patients with severe refractory overactive bladder or patients who are not candidates for second-line treatments and who are willing to undergo a surgical procedure. Peripheral tibial nerve stimulation is another option in carefully selected patients.

Intradetrusor injections of Botox may be appropriate for carefully selected and "thoroughly counseled" patients who failed first- and second-line treatments if they are able and willing to return for frequent postvoid residual evaluations and to perform self-catheterization if necessary.

The guideline does not recommend indwelling catheters for management of overactive bladder except as a last resort in some patients, and says that augmentation cystoplasty or urinary diversion may be considered in rare cases of severe, refractory, complicated overactive bladder.

Dr. Cole has been a speaker for Allergan, which markets Botox.

sboschert@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @sherryboschert

Updated recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of non-neurogenic overactive bladder incorporate two new treatments approved since 2012 – oral mirabegron and intradetrusor injection of onabotulinumtoxinA.

The 2014 update from the American Urological Association and the Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction (AUA/SUFU) also recognizes the growing number of therapeutic options by stressing the need to take a methodical approach and give an adequate trial of individual treatments before combining them.

Dr. Emily Cole

"As we have more and more options on the market, you don’t want to stack one on top of another," Dr. Emily Cole said in an interview.

"All of these methodologies have some side effects. What you don’t want to do is have added side effects if something is not working," said Dr. Cole, a urologist specializing in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery in a group practice in San Diego.

Compared with the 2012 AUA/SUFU recommendations, the 2014 guideline on "Diagnosis and Treatment of Overactive Bladder (Non-Neurogenic) in Adults" adds the beta3-adrenoceptor agonist mirabegron (Myrbetriq, Astellas Pharma) as a first- or second-line treatment option for some patients. OnabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, Allergan) has been upgraded to a "Standard Option" among third-line treatments instead of a nonapproved, off-label therapy.

The Food and Drug Administration approved mirabegron for adults with overactive bladder in June 2012. The FDA approved onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, Allergan) in January 2013 for adults with overactive bladder who can’t use or don’t respond adequately to anticholinergics.

Clinicians always should start with first- and second-line therapies to reduce symptoms of overactive bladder, Dr. Cole said. By the time patients come to her, they typically have failed those options, but she offers them hope with third-line treatments.

"In most cases, we can really help patients. We may not make you completely dry," she said, but "we have enough tools now that we can make marked improvements."

That’s a big change in recent years, she added. "When I started out, we had two medications that had horrible side effects," she said. Dr. Cole was not involved in creation of the AUA/SUFU guideline.

The AUA/SUFU based the 2012 guideline on 151 articles on the treatment of overactive bladder and reviewed 72 more articles on treatment for the 2014 update.

The recommendations on diagnosis have not changed since 2012 and are based on expert opinion and clinical principles due to insufficient evidence for stronger recommendations.

First-line treatments are behavioral therapies such as bladder training and bladder control strategies or pelvic floor muscle training, which may be combined with pharmacologic management, the guideline states.

Second-line treatments include oral antimuscarinic drugs or mirabegron, preferably in an extended-release formulation if available to reduce the likelihood of dry mouth from immediate-release formulations. A transdermal patch that delivers the antimuscarinic drug oxybutynin became available to adult women over the counter (without a prescription) in 2013.

If a first antimuscarinic medication doesn’t work or causes unacceptable side effects, modify the dose or offer a different antimuscarinic or beta3-adrenoceptor agonist, the guideline states. If an antimuscarinic is effective but causes constipation or dry mouth, don’t give up on that drug class without trying to manage side effects through bowel management, fluid management, modifying the dose, or trying another antimuscarinic.

Be extremely cautious in using antimuscarinics in patients with impaired gastric emptying or a history of urinary retention, and don’t use antimuscarinics in patients with narrow-angle glaucoma without approval from a treating ophthalmologist. If a patient is on other medications with anticholinergic properties, be cautious about prescribing antimuscarinics.

Patients who fail first- and second-line therapies should be evaluated by a specialist if they still desire treatment, according to the guideline.

Among third-line treatment options, sacral neuromodulation may be offered to patients with severe refractory overactive bladder or patients who are not candidates for second-line treatments and who are willing to undergo a surgical procedure. Peripheral tibial nerve stimulation is another option in carefully selected patients.

Intradetrusor injections of Botox may be appropriate for carefully selected and "thoroughly counseled" patients who failed first- and second-line treatments if they are able and willing to return for frequent postvoid residual evaluations and to perform self-catheterization if necessary.

The guideline does not recommend indwelling catheters for management of overactive bladder except as a last resort in some patients, and says that augmentation cystoplasty or urinary diversion may be considered in rare cases of severe, refractory, complicated overactive bladder.

Dr. Cole has been a speaker for Allergan, which markets Botox.

sboschert@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @sherryboschert

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Guideline for overactive bladder adds new treatments
Display Headline
Guideline for overactive bladder adds new treatments
Legacy Keywords
non-neurogenic, overactive bladder, oral mirabegron, intradetrusor injection, onabotulinumtoxinA, Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine,
Legacy Keywords
non-neurogenic, overactive bladder, oral mirabegron, intradetrusor injection, onabotulinumtoxinA, Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine,
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with seizures

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 13:51
Display Headline
Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with seizures

Major Recommendations

Definitions for the strength of evidence (Class I-III) and strength of recommendations (Level A-C) are provided at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

  1. In patients with a first generalized convulsive seizure who have returned to their baseline clinical status, should antiepileptic therapy be initiated in the emergency department (ED) to prevent additional seizures?

    Patient Management Recommendations

    Level A recommendations. None specified.

