Applying Choosing Wisely: Antinuclear Antibody (ANA) and Sub-Serology Testing in a Safety Net Hospital System.

ObjectiveIn 2013, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) participated in the Choosing Wisely campaign and devised a recommendation to avoid testing antinuclear antibody (ANA) subserologies without a positive ANA and clinical suspicion of disease. The goals of our study were to describe ANA and subserology ordering practices and predictors of ordering concurrent ANA and subserologies in a safety-net hospital.MethodsWe identified ANA and subserologies (dsDNA, Sm, RNP, SSA, SSB, Scl-70 and centromere) completed at Denver Health between 1/1/2005 and 12/31/2011. Variables included demographics, primary insurance, service, and setting from which the test was ordered. We performed multivariable logistic regression to determine predictors of concurrent ordering of ANA and subserologies.ResultsDuring seven years, 3221 ANA were performed in 2771 individuals and 211 (6.6%) were performed concurrently with at least one subserology. The most common concurrent subserologies were dsDNA (21.8%), SSA (20.8%), and SSB (19.7%). In the multivariable logistic analysis, significant predictors of concurrent ANA and subserologies were the labs being ordered from subspecialty care (OR 8.12, 95% CI 5.27-12.50, p-value <0.0001) or from urgent/inpatient care (OR 3.86, 95% CI 1.78-8.38, p-value 0.001). A significant predictor of decreased odds was male gender (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21-0.49, p-value <0.0001). Five individuals (2.2% of the negative ANA with subserologies ordered) had a negative ANA but positive subserologies.ConclusionOf 3221 ANA, 6.6% were performed concurrently with subserologies, and subspecialists were more likely to order concurrent tests. A negative ANA predicted negative subserologies with rare exceptions, which validates the ACR's recommendations

Obstetric Outcomes in Women with Rheumatic Disease and COVID-19 in the Context of Vaccination Status

OBJECTIVE: To describe obstetric outcomes based on COVID-19 vaccination status, in women with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) who developed COVID-19 during pregnancy. METHODS: Data regarding pregnant women entered into the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry from 24 March 2020-25 February 2022 were analysed. Obstetric outcomes were stratified by number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received prior to COVID-19 infection in pregnancy. Descriptive differences between groups were tested using the chi -square or Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: There were 73 pregnancies in 73 women with RMD and COVID-19. Overall, 24.7% (18) of pregnancies were ongoing, while of the 55 completed pregnancies 90.9% (50) of pregnancies resulted in livebirths. At the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, 60.3% (n = 44) of women were unvaccinated, 4.1% (n = 3) had received one vaccine dose while 35.6% (n = 26) had two or more doses. Although 83.6% (n = 61) of women required no treatment for COVID-19, 20.5% (n = 15) required hospital admission. COVID-19 resulted in delivery in 6.8% (n = 3) of unvaccinated women and 3.8% (n = 1) of fully vaccinated women. There was a greater number of preterm births (PTB) in unvaccinated women compared with fully vaccinated 29.5% (n = 13) vs 18.2%(n = 2). CONCLUSION: In this descriptive study, unvaccinated pregnant women with RMD and COVID-19 had a greater number of PTB compared with those fully vaccinated against COVID-19. Additionally, the need for COVID-19 pharmacological treatment was uncommon in pregnant women with RMD regardless of vaccination status. These results support active promotion of COVID-19 vaccination in women with RMD who are pregnant or planning a pregnancy

2019 American College of Rheumatology Recommended Patient‐Reported Functional Status Assessment Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis

ObjectiveTo develop American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommendations for patient-reported Functional Status Assessment Measures (FSAMs) for use in routine clinical practice in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsWe convened a workgroup to conduct a systematic review of published literature through March 16, 2017 and abstract FSAM properties. Based upon initial search results and clinical input, we focused on the following FSAMs appropriate for routine clinical use: the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and derived measures and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) tool. We used the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) 4-point scoring method to evaluate each FSAM, allowing for overall level of evidence assessment. We identified FSAMs fulfilling a predefined minimum standard and, through a modified Delphi process, selected preferred FSAMs for regular use in most clinic settings.ResultsThe search identified 11,835 articles, of which 56 were included in the review. Descriptions of the measures, properties, study quality, level of evidence, and feasibility were abstracted and scored. Following a modified Delphi process, 7 measures fulfilled the minimum standard for regular use in most clinic settings, and 3 measures were recommended: the PROMIS physical function 10-item short form (PROMIS PF10a), the HAQ-II, and the Multidimensional HAQ.ConclusionThis work establishes ACR recommendations for preferred RA FSAMs for regular use in most clinic settings. These results will inform clinical practice and can support future ACR quality measure development as well as highlight ongoing research needs

Systematic Review and Appraisal of the Cross-Cultural Validity of Functional Status Assessment Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

