The controversy of using PGA to define remission in RA

Abstract not provided for this lette

Influence of the different “patient global assessment” formulations on disease activity score by different indices in rheumatoid arthritis

© 2018, International League of Associations for Rheumatology (ILAR). Patient global assessment (PGA) is included in almost all rheumatoid arthritis (RA) composite disease activity indices and definitions of remission. However, different PGA formulations exist and are used interchangeably in research and clinical practice. We investigated how five different PGA formulations used in four disease indices affect the remission rates. This was an ancillary analysis of data from a cross-sectional study in patients with RA. The data comprised the following: 28-joint counts, C-reactive protein, and five PGA formulations. Remission rate variation was assessed using five PGA formulations in each index (ACR/EULAR Boolean, CDAI, SDAI, and DAS28-CRP). PGA agreement was assessed by the following: Pearson’s correlation; Bland-Altman plots; paired samples t test; and establishing the proportion of patients who scored (i) all formulations within an interval of 20mm and (ii) each formulation ≤ 10mm. This analysis included 191 patients. PGA formulations presented good correlations (≥ 0.65), but Bland-Altman plots showed clinically significant differences, which were statistically confirmed by comparison of means. Just over a half (51.8%) of patients scored all PGA formulations within a 20-mm interval. The proportion of those scoring ≤ 10mm varied from 11.5 to 16.2%. When different formulations of PGA were used in each index, remission differences of up to 4.7, 4.7, 6.3, and 5.2% were observed. When formulations were used in their respective indices, as validated, the remission rates were similar (13.1, 13.6, 14.1, and 18.3%). Using PGA formulations interchangeably may have implications in the assessment of disease activity and in the attainment of remission, and this can impact upon management decisions

The Portuguese Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) score and its measurement equivalence in three countries: validation study using Rasch Models

© 2018, The Author(s). Purpose: The Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) score assesses seven impact domains of interest for people with RA. This study aimed to test patients’ understanding of the Portuguese RAID and evaluate its cross-cultural validity for use in Portugal. Methods: This was a mixed methods study comprising two phases: (i) cognitive debriefing to determine patient’s comprehension of the Portuguese RAID and (ii) cross-cultural validation using Rasch analysis. Construct validity was determined by fit to the model, invariance culture (compared with France and UK datasets) and evidence of convergent and divergent validity. Results: Patients’ input (n = 38) led to minor changes in the phrasing of two items to ensure conceptual equivalence between the Portuguese and the original RAID. In Rasch analysis (n = 288), two items ‘Sleep’ and ‘Physical well-being’ in the Portuguese dataset did not adequately fit the model specifications, suggesting multidimensionality (sleep—not necessarily associated with RA) and redundancy (physical well-being overlapping with functional disability). Despite the imperfections, the scale had high internal consistency, evidence of convergent and divergent validity and invariance to culture (compared to France n = 195 and UK n = 205 datasets). The scale was well targeted for patients with different levels of disease impact. Conclusions: The RAID has been successfully adapted into Portuguese and it can be used with confidence in clinical practice. Further research will be required to ensure it captures the full range of sleep problems in RA. Meanwhile, data across the three countries (Portugal, France and the UK) are comparable except for the two items (sleep and physical well-being)

Educational needs in people with ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES: To assess the educational needs of people with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), test differences across patient subgroups and identify factors independently associated with their educational needs. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional analytic study. Patients with AS and PsA completed the Portuguese version of the Educational Needs Assessment Tool (PortENAT). Data were Rasch-transformed before descriptive and inferential analyses were undertaken. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to determine differences between patient subgroups and factors independently associated with their educational needs. RESULTS: The study included 121 patients with AS and 132 with PsA. The level of educational needs varied by diagnostic group, but higher needs for both subgroups were reported regarding the “Disease process”, “Feelings” and “Managing pain” domains. Overall, patients with AS had a higher level of educational needs than those with PsA. In both diagnostic groups, female gender was independently associated with higher educational needs. In the PsA group, a shorter disease duration was independently associated with higher educational needs in the following domains: “Managing pain”, “Movement” and “Feelings”. CONCLUSIONS: Educational needs vary by diagnostic group, gender and disease duration. These differences merit consideration in the design of patient education interventions

Association of seventeen definitions of remission with functional status in a large clinical practice cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE: To compare the association between different remission criteria and physical function in rheumatoid arthritis patients followed in clinical practice. METHODS: Longitudinal data from the METEOR database were used. Seventeen definitions of remission were tested: ACR/EULAR Boolean-based; Simplified/Clinical Disease Activity Index (SDAI/CDAI); and fourteen Disease Activity Score (DAS)-based definitions. Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ)≤0.5 was defined as good functional status. Associations were investigated using generalised estimating equations (GEE). Potential confounders were tested and sensitivity analyses performed. RESULTS: Data from 32,915 patients (157,899 visits) were available. The most stringent definition of remission was the ACR/EULAR Boolean-based definition (1.9%). The proportion of patients with HAQ≤0.5 was higher for the most stringent definitions, although it never reached 100%. However, this also meant that, for the most stringent criteria, many patients in non-remission had HAQ≤0.5. All remission definitions were associated with better function, with the strongest degree of association observed for the SDAI (adjusted OR (95% CI): 3.36 (3.01-3.74)). CONCLUSION: The seventeen definitions of remission confirmed their validity against physical function in a large international clinical practice setting. Achievement of remission, according to any of the indices may be more important than the use of a specific index. A multidimensional approach, targeted at wider goals than disease control, is necessary to help all patients achieve the best possible functional status

Evolving the comprehensive management of rheumatoid arthritis: identification of unmet needs and development of practical and educational tools

OBJECTIVES: Despite availability of efficacious treatments, unmet needs still exist, preventing optimal and comprehensive management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Evolving the management of RA (eRA) is a European-wide educational initiative aiming to support improved patient care through practical and educational tools addressing specific unmet needs. METHODS: A multidisciplinary Steering Committee (17 members, 12 countries) identified unmet needs within the management of RA and prioritised those with the greatest impact on patient outcomes. Practical educational tools addressing priority needs were then developed for dissemination and implementation by the rheumatology community across Europe. RESULTS: Five areas of priority need were identified: increasing early recognition of RA and treatment initiation; treating RA to target; optimal, holistic approach to selection of treatment strategy, including shared decision-making; improving identification and management of comorbidities; and non-pharmacological patient management. A suite of 14 eRA tools included educational slides, best-practice guidance, self‑assessment questionnaires, clinical checklists, a multidisciplinary team training exercise, an interactive patient infographic, and case scenarios. By April 2020, rheumatology professionals in 17 countries had been actively engaged in the eRA programme; in 11 countries, eRA tools were selected by national leaders in rheumatology and translated for local dissemination. A web platform, with country-specific pages, was developed to support access to the translated tools (https://www.evolvingthemanagementofra.com/). CONCLUSIONS: The eRA programme supports comprehensive management of RA across Europe through development and dissemination of practical educational tools. The eRA tools address priority needs and are available free of charge to the rheumatology community