Search

We sought to identify instruments assessing sleep quality that measure the domains of sleep applicable to rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients and are feasible to use and have appropriate reliability, validity, and responsiveness properties. A systematic review of sleep instruments was conducted. In particular, domains related to sleep that were assessed in the instruments were identified and evaluated. Feasibility characteristics and psychometric properties of instruments were reviewed. At OMERACT 9, the preparatory work was described at the plenary session of the Patient Perspective Workshop, and the tasks of 3 breakout groups in ranking and scoring the domains and sleep instruments were outlined. Each breakout group considered different aspects of sleep: sleep domains, feasibility, and psychometric properties. The rapporteur for each breakout group reported back to the plenary on the domains and sleep instruments that achieved the highest rank/score. The systematic review identified 45 sleep instruments of interest. Based on these instruments, 14 domains of sleep were identified. The top ranked domains were: Sleep Adequacy (1), Sleep Maintenance (2), Sleep Initiation (3) and Daytime Functioning (4). The top ranked instruments on feasibility were: Athens Insomnia Scale (2.3), Medical Outcome Study (MOS) Sleep (4.0), Insomnia Severity Index (4.9), and Women's Health Insomnia Rating Scale (5.5). The highest scored instruments on psychometric properties were: Athens Insomnia Scale (13.6), Sleep Assessment Questionnaire (13), Pittsburgh Sleep Diary (12), and MOS Sleep (11). Sleep domains have been reviewed, and several sleep instruments have been identified. These instruments should be considered for use in planned clinical trials of RA patients to assess their applicability.

Objective: To determine whether Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group (CMSG) systematic reviews and corresponding primary studies of rheumatoid arthritis interventions report and analyze the data needed to assess the effectiveness of interventions in reducing socioeconomic differences in health and/or improving the health of the poor., Methods: We selected all CMSG reviews on rheumatoid arthritis published since issue 1, 2003. Fourteen reviews were identified; 147 of the 156 primary studies included in these reviews were obtained and assessed. We extracted data on whether the dimensions place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture, occupation, gender, religion, education, socioeconomic status, and social capital and networks (PROGRESS) were reported or analyzed, and whether any interventions were aimed at disadvantaged or low- and middle-income country populations., Results: Among the dimensions of PROGRESS reported at baseline in 147 primary studies, gender (89%) was the most commonly reported, followed by education (25%) and race/ethnicity (18%). Less than 50% of the systematic reviews reported dimensions of PROGRESS even when they had been reported in the primary study. Of 147 primary studies, 6 (5%) were aimed specifically at disadvantaged populations; another 6 reported on effectiveness by at least 1 dimension of PROGRESS., Conclusion: Primary studies of interventions for rheumatoid arthritis generally reported few variables necessary to answer questions about health inequalities. Most CMSG systematic reviews failed to assess those variables even when described in the primary studies. The Cochrane Health Equity Field welcomes the opportunity to provide guidance to systematic review authors on incorporating equity considerations into their reviews.

Standardization of methods for economic evaluation is essential for defining the methodological research agenda that will advance the discipline. Standardization also greatly facilitates the interpretation and comparison of the results of economic analyses. For these reasons, several jurisdictions now require economic evaluation, conducted according to standardized methodological guidelines, as a key ingredient in decision making for reimbursement of health treatments and technologies. The application of these general guidelines, however, can be difficult in the absence of disease-specific information. In the case of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the recent emergence of innovative, highly effective, but also expensive treatments has created an immediate need to more fully understand the economic implications of RA treatments. With this background, the OMERACT Economics Working Group set out in 1994 to develop an RA-specific reference case for economic evaluation. This report summarizes the OMERACT process leading to specific recommendations on the 12 key elements of a proposed "reference case" for economic evaluation in RA. These elements include: study horizon, duration of therapy, extrapolation beyond trial duration, modeling beyond therapy, synthesis of comparisons where head-to-head trials do not exist, clinical outcome measures, mortality, valuation of health states, resource utilization, discontinuation of therapy, therapeutic sequence, and population risk stratification. Through these efforts, the OMERACT Economics Working Group aims to expedite and enhance the conduct and dissemination of methodological research in economic analyses in the rheumatic diseases.