    Level B recommendations. None specified.

    Level C recommendations.

    1. Emergency physicians need not initiate antiepileptic medication* in the ED for patients who have had a first provoked seizure. Precipitating medical conditions should be identified and treated.
    2. Emergency physicians need not initiate antiepileptic medication* in the ED for patients who have had a first unprovoked seizure without evidence of brain disease or injury.
    3. Emergency physicians may initiate antiepileptic medication* in the ED, or defer in coordination with other providers, for patients who experienced a first unprovoked seizure with a remote history of brain disease or injury.

    *Antiepileptic medication in this document refers to medications prescribed for seizure prevention.

  1. In patients with a first unprovoked seizure who have returned to their baseline clinical status in the ED, should the patient be admitted to the hospital to prevent adverse events?

    Patient Management Recommendations

    Level A recommendations. None specified.

    Level B recommendations. None specified.

    Level C recommendations. Emergency physicians need not admit patients with a first unprovoked seizure who have returned to their clinical baseline in the ED.

  2. In patients with a known seizure disorder in which resuming their antiepileptic medication in the ED is deemed appropriate, does the route of administration impact recurrence of seizures?

    Patient Management Recommendations

    Level A recommendations. None specified.

    Level B recommendations. None specified.

    Level C recommendations. When resuming antiepileptic medication in the ED is deemed appropriate, the emergency physician may administer intravenous (IV) or oral medication at their discretion.

  3. In ED patients with generalized convulsive status epilepticus who continue to have seizures despite receiving optimal dosing of a benzodiazepine, which agent or agents should be administered next to terminate seizures?

    Patient Management Recommendations

    Level A recommendations. Emergency physicians should administer an additional antiepileptic medication in ED patients with refractory status epilepticus who have failed treatment with benzodiazepines.

    Level B recommendations. Emergency physicians may administer IV phenytoin, fosphenytoin, or valproate in ED patients with refractory status epilepticus who have failed treatment with benzodiazepines.

    Level C recommendations. Emergency physicians may administer IV levetiracetam, propofol, or barbiturates in ED patients with refractory status epilepticus who have failed treatment with benzodiazepines.

    Definitions:

    Strength of Evidence

    Literature Classification Schema*

    Design/Class Therapy† Diagnosis‡ Prognosis§
    1 Randomized, controlled trial or meta-analysis of randomized trials Prospective cohort using a criterion standard or meta-analysis of prospective studies Population prospective cohort or meta-analysis of prospective studies
    2 Nonrandomized trial Retrospective observational Retrospective cohort

    Case control
    3 Case series

    Case report

    Other (e.g., consensus, review)
    Case series

    Case report

    Other (e.g., consensus, review)
    Case series

    Case report

    Other (e.g., consensus, review)

    *Some designs (e.g., surveys) will not fit this schema and should be assessed individually.

    †Objective is to measure therapeutic efficacy comparing interventions.

    ‡Objective is to determine the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests.

    §Objective is to predict outcome including mortality and morbidity.

    Approach to Downgrading Strength of Evidence*

      Design/Class
    Downgrading 1 2 3
    None I II III
    1 level II III X
    2 levels III X X
    Fatally flawed X X X

    *See the "Description of Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence" field for more information.

    Strength of recommendations regarding each critical question were made by subcommittee members using results from strength of evidence grading, expert opinion, and consensus among subcommittee members according to the following guidelines:

    Strength of Recommendations

    Level A recommendations. Generally accepted principles for patient care that reflect a high degree of clinical certainty (i.e., based on evidence from 1 or more Class of Evidence I or multiple Class of Evidence II studies).

    Level B recommendations. Recommendations for patient care that may identify a particular strategy or range of strategies that reflect moderate clinical certainty (i.e., based on evidence from 1 or more Class of Evidence II studies or strong consensus of Class of Evidence III studies).

    Level C recommendations. Recommendations for patient care that are based on evidence from Class of Evidence III studies or, in the absence of any adequate published literature, based on expert consensus. In instances where consensus recommendations are made, "consensus" is placed in parentheses at the end of the recommendation.

    There are certain circumstances in which the recommendations stemming from a body of evidence should not be rated as highly as the individual studies on which they are based. Factors such as heterogeneity of results, uncertainty about effect magnitude and consequences, and publication bias, among others, might lead to such a downgrading of recommendations.

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Legacy Keywords
seizures, epilepsy
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Major Recommendations

Definitions for the strength of evidence (Class I-III) and strength of recommendations (Level A-C) are provided at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

  1. In patients with a first generalized convulsive seizure who have returned to their baseline clinical status, should antiepileptic therapy be initiated in the emergency department (ED) to prevent additional seizures?

    Patient Management Recommendations

    Level A recommendations. None specified.

    Level B recommendations. None specified.

    Level C recommendations.

    1. Emergency physicians need not initiate antiepileptic medication* in the ED for patients who have had a first provoked seizure. Precipitating medical conditions should be identified and treated.
    2. Emergency physicians need not initiate antiepileptic medication* in the ED for patients who have had a first unprovoked seizure without evidence of brain disease or injury.
    3. Emergency physicians may initiate antiepileptic medication* in the ED, or defer in coordination with other providers, for patients who experienced a first unprovoked seizure with a remote history of brain disease or injury.

    *Antiepileptic medication in this document refers to medications prescribed for seizure prevention.

  1. In patients with a first unprovoked seizure who have returned to their baseline clinical status in the ED, should the patient be admitted to the hospital to prevent adverse events?

    Patient Management Recommendations

    Level A recommendations. None specified.

    Level B recommendations. None specified.

