Requirements for systemic sclerosis expert centres in the Netherlands: a Delphi consensus study

Introduction: Systemic sclerosis is a rare and complex disease. Optimal management of patients requires knowledge and experience and, importantly, intensive collaboration between hospitals and multidisciplinary teams. Definition and recognition of expert centres in systemic sclerosis is currently lacking, which complicates collaboration between centres and leaves patients poorly informed. The aim of this study was to develop a set of requirements for two types of systemic sclerosis centres in order to establish a nationwide structure for an optimal and transparent organization of care. Methods: A three-round Delphi study was conducted among a panel of rheumatologists working at university or regional hospitals across the Netherlands. Prior to the final consensus round, a session with a patient panel (N = 22) was held. The results of this meeting were described in the last round for rheumatologists. Criteria were divided into five categories: (1) medical care, (2) case load, (3) collaboration, (4) research, (5) training of staff, and (6) other. In the first round, criteria derived from literature were proposed and participants could add criteria that were missing. For every item, participants could indicate if they thought the item should be included for two types of systemic sclerosis centres: (1) systemic sclerosis expert centre or (2) systemic sclerosis treatment centres. Consensus was reached when more than 85% of the panel agreed. Results: In total, 47 rheumatologists participated in Delphi round 1, 35 in round 2 and 43 in round 3. Additional suggestions were added by the patient panel (n = 22). Consensus was reached for the requirements of systemic sclerosis expert centres (45 items) and systemic sclerosis treatment centres (29 items) including minimal caseloads of annual suspected systemic sclerosis cases and total patients in care. Conclusion: Requirements of centres for systemic sclerosis care in the Netherlands were established in this study. Feasibility of certification should be evaluated next. Our proposed list can serve as a model for other countries.Pathophysiology and treatment of rheumatic disease

Intravenous or oral antibiotic treatment in adults and children with cystic fibrosis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection: the TORPEDO-CF RCT

Background People with cystic fibrosis are susceptible to pulmonary infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. This may become chronic and lead to increased mortality and morbidity. If treatment is commenced promptly, infection may be eradicated through prolonged antibiotic treatment. Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of two eradication regimens. Design This was a Phase IV, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Setting Seventy UK and two Italian cystic fibrosis centres. Participants Participants were individuals with cystic fibrosis aged > 28 days old who had never had a P. aeruginosa infection or who had been infection free for 1 year. Interventions Fourteen days of intravenous ceftazidime and tobramycin or 3 months of oral ciprofloxacin. Inhaled colistimethate sodium was included in both regimens over 3 months. Consenting patients were randomly allocated to either treatment arm in a 1 : 1 ratio using simple block randomisation with random variable block length. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was eradication of P. aeruginosa at 3 months and remaining free of infection to 15 months. Secondary outcomes included time to reoccurrence, spirometry, anthropometrics, pulmonary exacerbations and hospitalisations. Primary analysis used intention to treat (powered for superiority). Safety analysis included patients who had received at least one dose of any of the study drugs. Cost-effectiveness analysis explored the cost per successful eradication and the cost per quality-adjusted life-year. Results Between 5 October 2010 and 27 January 2017, 286 patients were randomised: 137 patients to intravenous antibiotics and 149 patients to oral antibiotics. The numbers of participants achieving the primary outcome were 55 out of 125 (44%) in the intravenous group and 68 out of 130 (52%) in the oral group. Participants randomised to the intravenous group were less likely to achieve the primary outcome; although the difference between groups was not statistically significant, the clinically important difference that the trial aimed to detect was not contained within the confidence interval (relative risk 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.09; p = 0.184). Significantly fewer patients in the intravenous group (40/129, 31%) than in the oral group (61/136, 44.9%) were hospitalised in the 12 months following eradication treatment (relative risk 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 0.95; p = 0.02). There were no clinically important differences in other secondary outcomes. There were 32 serious adverse events in 24 participants [intravenous: 10/126 (7.9%); oral: 14/146 (9.6%)]. Oral therapy led to reductions in costs compared with intravenous therapy (–£5938.50, 95% confidence interval –£7190.30 to –£4686.70). Intravenous therapy usually necessitated hospital admission, which accounted for a large part of this cost. Limitations Only 15 out of the 286 participants recruited were adults – partly because of the smaller number of adult centres participating in the trial. The possibility that the trial participants may be different from the rest of the cystic fibrosis population and may have had a better clinical status, and so be more likely to agree to the uncertainty of trial participation, cannot be ruled out. Conclusions Intravenous antibiotics did not achieve sustained eradication of P. aeruginosa in a greater proportion of cystic fibrosis patients. Although there were fewer hospitalisations in the intravenous group during follow-up, this confers no advantage over the oral therapy group, as intravenous eradication frequently requires hospitalisation. These results do not support the use of intravenous antibiotics to eradicate P. aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis. Future work Future research studies should combine long-term follow-up with regimens to reduce reoccurrence after eradication. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN02734162 and EudraCT 2009-012575-10. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 65. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

