DAS steered therapy in clinical practice; cross-sectional results from the METEOR database

Little is known on how well targeted treatment, for instance targeting towards low DAS, is implemented in clinical practice. Our aim was to evaluate treatment adjustments in response to DAS in RA patients in clinical practice. We used data from one referral centre, multiple rheumatologists, from the METEOR database. Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) were used to assess whether in case of non-low disease activity (DAS > 2.4) treatment intensifications in DMARD therapy occurred ((change or increase in dose or number of DMARDs, including synthetic (s)DMARDs, biologic (b)DMARDs and corticosteroids compared to the visit before)). Determinants of not intensifying the treatment when DAS > 2.4 were investigated using GEE. Five thousand one hundred fifty-seven registered visits of 1202 patients were available for the analyses. A DAS > 2.4 was weakly (OR: 1.19; 95% CI 1.07-1.33) associated with a treatment intensification. In 69% (n = 3577) of the visits patients were in low disease activity. In 66% (n = 1028) of the visits with DAS > 2.4 treatment was not intensified. These patients had a higher tender joint count and received more often methotrexate plus a bDMARD, or csDMARD monotherapy, as compared to patients that received treatment intensification. In the majority of visits in the METEOR database patients were already in a state of low disease activity, reflecting appropriate treatment intensity. When DAS was greater than 2.4, treatment was often not intensified due to high tender joint count or specific treatment combinations. This data suggest that while aiming for low DAS, physicians per patient weigh whether all DAS elements indicate disease activity or will respond to DMARD adjustment or not, and make treatment decisions accordingl

When rheumatologists report that they agree with a guideline, does this mean that they practise the guideline in clinical practice? Results of the International Recommendation Implementation Study (IRIS)

Introduction: The European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the treatto- target (T2T) principles have been developed in order to improve the treatment outcome of patients with RA, and have received broad attention. It is not clear, though, whether these recommendations are indeed followed up in clinical practice. Objective: To investigate if rheumatologists that report to agree with existing guidelines indeed follow them up in clinical practice. Methods: The International Recommendation Implementation Study (IRIS) included 132 participating rheumatologists from 14 countries. Participating rheumatologists received a questionnaire measuring their awareness/commitment with the EULAR/T2T recommendations and followed a dedicated educational programme. Subsequently, they were asked to enrol 5-10 patients with new-onset RA in the online IRIS database and monitor disease activity and treatment for a period of 1-2 years. Four recommendations (3 from the EULAR recommendations and one from the T2T recommendations) were selected on the basis of testability, and analysed with regard to compliance by participating rheumatologists. Results: In total, 72 of the 132 participating rheumatologists contributed 378 patients to the database. Of these participants, 70 (98%) agreed upfront with the recommendation that diseasemodifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy should be started as soon as possible after diagnosis in every patient; 69 (96%) of the rheumatologists agreed with the recommendation that methotrexate (MTX) should be part of the first treatment strategy. When measuring the actual performance, it was found that the recommendation on early DMARD start was met in 253 (67%) of the recorded patients, and the recommendation on MTX in 225 (60%) of the recorded patients. Of the participants, 60 (83%) agreed that composite measures should be recorded regularly, but only in 134(54%) of the patients were composite scores actually recorded in ≥50% of patient visits. Conclusion: Reporting to be compliant with EULAR recommendations and T2T principles, even after dedicated education does not mean they actually comply with it in clinical practice

Common Evaluations of Disease Activity in Rheumatoid Arthritis Reach Discordant Classifications across Different Populations

ObjectivesThe classification of disease activity states in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can be achieved through disease activity indices, such as the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR), the Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), and the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI). Subjective measurements, such as patient reported outcomes have been incorporated into several of these indices alongside more objective assessments, such as increases in the ESR and C-reactive protein. Moreover, while they use similar criteria, different indices weight these criteria to different extents. Therefore, the classifications based on each evaluation may not always be the same. We aim to compare the performance of the three indices and their individual components in two different populations.MethodsData from Dutch and Portuguese adherent centers were extracted from the METEOR database, a multinational collaboration on RA. We included a total of 24,605 visits from Dutch centers (from 5,870 patients) and 20,120 visits from Portuguese centers (from 3,185 patients). We compared the disease activity states as evaluated by the DAS28-ESR, CDAI, and SDAI across the two populations. In addition, we analyzed the individual components of each evaluation, including their respective contributions to the outcome, in each population.ResultsWe found significant differences in the disease activity states classified with the DAS28-ESR between the two populations. SDAI and CDAI had more congruous results. While the proportion of visits to Dutch and Portuguese centers that were classified as “in remission” was very similar between the CDAI and SDAI, the DAS28-ESR gave discordant results. Dutch patients had lower ESRs, which is more heavily weighted in the DAS28-ESR. In addition, even though the mean physicians’ global assessment values did not vary significantly for Dutch vs Portuguese physicians, we found that doctors at Portuguese centers overall scored the physician’s global assessment lower than Dutch physicians for patient visits classified by disease activity state.ConclusionWhile the CDAI and SDAI assigned disease activity states that were largely similar, the DAS28-ESR was often discordant across the two populations. Moreover, we found that physicians, more than patients, evaluated disease activity differently among the Portuguese and Dutch populations