    Level C recommendations. Emergency physicians need not admit patients with a first unprovoked seizure who have returned to their clinical baseline in the ED.

  2. In patients with a known seizure disorder in which resuming their antiepileptic medication in the ED is deemed appropriate, does the route of administration impact recurrence of seizures?

    Patient Management Recommendations

    Level A recommendations. None specified.

    Level B recommendations. None specified.

    Level C recommendations. When resuming antiepileptic medication in the ED is deemed appropriate, the emergency physician may administer intravenous (IV) or oral medication at their discretion.

  3. In ED patients with generalized convulsive status epilepticus who continue to have seizures despite receiving optimal dosing of a benzodiazepine, which agent or agents should be administered next to terminate seizures?

    Patient Management Recommendations

    Level A recommendations. Emergency physicians should administer an additional antiepileptic medication in ED patients with refractory status epilepticus who have failed treatment with benzodiazepines.

    Level B recommendations. Emergency physicians may administer IV phenytoin, fosphenytoin, or valproate in ED patients with refractory status epilepticus who have failed treatment with benzodiazepines.

    Level C recommendations. Emergency physicians may administer IV levetiracetam, propofol, or barbiturates in ED patients with refractory status epilepticus who have failed treatment with benzodiazepines.

    Definitions:

    Strength of Evidence

    Literature Classification Schema*

    Design/Class Therapy† Diagnosis‡ Prognosis§
    1 Randomized, controlled trial or meta-analysis of randomized trials Prospective cohort using a criterion standard or meta-analysis of prospective studies Population prospective cohort or meta-analysis of prospective studies
    2 Nonrandomized trial Retrospective observational Retrospective cohort

    Case control
    3 Case series

    Case report

    Other (e.g., consensus, review)
    Case series

    Case report

    Other (e.g., consensus, review)
    Case series

    Case report

    Other (e.g., consensus, review)

    *Some designs (e.g., surveys) will not fit this schema and should be assessed individually.

    †Objective is to measure therapeutic efficacy comparing interventions.

    ‡Objective is to determine the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests.

    §Objective is to predict outcome including mortality and morbidity.

    Approach to Downgrading Strength of Evidence*

      Design/Class
    Downgrading 1 2 3
    None I II III
    1 level II III X
    2 levels III X X
    Fatally flawed X X X

    *See the "Description of Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence" field for more information.

    Strength of recommendations regarding each critical question were made by subcommittee members using results from strength of evidence grading, expert opinion, and consensus among subcommittee members according to the following guidelines:

    Strength of Recommendations

    Level A recommendations. Generally accepted principles for patient care that reflect a high degree of clinical certainty (i.e., based on evidence from 1 or more Class of Evidence I or multiple Class of Evidence II studies).

    Level B recommendations. Recommendations for patient care that may identify a particular strategy or range of strategies that reflect moderate clinical certainty (i.e., based on evidence from 1 or more Class of Evidence II studies or strong consensus of Class of Evidence III studies).

    Level C recommendations. Recommendations for patient care that are based on evidence from Class of Evidence III studies or, in the absence of any adequate published literature, based on expert consensus. In instances where consensus recommendations are made, "consensus" is placed in parentheses at the end of the recommendation.

    There are certain circumstances in which the recommendations stemming from a body of evidence should not be rated as highly as the individual studies on which they are based. Factors such as heterogeneity of results, uncertainty about effect magnitude and consequences, and publication bias, among others, might lead to such a downgrading of recommendations.

Major Recommendations

Definitions for the strength of evidence (Class I-III) and strength of recommendations (Level A-C) are provided at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

  1. In patients with a first generalized convulsive seizure who have returned to their baseline clinical status, should antiepileptic therapy be initiated in the emergency department (ED) to prevent additional seizures?

    Patient Management Recommendations

    Level A recommendations. None specified.

    Level B recommendations. None specified.

    Level C recommendations.

    1. Emergency physicians need not initiate antiepileptic medication* in the ED for patients who have had a first provoked seizure. Precipitating medical conditions should be identified and treated.
    2. Emergency physicians need not initiate antiepileptic medication* in the ED for patients who have had a first unprovoked seizure without evidence of brain disease or injury.
    3. Emergency physicians may initiate antiepileptic medication* in the ED, or defer in coordination with other providers, for patients who experienced a first unprovoked seizure with a remote history of brain disease or injury.

    *Antiepileptic medication in this document refers to medications prescribed for seizure prevention.

  1. In patients with a first unprovoked seizure who have returned to their baseline clinical status in the ED, should the patient be admitted to the hospital to prevent adverse events?

    Patient Management Recommendations

    Level A recommendations. None specified.

    Level B recommendations. None specified.

    Level C recommendations. Emergency physicians need not admit patients with a first unprovoked seizure who have returned to their clinical baseline in the ED.

  2. In patients with a known seizure disorder in which resuming their antiepileptic medication in the ED is deemed appropriate, does the route of administration impact recurrence of seizures?

    Patient Management Recommendations

    Level A recommendations. None specified.

    Level B recommendations. None specified.

    Level C recommendations. When resuming antiepileptic medication in the ED is deemed appropriate, the emergency physician may administer intravenous (IV) or oral medication at their discretion.

  3. In ED patients with generalized convulsive status epilepticus who continue to have seizures despite receiving optimal dosing of a benzodiazepine, which agent or agents should be administered next to terminate seizures?

    Patient Management Recommendations

    Level A recommendations. Emergency physicians should administer an additional antiepileptic medication in ED patients with refractory status epilepticus who have failed treatment with benzodiazepines.

    Level B recommendations. Emergency physicians may administer IV phenytoin, fosphenytoin, or valproate in ED patients with refractory status epilepticus who have failed treatment with benzodiazepines.