Background: Heat and cold therapy are often used as adjuncts in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis by rehabilitation specialists., Objectives: To evaluate the effects of heat and cold on objective and subjective measures of disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis., Search Strategy: We searched Medline, Embase, PEDro, Current Contents, Sports Discus and CINAHL up to June 2000. The Cochrane Field of Rehabilitation and related therapies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group were also contacted for a search of their specialized registers. Handsearching was conducted on all retrieved articles for additional articles., Selection Criteria: Randomized or controlled clinical trials of ice or heat compared to placebo or active interventions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and case-control and cohort studies were eligible. No language restrictions were applied. Abstracts were accepted., Data Collection and Analysis: Two independent reviewers identified potential articles from the literature search. These reviewers extracted data using pre-defined extraction forms. Consensus was reached on all data extraction. Quality was assessed by two reviewers using a 5 point scale that measured the quality of randomization, double-blinding and description of withdrawals., Main Results: Three studies (79 subjects) met the inclusion criteria. There was no effect on objective measures of disease activity (including inflammation, pain and x-ray measured joint destruction) of either ice versus control or heat versus control. Patients reported that they preferred heat therapy to no therapy (94% prefer heat therapy to no therapy). There was no difference in patient preference for heat or ice. No harmful effects of ice or heat were reported., Reviewer's Conclusions: Since patients preferred thermotherapy to no therapy, thermotherapy can be used as a palliative therapy which can be applied at home as needed to relieve pain. These results are limited by the poor methodological quality of the trials.

Objective: Osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) affect a large proportion of the population. Low level laser therapy (LLLT) was introduced as an alternative noninvasive treatment for RA and OA about 10 years ago, but its effectiveness is still controversial. We assessed the effectiveness of LLLT in the treatment of RA and OA., Methods: A systematic review was conducted, following an a priori protocol, according to the methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. Trials were identified by a literature search of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Only randomized controlled trials of LLLT for the treatment of patients with a clinical diagnosis of RA or OA were eligible. Thirteen trials were included, with 212 patients randomized to laser and 174 patients to placebo laser, and 68 patients received active laser on one hand and placebo on the opposite hand. Treatment duration ranged from 4 to 10 weeks. Followup was reported by only 2 trials for up to 3 months., Results: In patients with RA, relative to a separate control group, LLLT reduced pain by 70% relative to placebo and reduced morning stiffness by 27.5 min (95% CI -52.0 to -2.9), and increased tip to palm flexibility by 1.3 cm (95% CI -1.7 to -0.8). Other outcomes such as functional assessment, range of motion, and local swelling were not different between groups. There were no significant differences between subgroups based on LLLT dosage, wavelength, site of application, or treatment length. In RA, relative to a control group using the opposite hand, there was no difference between control and treatment hand, but all hands were improved in terms of pain relief and disease activity. For OA, a total of 197 patients were randomized. Pain was assessed by 3 trials. The pooled estimate (random effects) showed no effect on pain (standardized mean difference -0.2, 95% CI -1.0 to +0.6), but there was statistically significant heterogeneity (p > 0.05). Other outcomes of joint tenderness, joint mobility, and strength were not significant., Conclusion: LLLT should be considered for short term relief of pain and morning stiffness in RA, particularly since it has few side effects. For OA, the results are conflicting in different studies and may depend on the method of application and other features of the LLLT. Clinicians and researchers should consistently report the characteristics of the LLLT device and the application techniques. New trials on LLLT should make use of standardized, validated outcomes. Despite some positive findings, this metaanalysis lacked data on how effectiveness of LLLT is affected by 4 factors: wavelength, treatment duration of LLLT, dosage, and site of application over nerves instead of joints. There is a need to investigate the effects of these factors on effectiveness of LLLT for RA and OA in randomized controlled clinical trials.