How do patients with systemic sclerosis experience currently provided healthcare and how should we measure its quality?

Objectives. To gain insight into SSc patients' perspective on quality of care and to survey their preferred quality indicators.Methods. An online questionnaire about healthcare setting, perceived quality of care (CQ index) and quality indicators, was sent to 2093 patients from 13 Dutch hospitals.Results. Six hundred and fifty patients (mean age 59 years, 75% women, 32% limited cutaneous SSc, 20% diffuse cutaneous SSc) completed the questionnaire. Mean time to diagnosis was 4.3 years (s.d. 6.9) and was longer in women compared with men (4.8 (s.d. 7.3) vs 2.5 (s.d. 5.0) years). Treatment took place in a SSc expert centre for 58%, regional centre for 29% or in both for 39% of patients. Thirteen percent of patients was not aware of whether their hospital was specialized in SSc. The perceived quality of care was rated with a mean score of 3.2 (s.d. 0.5) (range 1.0-4.0). There were no relevant differences between expert and regional centres. The three prioritized process indicators were: good patient-physician interaction (80%), structural multidisciplinary collaboration (46%) and receiving treatment according to SSc guidelines (44%). Absence of disease progression (66%), organ involvement (33%) and digital ulcers (27%) were the three highest rated outcome indicators.Conclusion. The perceived quality of care evaluated in our study was fair to good. No differences between expert and regional centres were observed. Our prioritized process and outcome indicators can be added to indicators suggested by SSc experts in earlier studies and can be used to evaluate the quality of care in SSc.Pathophysiology and treatment of rheumatic disease

Opening the black box of non-pharmacological care in systemic sclerosis: a cross-sectional online survey of Dutch health professionals

Item does not contain fulltextThe objective is to describe the spectrum of the health professional (HP) treatment approach for systemic sclerosis (SSc) from the perspective of Dutch HPs, including alignment of treatment goals set by HPs with self-reported referral reasons, coverage of patient-reported unmet care needs, and quality of communication between HPs and rheumatologists. Dutch HPs were invited through their patients with SSc to complete an anonymous online survey. The survey covered referral reasons, treatment goals, and interventions of the last patient treated, as well as the perceived quality of communication between HPs and rheumatologists. Referral reasons and treatment targets were linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health following the refined ICF Linking Rules. Seventy-nine HPs from 8 professions (including 58 physiotherapists, 73%) completed the survey. One hundred and thirty-three different referral reasons were reported, yielding 58 different ICF codes, with 41 (70.7%) being linked to the ICF domain "body structures and functions." The reported interventions focused on body functions/structures (27.9%), training of daily activities (25.6%), education and advice (26.3%), and psychosocial interventions (20.2%). The quality of communication between HPs and rheumatologists was perceived as low. Our findings revealed numerous treatment options offered by Dutch HPs addressing the unmet care needs of patients with SSc. There is an overlap in the content of the various HP disciplines, and HP treatment goals are not sufficiently aligned with referrals of rheumatologists. HP treatment offer seemed inefficiently organized, possibly precluding rheumatologists from making targeted referrals. Communication between rheumatologists and HPs should be improved