    Level C recommendations. Emergency physicians may administer IV levetiracetam, propofol, or barbiturates in ED patients with refractory status epilepticus who have failed treatment with benzodiazepines.

    Definitions:

    Strength of Evidence

    Literature Classification Schema*

    Design/Class Therapy† Diagnosis‡ Prognosis§
    1 Randomized, controlled trial or meta-analysis of randomized trials Prospective cohort using a criterion standard or meta-analysis of prospective studies Population prospective cohort or meta-analysis of prospective studies
    2 Nonrandomized trial Retrospective observational Retrospective cohort

    Case control
    3 Case series

    Case report

    Other (e.g., consensus, review)
    Case series

    Case report

    Other (e.g., consensus, review)
    Case series

    Case report

    Other (e.g., consensus, review)

    *Some designs (e.g., surveys) will not fit this schema and should be assessed individually.

    †Objective is to measure therapeutic efficacy comparing interventions.

    ‡Objective is to determine the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests.

    §Objective is to predict outcome including mortality and morbidity.

    Approach to Downgrading Strength of Evidence*

      Design/Class
    Downgrading 1 2 3
    None I II III
    1 level II III X
    2 levels III X X
    Fatally flawed X X X

    *See the "Description of Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence" field for more information.

    Strength of recommendations regarding each critical question were made by subcommittee members using results from strength of evidence grading, expert opinion, and consensus among subcommittee members according to the following guidelines:

    Strength of Recommendations

    Level A recommendations. Generally accepted principles for patient care that reflect a high degree of clinical certainty (i.e., based on evidence from 1 or more Class of Evidence I or multiple Class of Evidence II studies).

    Level B recommendations. Recommendations for patient care that may identify a particular strategy or range of strategies that reflect moderate clinical certainty (i.e., based on evidence from 1 or more Class of Evidence II studies or strong consensus of Class of Evidence III studies).

    Level C recommendations. Recommendations for patient care that are based on evidence from Class of Evidence III studies or, in the absence of any adequate published literature, based on expert consensus. In instances where consensus recommendations are made, "consensus" is placed in parentheses at the end of the recommendation.

    There are certain circumstances in which the recommendations stemming from a body of evidence should not be rated as highly as the individual studies on which they are based. Factors such as heterogeneity of results, uncertainty about effect magnitude and consequences, and publication bias, among others, might lead to such a downgrading of recommendations.

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with seizures
Display Headline
Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with seizures
Legacy Keywords
seizures, epilepsy
Legacy Keywords
seizures, epilepsy
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Vitals

This clinical policy from the American College of Emergency Physicians is the revision of a 2004 policy on critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients with seizures in the emergency department. A writing subcommittee reviewed the literature to derive evidence-based recommendations to help clinicians answer four critical questions. A literature search was performed, the evidence was graded, and recommendations were given based on the strength of the available data in the medical literature.

Guidelines are copyright © 2014 American College of Emergency Physicians. All rights reserved. The summary is provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.


Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: section 1. Diagnosis and assessment of atopic dermatitis

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 13:51
Display Headline
Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: section 1. Diagnosis and assessment of atopic dermatitis

Major Recommendations

Level of evidence grades (I-III) and strength of recommendations (A-C) are defined at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Note from the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC): This document is the first section in a series of four and covers methods for diagnosis and assessment of atopic dermatitis (AD). The second guideline in the series will address the management and treatment of AD with pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic topical modalities; the third section will cover phototherapy and systemic treatment options; and the fourth section will address the minimization of disease flares, educational interventions, and use of adjunctive approaches.

Features to Be Considered in the Diagnosis of Patients with AD

Essential Features—Must be present:

  • Pruritus
  • Eczema (acute, subacute, chronic):
    • Typical morphology and age-specific patterns*
    • Chronic or relapsing history

*Patterns Include:

  1. Facial, neck, and extensor involvement in infants and children
  2. Current or previous flexural lesions in any age group
  3. Sparing of the groin and axillary regions

Important Features—Seen in most cases, adding support to the diagnosis:

  • Early age of onset
  • Atopy:
    • Personal and/or family history
    • Immunoglobulin E reactivity
  • Xerosis

Associated Features—These clinical associations help to suggest the diagnosis of AD but are too nonspecific to be used for defining or detecting AD for research and epidemiologic studies:

  • Atypical vascular responses (e.g., facial pallor, white dermographism, delayed blanch response)
  • Keratosis pilaris/pityriasis alba/hyperlinear palms/ichthyosis
  • Ocular/periorbital changes
  • Other regional findings (e.g., perioral changes/periauricular lesions)
  • Perifollicular accentuation/lichenification/prurigo lesions

Exclusionary Conditions—It should be noted that a diagnosis of AD depends on excluding conditions, such as:

  • Scabies
  • Seborrheic dermatitis
  • Contact dermatitis (irritant or allergic)
  • Ichthyoses
  • Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma
  • Psoriasis
  • Photosensitivity dermatoses
  • Immune deficiency diseases
  • Erythroderma of other causes

Adapted from Eichenfield LF, Hanifin JM, Luger TA, Stevens SR, Pride HB. Consensus conference on pediatric atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol 2003;49:1088-95. Used with permission of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Recommendation for the Diagnosis of AD

Patients with presumed AD should have their diagnosis based on the criteria summarized in the box above. On occasion, skin biopsy specimens or other tests (such as serum immunoglobulin E, potassium hydroxide preparation, patch testing, and/or genetic testing) may be helpful to rule out other or associated skin conditions.

