Ten years of METEOR (an international rheumatoid arthritis registry): development, research opportunities and future perspectives

OBJECTIVES: Ten years ago, the METEOR tool was developed to simulate treatment-to-target and create an international research database. The development of the METEOR tool and database, research opportunities and future perspectives are described. METHODS: The METEOR tool is a free, online, internationally available tool in which daily practice visits of all rheumatoid arthritis patients visiting a rheumatologist can be registered. In the tool, disease characteristics, patient- and physician-reported outcomes and prescribed treatment could be entered. These can be subsequently displayed in powerful graphics, facilitating treatment decisions and patient-physician interactions. An upload facility is also available, by which data from local electronic health record systems or registries can be integrated into the METEOR database. This is currently being actively used in, among other countries, the Netherlands, Portugal and India. RESULTS: Since an increasing number of hospitals use electronic health record systems, the upload facility is being actively used by an increasing number of sites, enabling them to benefit from the benchmark and research opportunities of METEOR. Enabling a connection between local registries and METEOR is a well established but time-consuming process for which an IT-specialist of METEOR and the local registry are necessary. However, once this process has been finished, data can be uploaded regularly and relatively easily according to a pre-specified format. The METEOR database currently contains data from >39,000 patients and >200,000 visits, from 32 different countries and is ever increasing. Continuous efforts are being undertaken to increase the quality of data in the database. CONCLUSIONS: Since METEOR was founded 10 years ago, many rheumatologists worldwide have used the METEOR tool to follow-up their patients and improve the quality of care they provide to their patients. Combined with uploaded data, this has led to an extensive growth of the database. It now offers a unique opportunity to study daily practice care and to perform research regarding cross-country differences in a large, worldwide setting, which could provide important knowledge about disease and its treatment in different geographic and clinical settings

Development of ASAS quality standards to improve the quality of health and care services for patients with axial spondyloarthritis

Objectives The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) aimed to develop a set of quality standards (QS) to help improve the quality of healthcare provided to adult patients affected by axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) worldwide. Methods An ASAS task force developed a set of QS using a stepwise approach. First, key areas for quality improvement were identified, discussed, rated and agreed on. Thereafter, areas were prioritised and statements for the most important key areas were phrased on consensus. Appropriate quality measures were defined to allow quantification of the QS at the community level. Results The ASAS task force, consisting of 20 rheumatologists, two physiotherapists and two patients, selected and proposed 34 potential key areas for quality improvement which were then commented by 140 ASAS members and patients. Within that process three new key areas came up, which led to a re-evaluation of all 37 key areas by 120 ASAS members and patients. Five key areas were identified as most important to determine quality of care: referral including rapid access, rheumatology assessment, treatment, education/self-management and comorbidities. Finally, nine QS were agreed on and endorsed by the whole ASAS membership. Conclusions ASAS successfully developed the first set of QS to help improving healthcare for adult patients with axSpA. Even though it may currently not be realistic to achieve the QS in all healthcare systems, they provide high-quality of care framework for patients with axSpA that should be aimed for

Development of ASAS quality standards to improve the quality of health and care services for patients with axial spondyloarthritis

Objectives: The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) aimed to develop a set of quality standards (QS) to help improve the quality of healthcare provided to adult patients affected by axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) worldwide. Methods: An ASAS task force developed a set of QS using a stepwise approach. First, key areas for quality improvement were identified, discussed, rated and agreed on. Thereafter, areas were prioritised and statements for the most important key areas were phrased on consensus. Appropriate quality measures were defined to allow quantification of the QS at the community level. Results: The ASAS task force, consisting of 20 rheumatologists, two physiotherapists and two patients, selected and proposed 34 potential key areas for quality improvement which were then commented by 140 ASAS members and patients. Within that process three new key areas came up, which led to a re-evaluation of all 37 key areas by 120 ASAS members and patients. Five key areas were identified as most important to determine quality of care: referral including rapid access, rheumatology assessment, treatment, education/self-management and comorbidities. Finally, nine QS were agreed on and endorsed by the whole ASAS membership. Conclusions: ASAS successfully developed the first set of QS to help improving healthcare for adult patients with axSpA. Even though it may currently not be realistic to achieve the QS in all healthcare systems, they provide high-quality of care framework for patients with axSpA that should be aimed for

A prospective, single-centre, randomised study evaluating the clinical, imaging and immunological depth of remission achieved by very early versus delayed Etanercept in patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (VEDERA)

Background Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory arthritis, with significant impact on quality of life and functional status. Whilst biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARD) such as tumour necrosis factor-inhibitor (TNFi) agents have revolutionised outcomes in RA, early diagnosis with immediate conventional therapy, titrated in a treat to target approach is also associated with high remission rates. The main aim of the VEDERA study (Very Early versus Delayed Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis) is to assess the depth of remission, sustainability of remission and immunological normalisation induced by very early TNFi with etanercept (ETN) or standard of care +/- delayed ETN. Methods/Design VEDERA is a pragmatic, phase IV single-centre open-label randomised superiority trial of 120 patients with early, treatment-naive RA. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to first-line ETN and methotrexate (MTX) or MTX with additional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (sDMARDs) according to a treat to target (TT) protocol with further step up to ETN and MTX after 24 weeks if remission is not achieved. Participants will have regular disease activity assessments and imaging evaluation including musculoskeletal ultrasound and MRI. The main objective of this study is to assess the proportion of patients with early RA that achieve clinical remission at 48 weeks, following either treatment strategy. In addition, the participants are invited to take part in a cardio-vascular sub-study (Coronary Artery Disease in RA, CADERA), which aims to identify the incidence of cardiovascular abnormalities in early RA. Discussion The hypothesis underlining this study is that very early treatment with first-line ETN increases the proportion of patients with rheumatoid arthritis achieving clinical remission, in comparison to conventional therapy. Trial registration NCT02433184, 23/04/201