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) affects a large proportion of the population. Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) was introduced as an alternative non-invasive treatment for RA about 10 years ago. LLLT is a light source that generates extremely pure light, of a single wavelength. The effect is not thermal, but rather related to photochemical reactions in the cells. The effectiveness of LLLT for rheumatoid arthritis is still controversial., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of LLLT in the treatment of RA., Search Strategy: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the registries of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal group and the field of Rehabilitation and Related Therapies as well as the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to January 30, 2000., Selection Criteria: Following an a priori protocol, we selected only randomized controlled trials of LLLT for the treatment of patients with a clinical diagnosis of RA were eligible. Abstracts were excluded unless further data could be obtained from the authors., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers independently select trials for inclusion, then extracted data and assessed quality using predetermined forms. Heterogeneity was tested with Cochran's Q test. A fixed effects model was used throughout for continuous variables, except where heterogeneity existed, in which case, a random effects model was used. Results were analyzed as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), where the difference between the treated and control groups was weighted by the inverse of the variance. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated by dividing the difference between treated and control by the baseline variance. SMD were used when different scales were used to measure the same concept (e.g. pain). Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed with odds ratios., Main Results: A total of 204 patients were included in the five placebo-controlled trials, with 112 randomized to laser therapy. Relative to a separate control group, LLLT reduced pain by 70% relative to placebo and reduced morning stiffness duration by 27.5 minutes (95%CI: 2.9 to 52 minutes) and increased tip to palm flexibility by 1.3 cm (95% CI: 0. 8 to 1.7 cm). Other outcomes such as functional assessment, range of motion and local swelling did not differ between groups. There were no significant differences between subgroups based on LLLT dosage, wavelength, site of application or treatment length. For RA, relative to a control group using the opposite hand, there was no difference between the control and treatment hand, but all hands improved in terms of pain relief and disease activity., Reviewer's Conclusions: In summary, LLLT for RA is beneficial as a minimum of a four-week treatment with reductions in pain and morning stiffness. On the one hand, this meta-analysis found that pooled data gave some evidence of a clinical effect, but the outcomes were in conflict, and it must therefore be concluded that firm documentation of the application of LLLT in RA is not possible. Clinicians and researchers should consistently report the characteristics of the LLLT device and the application techniques used. New trials on LLLT should make use of standardized, validated outcomes. Despite some positive findings, this meta-analysis lacked data on how LLLT effectiveness is affected by four important factors: wavelength, treatment duration of LLLT, dosage and site of application over nerves instead of joints.

Objectives: To estimate the short-term (up to one year) effects of cyclosporine for rheumatoid arthritis., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group trials register, and Medline, up to 1997, using the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Collaboration (Dickersin 1994). The search was complemented with bibliography searching of the reference list of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. Key experts in the area were contacted for further published and unpublished articles., Selection Criteria: All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing cyclosporine against placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers determined the trials to be included based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (GW, MSA). Data were independently abstracted by two reviewers (DH, GW),and checked by a third reviewer (BS) using a pre-developed form for the rheumatoid arthritis sub-group of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group. Methodological quality of the RCTs and CCTs was assessed by two reviewers (BS, DH). Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications for change from baseline endpoints. Sufficient data were obtained to include in the pooled analysis the number of swollen joints, physician global assessment, patient global assessment and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)., Main Results: Three trials and 318 patients were included. A statistically significant decrease in the number of tender and swollen joints was observed for cyclosporine when compared to placebo. The standardized mean difference (SMD) for the change in the number of swollen joints was -0.969. Significant improvements in pain and the functional index were also found for cyclosporine. More side effects occurred in the cyclosporine group compared to placebo., Reviewer's Conclusions: Cyclosporine has an important clinical benefit int the short-term (up to one year) treatment of patients with progressive rheumatoid arthritis.