Strength of Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Assessment of AD

Recommendation Strength of Recommendation Level of Evidence References
Diagnosis made using criteria in the box above C III Mevorah et al., 1988; Gu et al., 2001; Lan et al., 2009; Diepgen, Sauerbrei, & Fartasch, 1996; De, Kanwar, & Handa, 2006; Loden, Andersson, & Lindberg, 1998; Samochocki & Dejewska, 2012; Samochocki, Paulochowska, & Zabielski, 2000; Chalmers et al., 2007; Firooz et al., 1999; Saeki et al., 2007; Firooz & Kashani, 2008; Hamada et al., 2005; Williams et al., 1994; Williams et al., 1996
No specific biomarkers for diagnosis or severity assessment B II Murat-Susic et al., 2006; Schulte-Herbruggen et al., 2007; Amon et al., 2000; Dhar et al., 2005; Gerdes, Kurrat, & Mrowietz, 2009; Aral et al, 2006; Di Lorenzo et al., 2003; El Mongy et al., 2008; Ezzat, Hasan, & Shaheen, 2011; Jahnz-Rozyk et al., 2005; Nakazato et al., 2008; Belloni Fortina et al., 2006; Gutgesell et al., 2002; Hirai et al., 1996; Hon et al., 2007; Horikawa et al., 2002; Kakinuma et al., 2003; La Grutta et al., 2005; Leung et al., 2003; Mostafa et al., 2008; Oflazoglu et al., "CD30 expression," 2008; Oflazoglu et al., "CD40 expression," 2008; Ott et al., 2010; Raap et al., 2006; Song et al., 2006; Wolkerstorfer et al., 1998
Immunoglobulin E levels not routinely recommended A I Schneider et al., 2013; Murat-Susic et al., 2006; Schulte-Herbruggen et al., 2007; Gerdes, Kurrat, & Mrowietz, 2009; Aral et al., 2006; Vakirlis et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2011
Available disease severity scales not for routine clinical use C II Schmitt, Langan, & Williams, 2007; Schram et al., 2012; Sprikkelman et al., 1997; Angelova-Fischer et al., 2005; Wolkerstorfer et al., 1999; Linnet & Jemec, 1999; Hon et al., 2006; Barbier et al., 2004; Charman, Venn, & Williams, 2002; Charman, Venn, & Williams, 2004; Charman et al., 1999; Cosickic et al., 2010; Emerson, Charman, & Williams, 2000; Hanifin et al., 2001; Holm et al., 2007; Oranje et al., 1997; Rullo et al., 2008
Available quality of life severity scales not for routine clinical use C II Chamlin et al., 2007; Augustin et al., 2004; Hon et al, 2006; Misery et al., 2007
Should query itch, sleep, impact on daily activity, and disease persistence C III Chamlin et al., 2005; Hon et al., 2008; Dawn et al., 2009; Lewis-Jones, 2006; Weisshaar et al., 2008; Ricci et al., 2007; Bender et al., 2008; Ben-Gashir, Seed, & Hay, 2002
Awareness and discussion of common associations C I and II Chamlin et al., 2005; Hon et al., 2008; Batlles-Garrido et al., 2010; Chawes et al., 2010; Sultesz et al., 2010; Kyllonen et al., 2006; Hwang et al., 2010; Hyvarinen et al., 2005; Eller et al., 2009; Horwitz, Hossain, & Yousef, 2009; Bashir, Dar, & Rao, 2010; Schmitt et al., "Psychiatric comorbidity," 2009; Schmitt et al., "Atopic eczema," 2009; Yaghmaie, Koudelka, & Simpson, 2013; Harding et al., 2008; Synnerstad et al., 2008; Vajdic et al., 2009; Kajbaf, Asar, & Alipoor, 2011; Vlaski et al., 2006
Integrated, multidisciplinary approach to care C III Boguniewicz et al., 2008; Ricci et al., 2009

Recommendations for the Use of Biomarkers in the Assessment of AD

  • For patients with presumed AD, there are no specific biomarkers that can be recommended for diagnosis and/or assessment of disease severity.
  • Monitoring of immunoglobulin E levels is not recommended for the routine assessment of disease severity.

Recommendations for Disease Severity and Clinical Outcomes Assessment

  • For the general management of patients with AD, available disease severity measurement scales are not recommended for routine clinical practice, because they were not usually designed for this purpose.
  • For the general management of patients with AD, available patient quality of life measurement scales are not recommended for routine clinical practice.
  • It is recommended that clinicians ask general questions about itch, sleep, impact on daily activity, and persistence of disease, and currently available scales be used mainly when practical.

Recommendations for the Assessment of Clinical Associations of AD

  • Physicians should be aware of and assess for conditions associated with AD, such as rhinitis/rhinoconjunctivitis, asthma, food allergy, sleep disturbance, depression, and other neuropsychiatric conditions, and it is recommended that physicians discuss them with the patient as part of the treatment/management plan, when appropriate.
  • An integrated, multidisciplinary approach to care may be valuable and is suggested for AD patients who present with common associations.

Definitions:

Levels of Evidence

  1. Good-quality patient-oriented evidence (i.e., evidence measuring outcomes that matter to patients: morbidity, mortality, symptom improvement, cost reduction, and quality of life)
  2. Limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
  3. Other evidence including consensus guidelines, opinion, case studies, or disease-oriented evidence (i.e., evidence measuring intermediate, physiologic, or surrogate end points that may or may not reflect improvements in patient outcomes)

Grades of Recommendation

  1. Recommendation based on consistent and good quality patient-oriented evidence
  2. Recommendation based on inconsistent or limited quality patient-oriented evidence
  3. Recommendation based on consensus, opinion, case studies, or disease-oriented evidence

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Legacy Keywords
eczema, atopy
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Major Recommendations

Level of evidence grades (I-III) and strength of recommendations (A-C) are defined at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Note from the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC): This document is the first section in a series of four and covers methods for diagnosis and assessment of atopic dermatitis (AD). The second guideline in the series will address the management and treatment of AD with pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic topical modalities; the third section will cover phototherapy and systemic treatment options; and the fourth section will address the minimization of disease flares, educational interventions, and use of adjunctive approaches.