Does a short course of etanercept influence disease progression and radiographic changes in patients suspected of non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis?: Three -years follow- up of a placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To study the long-term effect of 16 weeks of etanercept treatment on disease activity and radiographic changes in patients with suspected non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA). METHOD: Eighty patients with inflammatory back pain and suspected nr-axSpA, with a Bath Ankylosing Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) ≥ 4, received etanercept (n = 40) 25 mg twice weekly or placebo (n = 40) for 16 weeks. They were followed without treatment restrictions after 24 weeks, for up to 3 years. Comparisons were made between patients who received etanercept or placebo in the first period, and changes in BASDAI, Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI), function, and radiographic changes in the spine [according to the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score (mSASSS)] and sacroiliac joints (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Radiology Index (BASRI). RESULTS: After 3 years of follow-up, 84% of the patients were diagnosed with SpA, predominantly axSpA. Biological treatment was started after 24 weeks in 30% of patients. Disease activity scores after 3 years did not reveal significant differences between the initial randomization groups in mean BASDAI scores (mean difference 0.9, 95% CI -1.1;0.7, p = 0.6) and ASDAS (mean ASDAS 0.3, 95% CI 0.6;3.1, p = 0.5). BASMI and function scores remained stable over 3 years. No differences in radiographic changes of the sacroiliac joints or spine were observed over 3 years between the two groups. CONCLUSION: A short course of etanercept in patients with suspected nr-axSpA did not affect disease activity, the chance of biological treatment, or radiographic progression after 3 years of follow-up

Assessment of global disease activity in RA by patients and physicians: differences across countries in the METEOR Database

Aim: The aim of the study was to compare the differences between patient global disease activity (PtGDA) and physician global disease activity (PhGDA) score within and across 13 countries in the METEOR (Measurement of Efficacy of Treatment in the “Era of Outcome” in Rheumatology) database. Methods: Data from METEOR were used to compare PtGDA and PhGDA, scored independently on a 100-mm visual analog scale from 0 (best possible) until 100 (worst possible), in 23,117 visits in 5709 anonymized patients during the period between 2008 and 2012. Linear mixed models were used to model mean differences between PtGDA and PhGDA in 13 countries (Brazil, Czech Republic, France, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Mexico, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom, and the United States), adjusted for differences in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28). Generalized estimating equations were used to model differences (>20 mm) between PtGDA and PhGDA score as the outcome and countries as determinants, adjusted for DAS28. Results: Mean difference between PtGDA and PhGDA scores varied by country, from −2 mm (physician scores higher) in Mexico to +14 mm (patient scores higher) in Brazil. “Country” was a significant determinant of the difference between PtGDA and PhGDA scores, independent of differences in DAS28. With the Netherlands as reference, PtGDA and PhGDA scores for individual patients differ significantly in almost all (n = 10) countries, with the exception of France and Spain. Conclusions: Differences between patients’ and physicians’ assessment of GDA vary across the countries. Influence of country must be taken into account when interpreting discordances between the patient’s and the physician’s assessment of GDA in rheumatoid arthritis

EULAR recommendations for the reporting of ultrasound studies in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs)

Objective To produce European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the reporting of ultrasound studies in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). Methods Based on the literature reviews and expert opinion (through Delphi surveys), a taskforce of 23 members (12 experts in ultrasound in RMDs, 9 in methodology and biostatistics together with a patient research partner and a health professional in rheumatology) developed a checklist of items to be reported in every RMD study using ultrasound. This checklist was further refined by involving a panel of 79 external experts (musculoskeletal imaging experts, methodologists, journal editors), who evaluated its comprehensibility, feasibility and comprehensiveness. Agreement on each proposed item was assessed with an 11-point Likert scale, grading from 0 (total disagreement) to 10 (full agreement). Results Two face-to-face meetings, as well as two Delphi rounds of voting, resulted in a final checklist of 23 items, including a glossary of terminology. Twentyone of these were considered ’mandatory’ items to be reported in every study (such as blinding, development of scoring systems, definition of target pathologies) and 2 ’optional’ to be reported only if applicable, such as possible confounding factors (ie, ambient conditions) or experience of the sonographers. Conclusion An EULAR taskforce developed a checklist to ensure transparent and comprehensive reporting of aspects concerning research and procedures that need to be presented in studies using ultrasound in RMDs. This checklist, if widely adopted by authors and editors, will greatly improve the interpretability of study development and results, including the assessment of validity, generalisability and applicability