ObjectiveWe conducted a systematic review and appraisal of the cross-cultural adaptation and cross-cultural validity of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and its derivatives, and of the more recent Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) functional status assessment measures (FSAMs) in rheumatoid arthritis.MethodsFour electronic medical databases were searched from inception until April 4, 2018 according to the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) group search strategy. Included studies were evaluated using the COSMIN tool for cross-cultural validity and were scored as excellent, good, fair, or poor.ResultsOf 58 articles identified by our search strategy and 3 by manual search, 39 were included: 29 described the translation, cultural adaptation, or cross-cultural validity of the HAQ disability index, 8 other HAQ derivatives, and 2 PROMIS measures, representing 22 languages. Of the 39 articles reviewed, 3 examined the cross-cultural validity of translated versions. These studies were rated as follows: 2 as excellent, 3 good, 13 fair, and 21 poor. Two studies examining cross-cultural validity noted differential item functioning (DIF) between Dutch and US populations for the HAQ-II and PROMIS measures, and a third study found DIF between Turkish and UK populations on the HAQ, indicating cultural differences in questionnaire response.ConclusionThis review highlights a paucity of data on the cross-cultural validity of FSAMs and the mostly poor- or fair-quality methods by which they were translated and adapted, which needs to be considered when using these measures for multinational clinical trials and for day-to-day use in clinical practice

Systematic Review and Appraisal of the Cross-Cultural Validity of Functional Status Assessment Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

ObjectiveWe conducted a systematic review and appraisal of the cross-cultural adaptation and cross-cultural validity of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and its derivatives, and of the more recent Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) functional status assessment measures (FSAMs) in rheumatoid arthritis.MethodsFour electronic medical databases were searched from inception until April 4, 2018 according to the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) group search strategy. Included studies were evaluated using the COSMIN tool for cross-cultural validity and were scored as excellent, good, fair, or poor.ResultsOf 58 articles identified by our search strategy and 3 by manual search, 39 were included: 29 described the translation, cultural adaptation, or cross-cultural validity of the HAQ disability index, 8 other HAQ derivatives, and 2 PROMIS measures, representing 22 languages. Of the 39 articles reviewed, 3 examined the cross-cultural validity of translated versions. These studies were rated as follows: 2 as excellent, 3 good, 13 fair, and 21 poor. Two studies examining cross-cultural validity noted differential item functioning (DIF) between Dutch and US populations for the HAQ-II and PROMIS measures, and a third study found DIF between Turkish and UK populations on the HAQ, indicating cultural differences in questionnaire response.ConclusionThis review highlights a paucity of data on the cross-cultural validity of FSAMs and the mostly poor- or fair-quality methods by which they were translated and adapted, which needs to be considered when using these measures for multinational clinical trials and for day-to-day use in clinical practice

The Development of the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness Learning Collaborative for Improving Patient-Reported Outcome Collection and Patient-Centered Communication in Adult Rheumatology.

ObjectivePatient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an integral part of treat-to-target approaches in managing rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In clinical practice, however, routine collection, documentation, and discussion of PROs with patients are highly variable. The RISE LC (Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness Learning Collaborative) was established to develop and share best practices in PRO collection and use across adult rheumatology practices in the United States METHODS: The goals of the RISE LC were developed through site surveys and in-person meetings. Participants completed a baseline survey on PRO collection and use in their practices. RISE LC learning sessions focused on improving communication around PROs with patients and enhancing shared decision-making in treatment plans. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the RISE LC pivoted to adapt PRO tools for telehealth.ResultsAt baseline, all responding sites (n = 15) had established workflows for collecting PROs. Most sites used paper forms alone. PRO documentation in electronic health records was variable, with only half of the sites using structured data fields. To standardize and improve the use of PROs, participants iteratively developed a Clinical Disease Activity Index-based RA Disease Activity Communication Tool to solicit treatment goals and improve shared decision-making across sites. The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated developing a tool to gauge PROs via telehealth.ConclusionThe RISE LC is a continuous, structured method for implementing strategies to improve PRO collection and use in rheumatological care, initially adapting from the Learning Collaborative model and extending to include features of a learning network. Future directions include measuring the impact of standardized PRO collection and discussion on shared decision-making and RA outcomes

Applying Choosing Wisely: Antinuclear Antibody (ANA) and Sub- Serology Testing in a Safety Net Hospital System

OBJECTIVE: In 2013, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) participated in the Choosing Wisely campaign and devised a recommendation to avoid testing antinuclear antibody (ANA) subserologies without a positive ANA and clinical suspicion of disease. The goals of our study were to describe ANA and subserology ordering practices and predictors of ordering concurrent ANA and subserologies in a safety-net hospital. METHODS: We identified ANA and subserologies (dsDNA, Sm, RNP, SSA, SSB, Scl-70 and centromere) completed at Denver Health between 1/1/2005 and 12/31/2011. Variables included demographics, primary insurance, service, and setting from which the test was ordered. We performed multivariable logistic regression to determine predictors of concurrent ordering of ANA and subserologies. RESULTS: During seven years, 3221 ANA were performed in 2771 individuals and 211 (6.6%) were performed concurrently with at least one subserology. The most common concurrent subserologies were dsDNA (21.8%), SSA (20.8%), and SSB (19.7%). In the multivariable logistic analysis, significant predictors of concurrent ANA and subserologies were the labs being ordered from subspecialty care (OR 8.12, 95% CI 5.27-12.50, p-value <0.0001) or from urgent/inpatient care (OR 3.86, 95% CI 1.78-8.38, p-value 0.001). A significant predictor of decreased odds was male gender (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21-0.49, p-value <0.0001). Five individuals (2.2% of the negative ANA with subserologies ordered) had a negative ANA but positive subserologies. CONCLUSION: Of 3221 ANA, 6.6% were performed concurrently with subserologies, and subspecialists were more likely to order concurrent tests. A negative ANA predicted negative subserologies with rare exceptions, which validates the ACR’s recommendations