Features to Be Considered in the Diagnosis of Patients with AD

Essential Features—Must be present:

  • Pruritus
  • Eczema (acute, subacute, chronic):
    • Typical morphology and age-specific patterns*
    • Chronic or relapsing history

*Patterns Include:

  1. Facial, neck, and extensor involvement in infants and children
  2. Current or previous flexural lesions in any age group
  3. Sparing of the groin and axillary regions

Important Features—Seen in most cases, adding support to the diagnosis:

  • Early age of onset
  • Atopy:
    • Personal and/or family history
    • Immunoglobulin E reactivity
  • Xerosis

Associated Features—These clinical associations help to suggest the diagnosis of AD but are too nonspecific to be used for defining or detecting AD for research and epidemiologic studies:

  • Atypical vascular responses (e.g., facial pallor, white dermographism, delayed blanch response)
  • Keratosis pilaris/pityriasis alba/hyperlinear palms/ichthyosis
  • Ocular/periorbital changes
  • Other regional findings (e.g., perioral changes/periauricular lesions)
  • Perifollicular accentuation/lichenification/prurigo lesions

Exclusionary Conditions—It should be noted that a diagnosis of AD depends on excluding conditions, such as:

  • Scabies
  • Seborrheic dermatitis
  • Contact dermatitis (irritant or allergic)
  • Ichthyoses
  • Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma
  • Psoriasis
  • Photosensitivity dermatoses
  • Immune deficiency diseases
  • Erythroderma of other causes

Adapted from Eichenfield LF, Hanifin JM, Luger TA, Stevens SR, Pride HB. Consensus conference on pediatric atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol 2003;49:1088-95. Used with permission of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Recommendation for the Diagnosis of AD

Patients with presumed AD should have their diagnosis based on the criteria summarized in the box above. On occasion, skin biopsy specimens or other tests (such as serum immunoglobulin E, potassium hydroxide preparation, patch testing, and/or genetic testing) may be helpful to rule out other or associated skin conditions.

Strength of Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Assessment of AD

Recommendation Strength of Recommendation Level of Evidence References
Diagnosis made using criteria in the box above C III Mevorah et al., 1988; Gu et al., 2001; Lan et al., 2009; Diepgen, Sauerbrei, & Fartasch, 1996; De, Kanwar, & Handa, 2006; Loden, Andersson, & Lindberg, 1998; Samochocki & Dejewska, 2012; Samochocki, Paulochowska, & Zabielski, 2000; Chalmers et al., 2007; Firooz et al., 1999; Saeki et al., 2007; Firooz & Kashani, 2008; Hamada et al., 2005; Williams et al., 1994; Williams et al., 1996
No specific biomarkers for diagnosis or severity assessment B II Murat-Susic et al., 2006; Schulte-Herbruggen et al., 2007; Amon et al., 2000; Dhar et al., 2005; Gerdes, Kurrat, & Mrowietz, 2009; Aral et al, 2006; Di Lorenzo et al., 2003; El Mongy et al., 2008; Ezzat, Hasan, & Shaheen, 2011; Jahnz-Rozyk et al., 2005; Nakazato et al., 2008; Belloni Fortina et al., 2006; Gutgesell et al., 2002; Hirai et al., 1996; Hon et al., 2007; Horikawa et al., 2002; Kakinuma et al., 2003; La Grutta et al., 2005; Leung et al., 2003; Mostafa et al., 2008; Oflazoglu et al., "CD30 expression," 2008; Oflazoglu et al., "CD40 expression," 2008; Ott et al., 2010; Raap et al., 2006; Song et al., 2006; Wolkerstorfer et al., 1998
Immunoglobulin E levels not routinely recommended A I Schneider et al., 2013; Murat-Susic et al., 2006; Schulte-Herbruggen et al., 2007; Gerdes, Kurrat, & Mrowietz, 2009; Aral et al., 2006; Vakirlis et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2011
Available disease severity scales not for routine clinical use C II Schmitt, Langan, & Williams, 2007; Schram et al., 2012; Sprikkelman et al., 1997; Angelova-Fischer et al., 2005; Wolkerstorfer et al., 1999; Linnet & Jemec, 1999; Hon et al., 2006; Barbier et al., 2004; Charman, Venn, & Williams, 2002; Charman, Venn, & Williams, 2004; Charman et al., 1999; Cosickic et al., 2010; Emerson, Charman, & Williams, 2000; Hanifin et al., 2001; Holm et al., 2007; Oranje et al., 1997; Rullo et al., 2008
Available quality of life severity scales not for routine clinical use C II Chamlin et al., 2007; Augustin et al., 2004; Hon et al, 2006; Misery et al., 2007
Should query itch, sleep, impact on daily activity, and disease persistence C III Chamlin et al., 2005; Hon et al., 2008; Dawn et al., 2009; Lewis-Jones, 2006; Weisshaar et al., 2008; Ricci et al., 2007; Bender et al., 2008; Ben-Gashir, Seed, & Hay, 2002
Awareness and discussion of common associations C I and II Chamlin et al., 2005; Hon et al., 2008; Batlles-Garrido et al., 2010; Chawes et al., 2010; Sultesz et al., 2010; Kyllonen et al., 2006; Hwang et al., 2010; Hyvarinen et al., 2005; Eller et al., 2009; Horwitz, Hossain, & Yousef, 2009; Bashir, Dar, & Rao, 2010; Schmitt et al., "Psychiatric comorbidity," 2009; Schmitt et al., "Atopic eczema," 2009; Yaghmaie, Koudelka, & Simpson, 2013; Harding et al., 2008; Synnerstad et al., 2008; Vajdic et al., 2009; Kajbaf, Asar, & Alipoor, 2011; Vlaski et al., 2006
Integrated, multidisciplinary approach to care C III Boguniewicz et al., 2008; Ricci et al., 2009