Background: Heat and cold therapy are often used as adjuncts in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis by rehabilitation specialists., Objectives: To evaluate the effects of heat and cold on objective and subjective measures of disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis., Search Strategy: We searched Medline, Embase, PEDro, Current Contents, Sports Discus and CINAHL up to June 2000. The Cochrane Field of Rehabilitation and related therapies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group were also contacted for a search of their specialized registers. Handsearching was conducted on all retrieved articles for additional articles., Selection Criteria: Randomized or controlled clinical trials of ice or heat compared to placebo or active interventions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and case-control and cohort studies were eligible. No language restrictions were applied. Abstracts were accepted., Data Collection and Analysis: Two independent reviewers identified potential articles from the literature search. These reviewers extracted data using pre-defined extraction forms. Consensus was reached on all data extraction. Quality was assessed by two reviewers using a 5 point scale that measured the quality of randomization, double-blinding and description of withdrawals., Main Results: Three studies (79 subjects) met the inclusion criteria. There was no effect on objective measures of disease activity (including inflammation, pain and x-ray measured joint destruction) of either ice versus control or heat versus control. Patients reported that they preferred heat therapy to no therapy (94% like heat therapy better than no therapy). There was no difference in patient preference for heat or ice. No harmful effects of ice or heat were reported., Reviewer's Conclusions: Since patients enjoy thermotherapy, and there are no harmful effects, thermotherapy should be recommended as a therapy which can be applied at home as needed to relieve pain. There is no need for further research on the effects of heat or cold for RA.

Objectives: To perform a systematic review of low-dose corticosteroid efficacy in the moderate term for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Search Strategy: We conducted a search in MEDLINE from 1966 to 1998, using the keywords "corticosteroids" and "rheumatoid arthritis". We also handsearched all issues of Arthritis and Rheumatism and the Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology from their dates of first publication to 1994. Furthermore, we examined all Arthritis and Rheumatism abstracts over the 15 year period preceding 1994. References of all identified studies were searched for relevant trials. Authors of unpublished manuscripts were contacted., Selection Criteria: Studies were selected by two independent reviewers (LC, KS) using a set of predetermined criteria. Specifically, we required that trials be randomized or cross-over and report at least one of the following outcome measures in a quantitative manner: joint tenderness, joint swelling, grip strength, or erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). We also required that trials be of at least three months duration and use prednisone (or a comparable corticosteroid preparation) at a mean dosage of less than or equal to 15 mg/day. We included studies that used either placebo or active drug controls (i.e., comparative studies)., Data Collection and Analysis: We compared the effectiveness of prednisone to placebo and/or active controls using a fixed effects model for continuous data. A chi square test for homogeneity was performed, and where heterogeneity existed a random effects model was used. We reported results for all available outcomes recommended by the Outcome Measures for Rheumatology Trials (OMERACT) group. These included the number of tender and swollen joints, pain, functional status and ESR. Grip strength was also evaluated. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were used for outcomes assessing the same concept with different scales (eg. swollen joint counts)., Main Results: Very few studies directly assessed the effectiveness of corticosteroids for RA treatment and many were of poor methodologic quality. Only seven of 34 studies identified by our search met criteria for inclusion. Our results indicated that corticosteroids were significantly more effective than placebo controls for four of six outcomes assessed [standardized mean difference for tender joints = -0.37 (95%CI: -0. 59, -0.14), swollen joints = -0.41 (-0.67, -0.16), pain = -0.43 (-0. 74, -0.12), and functional status = -0.57 (-0.92, -0.22)]. The results for grip strength and ESR were not significant [GS = +0.30 (-0.19, +0.80), weighted mean difference (WMD) for ESR = -7.03 (-18. 06, +4.01)]. The single trial that compared prednisone to aspirin indicated no statistically significant difference between these groups for joint tenderness (0.10 (-0.35, +0.55) and for ESR [0.00 (-11.09, +11.09]. Overall, the four outcomes assessed in the single trial that compared prednisone to chloroquine suggested that the effectiveness of these two agents is similar [SMD for joint tenderness = +0.23 (-0.30, +0.75), swollen joints = +0.43 (-0.11, +0. 96), functional status = -0.27 (-0.80, +0.26), and WMD for ESR = -16. 00 (-30.58, -1.42)]., Reviewer's Conclusions: Based on the limited data available, moderate-term prednisone treatment of RA appears to be superior to placebo and comparable to treatment with aspirin or chloroquine in improving several common rheumatoid arthritis disease activity measures.