MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411430927 · doi:10.1016/j.ard.2025.05.896

POS0514 Long-term use of glucocorticoids in people with rheumatoid arthritis: a Cochrane living systematic review

2025· article· en· W4411430927 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel Whittle, R. Johnston, Vanessa Glennon, Brennen McKenzie, Liesl Grobler, Catherine Hill, Hans Ramsay, Jordi Pardo Pardo, Sheila Cyril, Polina Putrik, Rachelle Buchbinder

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the Rheumatic Diseases · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRheumatoid arthritisSystematic reviewTerm (time)Intensive care medicineCochrane collaborationMEDLINEPhysical therapyImmunologyMeta-analysisInternal medicineCochrane Library

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Despite advancements in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), glucocorticoids (GCs) remain widely used. Concerns about the adverse effects of long-term GC use create uncertainty regarding their optimal role in RA management. Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of long-term GC therapy (defined as use longer than six months) in adults with RA. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL Ovid), MEDLINE Ovid and Embase Ovid combining standard Cochrane search filters for ‘rheumatoid arthritis' and ‘randomised trial', and a search of the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (apps.who.int/trialsearch), using the search term ‘rheumatoid arthritis'. For assessments of adverse effects, we searched US Food and Drug Administration – MedWatch, European Medicines Evaluation Agency, Australian Adverse Drug Reaction Bulletin, and Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), as recommended by the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group. We searched all databases from their inception to June 2024 with no restriction on language of publication. As this is a living systematic review we will search for new trials on a 6-monthly basis and will update the evidence as new trials are identified. We included trials comparing the use of oral or intramuscular GCs versus placebo in combination with the same DMARD therapy. Key outcomes included proportion achieving low disease activity, mean pain, mean function, mean disease activity, mean radiographic progression, adverse events potentially associated with GCs use and withdrawals due to adverse events. Two authors independently screened search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using standard Cochrane and GRADE methodology, respectively. Results: We identified six trials involving 1,263 participants. At 12 months, GCs may make little to no difference in the proportion of patients achieving low disease activity (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.91; low certainty evidence due to serious imprecision and serious indirectness). Similarly, GCs probably make little to no difference to pain (MD -3.81, 95% CI -7.01 to -0.61 on a 0 to 100 scale, effect size smaller than MCID 11.9; moderate certainty evidence due to serious indirectness) or function (MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.06 on a 0 to 3 scale, effect size smaller than MCID 0.22; moderate certainty evidence due to serious indirectness). GC therapy probably results in a small improvement in mean disease activity (MD -0.36, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.05 on a 0 to 9.3 scale; moderate certainty evidence due to serious indirectness). Assessed at last follow-up (24 months), GC therapy probably results in a small reduction in mean radiographic progression (MD -19.7, 95% CI -37.7 to -1.67, assessed with Sharp/van der Heijde score 0 to 448; moderate certainty evidence due to serious indirectness). At 24 months follow-up, GC therapy may increase the risk of GC-specific adverse events (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.76; low certainty evidence due to very serious imprecision - very small event rate, less than 100 events per group) but may have little or no effect on withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.14; low certainty evidence due to very serious imprecision - very small event rate, less than 100 events per group) (Table 1). Conclusion: In adults with RA receiving DMARD therapy, long-term use (up to 24 months) of GC probably provides some improvement in pain, physical function, and disease activity and may reduce radiographic progression. However, on average these benefits are likely to be of little clinical significance and may be counterbalanced by an increased risk of GC-specific adverse events. Current evidence, of low to moderate certainty, suggests that routine long-term GC use in RA cannot be recommended due to the modest benefits and potential harms. Decision-making regarding long-term GC use should consider individual patient circumstances and prioritize shared decision-making. REFERENCES: NIL . Table 1Summary of Findings table: GC + DMARD vs GC placebo + DMARD for adults with rheumatoid arthritis.OutcomesAnticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)Relative effect(95% CI)№ of participants(studies)Certainty of the evidence(GRADE)Risk with GC placebo + DMARDRisk with GC + DMARDProportion of participants with low disease activity assessed with: DAS28 ≤ 3.2Follow-up: 12 months349 per 1000429 per 1000(276 to 666)RR 1.23(0.79 to 1.91)687(2 RCTs)⊕⊕⊝⊝LowPain score assessed with: VAS Scale from: 0 to 100; lower betterFollow-up: range 6 months to 12 monthsThe mean pain score was 40MD 3.81 (7.01 lower to 0.61 lower)-949(5 RCTs)⊕⊕⊕⊝ModerateFunction score assessed with: HAQ Scale from: 0 to 3; lower betterFollow-up: range 6 months to 12 monthsThe mean function score was 1.1MD 0.13 (0.21 lower to 0.06 lower)-949(5 RCTs)⊕⊕⊕⊝ModerateRadiographic progression assessed with: Sharp/van der Heijde (SvHD) score from: 0 to 448; lower betterFollow-up: 24 monthsThe mean radiographic progression (SvHD score) was 19.1MD 19.7 (37.7 lower to 1.67 lower)-870(6 RCTs)⊕⊕⊕⊝ModerateAdverse events of special interest (adverse events potentially associated with GC use; see adverse event domains in the OMERACT endorsed core set for glucocorticoid impact)Follow-up: 24 months89 per 1000149 per 1000(90 to 247)RR 1.67(1.01 to 2.76)1024(5 RCTs)⊕⊕⊝⊝LowWithdrawal due to any adverse eventFollow-up: 24 months153 per 1000133 per 1000(103 to 175)RR 0.87(0.67 to 1.14)1260(6 RCTs)⊕⊕⊝⊝LowMD - mean difference, VAS - visual analogue scale, RR - relative risk Acknowledgements: NIL . Disclosure of Interests: None declared . © The Authors 2025. This abstract is an open access article published in Annals of Rheumatic Diseases under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Neither EULAR nor the publisher make any representation as to the accuracy of the content. The authors are solely responsible for the content in their abstract including accuracy of the facts, statements, results, conclusion, citing resources etc.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.008
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the Rheumatic Diseases→Same topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies→French-language works237,207→