Recommendations for the Use of Biomarkers in the Assessment of AD

  • For patients with presumed AD, there are no specific biomarkers that can be recommended for diagnosis and/or assessment of disease severity.
  • Monitoring of immunoglobulin E levels is not recommended for the routine assessment of disease severity.

Recommendations for Disease Severity and Clinical Outcomes Assessment

  • For the general management of patients with AD, available disease severity measurement scales are not recommended for routine clinical practice, because they were not usually designed for this purpose.
  • For the general management of patients with AD, available patient quality of life measurement scales are not recommended for routine clinical practice.
  • It is recommended that clinicians ask general questions about itch, sleep, impact on daily activity, and persistence of disease, and currently available scales be used mainly when practical.

Recommendations for the Assessment of Clinical Associations of AD

  • Physicians should be aware of and assess for conditions associated with AD, such as rhinitis/rhinoconjunctivitis, asthma, food allergy, sleep disturbance, depression, and other neuropsychiatric conditions, and it is recommended that physicians discuss them with the patient as part of the treatment/management plan, when appropriate.
  • An integrated, multidisciplinary approach to care may be valuable and is suggested for AD patients who present with common associations.

Definitions:

Levels of Evidence

  1. Good-quality patient-oriented evidence (i.e., evidence measuring outcomes that matter to patients: morbidity, mortality, symptom improvement, cost reduction, and quality of life)
  2. Limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
  3. Other evidence including consensus guidelines, opinion, case studies, or disease-oriented evidence (i.e., evidence measuring intermediate, physiologic, or surrogate end points that may or may not reflect improvements in patient outcomes)

Grades of Recommendation

  1. Recommendation based on consistent and good quality patient-oriented evidence
  2. Recommendation based on inconsistent or limited quality patient-oriented evidence
  3. Recommendation based on consensus, opinion, case studies, or disease-oriented evidence

Major Recommendations

Level of evidence grades (I-III) and strength of recommendations (A-C) are defined at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

Note from the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC): This document is the first section in a series of four and covers methods for diagnosis and assessment of atopic dermatitis (AD). The second guideline in the series will address the management and treatment of AD with pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic topical modalities; the third section will cover phototherapy and systemic treatment options; and the fourth section will address the minimization of disease flares, educational interventions, and use of adjunctive approaches.

Features to Be Considered in the Diagnosis of Patients with AD

Essential Features—Must be present:

  • Pruritus
  • Eczema (acute, subacute, chronic):
    • Typical morphology and age-specific patterns*
    • Chronic or relapsing history

*Patterns Include:

  1. Facial, neck, and extensor involvement in infants and children
  2. Current or previous flexural lesions in any age group
  3. Sparing of the groin and axillary regions

Important Features—Seen in most cases, adding support to the diagnosis:

  • Early age of onset
  • Atopy:
    • Personal and/or family history
    • Immunoglobulin E reactivity
  • Xerosis

Associated Features—These clinical associations help to suggest the diagnosis of AD but are too nonspecific to be used for defining or detecting AD for research and epidemiologic studies:

  • Atypical vascular responses (e.g., facial pallor, white dermographism, delayed blanch response)
  • Keratosis pilaris/pityriasis alba/hyperlinear palms/ichthyosis
  • Ocular/periorbital changes
  • Other regional findings (e.g., perioral changes/periauricular lesions)
  • Perifollicular accentuation/lichenification/prurigo lesions

Exclusionary Conditions—It should be noted that a diagnosis of AD depends on excluding conditions, such as:

  • Scabies
  • Seborrheic dermatitis
  • Contact dermatitis (irritant or allergic)
  • Ichthyoses
  • Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma
  • Psoriasis
  • Photosensitivity dermatoses
  • Immune deficiency diseases
  • Erythroderma of other causes

Adapted from Eichenfield LF, Hanifin JM, Luger TA, Stevens SR, Pride HB. Consensus conference on pediatric atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol 2003;49:1088-95. Used with permission of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Recommendation for the Diagnosis of AD

Patients with presumed AD should have their diagnosis based on the criteria summarized in the box above. On occasion, skin biopsy specimens or other tests (such as serum immunoglobulin E, potassium hydroxide preparation, patch testing, and/or genetic testing) may be helpful to rule out other or associated skin conditions.

