A validation of register-derived diagnoses of interstitial lung disease in patients with inflammatory arthritis: data from the NOR-DMARD study

OBJECTIVE There is a lack of knowledge concerning the validity of the interstitial lung disease (ILD) diagnoses used in epidemiological studies on rheumatic diseases. This paper seeks to verify register-derived ILD diagnoses using chest computed tomography (CT) and medical records as a gold standard. METHOD The Norwegian Anti-Rheumatic Drug Register (NOR-DMARD) is a multicentre prospective observational study of patients with inflammatory arthritis who start treatment with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. NOR-DMARD is linked to the Norwegian Patient Registry (NPR) and Cause of Death Registry. We searched registers for ILD coded by ICD-10 J84 or J99 among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, or spondyloarthritis. We extracted chest CT reports and medical records from participating hospitals. Two expert thoracic radiologists scored examinations to confirm the ILD diagnosis. We also searched medical records to find justifications for the diagnosis following multidisciplinary evaluations. We calculated the positive predictive values (PPVs) for ILD across subsets. RESULTS We identified 71 cases with an ILD diagnosis. CT examinations were available in 65/71 patients (91.5%), of whom ILD was confirmed on CT in 29/65 (44.6%). In a further 10 patients, medical records confirmed the diagnosis, giving a total of 39/71 verified cases. The PPV of a register-derived ILD diagnosis was thus 54.9%. In a subset of patients who had received an ILD code at two or more time-points and had a CT scan taken within a relevant period, the PPV was 72.2%. CONCLUSION The validity of register-based diagnoses of ILD must be carefully considered in epidemiological studies

Differences and similarities between the EULAR/ASAS-EULAR and national recommendations for treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis across Europe

This is the first report comparing EULAR and national treatment recommendations for PsA patients across Europe, and the first this decade to compare ASAS-EULAR and national treatment recommendations in axSpA patients. An electronic survey was completed from October 2021–April 2022 by rheumatologists in 15 European countries. One and four countries followed all EULAR and ASAS-EULAR recommendations, respectively. Five countries had no national treatment recommendations for PsA and/or axSpA, but followed other regulations. In several countries, national treatment recommendations predated the most recent EULAR/ASAS-EULAR recommendations. Entry criteria for starting biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs varied considerably. In several countries, for PsA patients with significant skin involvement, interleukin-17 inhibitors were not given preference. The positioning of Janus Kinase inhibitors differed and Phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors were not in use/reimbursed in most countries. This study may motivate European countries to update their national treatment recommendations, to align them better with the latest international recommendations

Impact of discordance between patient's and evaluator's global assessment on treatment outcomes in 14 868 patients with spondyloarthritis

Funding: This work was supported by Novartis. Novartis had no influence on the data collection, statistical analyses, manuscript preparation or decision to submit.Peer reviewedPostprintPostprintPostprintPostprin

Comparative effectiveness of subcutaneous tocilizumab versus intravenous tocilizumab in a pan-European collaboration of registries

Objective To compare the real-word effectiveness of subcutaneous tocilizumab (TCZ-SC) and intravenous tocilizumab (TCZ-IV) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods Patients with RA with TCZ from eight European registries were included. Drug retention was compared using unadjusted Kaplan-Meier and Cox models adjusted for baseline patient, disease and treatment characteristics, using a strata term for year of treatment initiation and country of registry. The proportions of patients achieving Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission and low disease activity (LDA) at 1 year were compared using samples matched on the same covariates and corrected for attrition using LUNDEX. Results 3448 patients were retrieved, 2414 with TCZ-IV and 1034 with TCZ-SC. Crude median retention was 3.52 years (95% CI 3.22 to 3.85) for TCZ-IV and 2.12 years for TCZ-SC (95% CI 1.88 to 2.38). In a country-stratified and year of treatment initiation-stratified, covariate-adjusted analysis, hazards of discontinuation were similar between TCZ-SC and TCZ-IV treated patients (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.09). The average adjusted CDAI change at 1 year was similar in both groups (-6.08). After matching, with 560 patients in each group, CDAI remission corrected for attrition at 1 year was also similar between TCZ-SC and TCZ-IV (10.4% in TCZ-IV vs 12.8% in TCZ-SC (difference: 2.4%, bootstrap 95% CI -2.1% to 7.6%)), but CDAI LDA was lower in TCZ-IV patients: 41.0% in TCZ-IV versus 49.1% in TCZ-SC (difference: 8.0 %; bootstrap 95% CI 2.4% to 12.4%). Conclusion With similar retention and effectiveness, TCZ-SC is an adequate alternative to TCZ-IV for RA. When possible, considering the costs of the TCZ-IV route, TCZ-SC should be the preferred mode of administration.Peer reviewe