Strength of Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Assessment of AD

Recommendation Strength of Recommendation Level of Evidence References
Diagnosis made using criteria in the box above C III Mevorah et al., 1988; Gu et al., 2001; Lan et al., 2009; Diepgen, Sauerbrei, & Fartasch, 1996; De, Kanwar, & Handa, 2006; Loden, Andersson, & Lindberg, 1998; Samochocki & Dejewska, 2012; Samochocki, Paulochowska, & Zabielski, 2000; Chalmers et al., 2007; Firooz et al., 1999; Saeki et al., 2007; Firooz & Kashani, 2008; Hamada et al., 2005; Williams et al., 1994; Williams et al., 1996
No specific biomarkers for diagnosis or severity assessment B II Murat-Susic et al., 2006; Schulte-Herbruggen et al., 2007; Amon et al., 2000; Dhar et al., 2005; Gerdes, Kurrat, & Mrowietz, 2009; Aral et al, 2006; Di Lorenzo et al., 2003; El Mongy et al., 2008; Ezzat, Hasan, & Shaheen, 2011; Jahnz-Rozyk et al., 2005; Nakazato et al., 2008; Belloni Fortina et al., 2006; Gutgesell et al., 2002; Hirai et al., 1996; Hon et al., 2007; Horikawa et al., 2002; Kakinuma et al., 2003; La Grutta et al., 2005; Leung et al., 2003; Mostafa et al., 2008; Oflazoglu et al., "CD30 expression," 2008; Oflazoglu et al., "CD40 expression," 2008; Ott et al., 2010; Raap et al., 2006; Song et al., 2006; Wolkerstorfer et al., 1998
Immunoglobulin E levels not routinely recommended A I Schneider et al., 2013; Murat-Susic et al., 2006; Schulte-Herbruggen et al., 2007; Gerdes, Kurrat, & Mrowietz, 2009; Aral et al., 2006; Vakirlis et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2011
Available disease severity scales not for routine clinical use C II Schmitt, Langan, & Williams, 2007; Schram et al., 2012; Sprikkelman et al., 1997; Angelova-Fischer et al., 2005; Wolkerstorfer et al., 1999; Linnet & Jemec, 1999; Hon et al., 2006; Barbier et al., 2004; Charman, Venn, & Williams, 2002; Charman, Venn, & Williams, 2004; Charman et al., 1999; Cosickic et al., 2010; Emerson, Charman, & Williams, 2000; Hanifin et al., 2001; Holm et al., 2007; Oranje et al., 1997; Rullo et al., 2008
Available quality of life severity scales not for routine clinical use C II Chamlin et al., 2007; Augustin et al., 2004; Hon et al, 2006; Misery et al., 2007
Should query itch, sleep, impact on daily activity, and disease persistence C III Chamlin et al., 2005; Hon et al., 2008; Dawn et al., 2009; Lewis-Jones, 2006; Weisshaar et al., 2008; Ricci et al., 2007; Bender et al., 2008; Ben-Gashir, Seed, & Hay, 2002
Awareness and discussion of common associations C I and II Chamlin et al., 2005; Hon et al., 2008; Batlles-Garrido et al., 2010; Chawes et al., 2010; Sultesz et al., 2010; Kyllonen et al., 2006; Hwang et al., 2010; Hyvarinen et al., 2005; Eller et al., 2009; Horwitz, Hossain, & Yousef, 2009; Bashir, Dar, & Rao, 2010; Schmitt et al., "Psychiatric comorbidity," 2009; Schmitt et al., "Atopic eczema," 2009; Yaghmaie, Koudelka, & Simpson, 2013; Harding et al., 2008; Synnerstad et al., 2008; Vajdic et al., 2009; Kajbaf, Asar, & Alipoor, 2011; Vlaski et al., 2006
Integrated, multidisciplinary approach to care C III Boguniewicz et al., 2008; Ricci et al., 2009

Recommendations for the Use of Biomarkers in the Assessment of AD

  • For patients with presumed AD, there are no specific biomarkers that can be recommended for diagnosis and/or assessment of disease severity.
  • Monitoring of immunoglobulin E levels is not recommended for the routine assessment of disease severity.

Recommendations for Disease Severity and Clinical Outcomes Assessment

  • For the general management of patients with AD, available disease severity measurement scales are not recommended for routine clinical practice, because they were not usually designed for this purpose.
  • For the general management of patients with AD, available patient quality of life measurement scales are not recommended for routine clinical practice.
  • It is recommended that clinicians ask general questions about itch, sleep, impact on daily activity, and persistence of disease, and currently available scales be used mainly when practical.

Recommendations for the Assessment of Clinical Associations of AD

  • Physicians should be aware of and assess for conditions associated with AD, such as rhinitis/rhinoconjunctivitis, asthma, food allergy, sleep disturbance, depression, and other neuropsychiatric conditions, and it is recommended that physicians discuss them with the patient as part of the treatment/management plan, when appropriate.
  • An integrated, multidisciplinary approach to care may be valuable and is suggested for AD patients who present with common associations.

Definitions:

Levels of Evidence

  1. Good-quality patient-oriented evidence (i.e., evidence measuring outcomes that matter to patients: morbidity, mortality, symptom improvement, cost reduction, and quality of life)
  2. Limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
  3. Other evidence including consensus guidelines, opinion, case studies, or disease-oriented evidence (i.e., evidence measuring intermediate, physiologic, or surrogate end points that may or may not reflect improvements in patient outcomes)

Grades of Recommendation

  1. Recommendation based on consistent and good quality patient-oriented evidence
  2. Recommendation based on inconsistent or limited quality patient-oriented evidence
  3. Recommendation based on consensus, opinion, case studies, or disease-oriented evidence

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: section 1. Diagnosis and assessment of atopic dermatitis
Display Headline
Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: section 1. Diagnosis and assessment of atopic dermatitis
Legacy Keywords
eczema, atopy
Legacy Keywords
eczema, atopy
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Vitals

Atopic dermatitis affects up to 25% of children and 2% to 3% of adults. This guideline addresses methods for the diagnosis and monitoring of disease, outcomes measures for assessment, and common clinical associations that affect patients with AD are discussed.

Guidelines are copyright © 2013 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved. The summary is provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality