The Nonradiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis, the Radiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis, and Ankylosing Spondylitis: The Tangled Skein of Rheumatology

Since 1984 the diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) has been based upon the modified New York (mNY) criteria with mandatory presence of radiographic sacroiliitis, without which the diagnosis is not tenable. However, it may take years or decades for radiographic sacroiliitis to develop delaying the diagnosis for long periods. It did not matter in the past because no effective treatment was available. However, with the availability of a highly effective treatment, namely, tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors (TNFi), the issue of early diagnosis of AS acquired an urgency. The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) classification criteria published in 2009 was a significant step towards this goal. These criteria described an early stage of the disease where sacroiliitis was demonstrable only on MRI but not on standard radiograph. Therefore, this stage of the disease was labelled “nonradiographic axial SpA” (nr-axSpA). But questions have been raised if, in search of early diagnosis, specificity was compromised. The Federal Drug Administration (FDA, USA) withheld approval for the use of TNFi in patients with nr-axSpA because of issues related to the specificity of these criteria. This review attempts to clarify some of these aspects of the nr-axSpA-AS relationship and also tries to answer the question whether ASAS classifiable radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA) term can be interchangeably used with the term AS

Disseminating and assessing implementation of the EULAR recommendations for patient education in inflammatory arthritis:a mixed-methods study with patients' perspectives

OBJECTIVES: To explore patients' agreement and reasons for agreement or disagreement with the EULAR recommendations for patient education (PE) for people with inflammatory arthritis (IA). METHODS: This mixed-method survey collected data using snowball sampling. The survey had been translated into 20 languages by local healthcare professionals, researchers and patient research partners. It explored the degree to which patients with IA agreed with each recommendation for PE (0=do not agree at all and 10=agree completely) and their rationale for their agreement level in free text questions. Descriptive statistics summarised participants' demographics and agreement levels. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyse the free text data. Sixteen subcategories were developed, describing the reasons for agreement or disagreement with the recommendations, which constituted the categories. RESULTS: The sample comprised 2779 participants (79% female), with a mean (SD) age 55.1 (13.1) years and disease duration 17.1 (13.3) years. Participants strongly agreed with most recommendations (median 10 (IQR: 9-10) for most recommendations). Reasons for agreement with the recommendations included the benefit of using PE to facilitate collaborative care and shared decision making, the value of flexible and tailored PE, and the value of gaining support from other patients. Reasons for disagreement included lack of resources for PE, not wanting information to be tailored by healthcare professionals and a reluctance to use telephone-based PE. CONCLUSION: The EULAR recommendations for PE have been disseminated among patients with IA. Overall, agreement levels were very high, suggesting that they reflect patients' preferences for engaging in collaborative clinical care and using PE to facilitate and supplement their own understanding of IA. Reasons for not completely agreeing with the recommendations can inform implementation strategies and education of healthcare professionals

Assessing acceptability and identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation of the EULAR recommendations for patient education in inflammatory arthritis: a mixed-methods study with rheumatology professionals in 23 European and Asian countries

Objectives: To disseminate and assess the level of acceptability and applicability of the EULAR recommendations for patient education among rheumatology professionals across Europe and 3 Asian countries, and identify potential barriers and facilitators to their application.Methods: A parallel convergent mixed methods research design with an inductive approach was used. A web-based survey, available in 20 different languages, was distributed to health professionals by non-probability sampling. The level of agreement and applicability of each recommendation was assessed by (0 to 10) rating scales. Barriers and facilitators to implementation were assessed using free-text responses. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively and qualitative data by content analysis and presented in 16 categories supported by quotes. Results: A total of 1159 participants completed the survey; 852 (73.5%) were women. Most of the professionals were nurses (n=487), rheumatologists (n=320), physiotherapists (n=158). For all recommendations, the level of agreement was high but applicability was lower. The four most common barriers to application were: lack of time, lack of training in how to provide patient education, not having enough staff to perform this task and lack of evaluation tools. The most common facilitators were: tailoring patient education to individual patients, using group education, linking patient education with diagnosis and treatment, and inviting patients to provide feedback on patient education delivery.Conclusions: This project has disseminated the EULAR recommendations for patient education to health professionals across 23 countries. Potential barriers to their application were identified and some are amenable to change, namely training patient education providers and developing evaluation tools

Real life experience of a screening strategy for latent tuberculosis before treatment with biologicals in indian patients with rheumatic diseases

Objective: The objective of the study was to study the effectiveness of a recommended screening strategy for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in patients with systemic inflammatory rheumatic diseases (SIRDs) treated with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). Methods: The study included patients being considered for bDMARD treatment. Screening strategy included screening with “4S symptom complex (current cough, fever, weight loss, and night sweats) for TB,” augmented Mantoux test using ten tuberculin unit (TU) strength simultaneously with QuantiFERON®-TB Gold (QFTG) test. Those with a Mantoux test reading of ≥10 mm induration at 48–72 h and/or with a positive QFTG test, were given TB prophylaxis before initiating bDMARDs. They were followed and monitored for any features of tuberculosis flare. Results: A total of 730 patients (265 rheumatoid arthritis, 400 axial spondyloarthritis [axSpA], 34 psoriatic arthritis, and 31 others) were considered for bDMARDs. Two hundred and sixty-seven (36.6%) were positive for LTBI. They were treated either with isoniazid monotherapy for 6 months or with rifampicin + isoniazid for 4 months. bDMARDs were started 1 month after initiating chemoprophylaxis. Five (0.68%) patients developed active TB disease in the follow-up. In a total of 2930 “control” patients with the same diseases but never having taken bDMARDs, 18 (0.61%) developed active TB disease. The proportion of patients developing active TBI during the same period of follow-up did not differ between those who were and those who were not treated with bDMARDs. None of the study participants had “4S” symptoms. Conclusion: The strategy of clinical screening for active TBI with “4S complex,” standard chest radiograph, and an augmented Mantoux testing (10 TU purified protein derivative, [PPD]) simultaneously with QFTG test for the screening of LTBI, was successful in identifying active TBI in patients treated with bDMARDs

Disseminating and assessing implementation of the EULAR recommendations for patient education in inflammatory arthritis: a mixed-methods study with patients' perspectives

Objectives: To explore patients’ agreement and reasons for agreement or disagreement with the EULAR recommendations for patient education (PE) for people with inflammatory arthritis (IA). Methods: This mixed-method survey collected data using snowball sampling. The survey had been translated into 20 languages by local healthcare professionals, researchers and patient research partners. It explored the degree to which patients with IA agreed with each recommendation for PE (0=do not agree at all and 10=agree completely) and their rationale for their agreement level in free text questions. Descriptive statistics summarised participants’ demographics and agreement levels. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyse the free text data. Sixteen subcategories were developed, describing the reasons for agreement or disagreement with the recommendations, which constituted the categories. Results: The sample comprised 2779 participants (79% female), with a mean (SD) age 55.1 (13.1) years and disease duration 17.1 (13.3) years. Participants strongly agreed with most recommendations (median 10 (IQR: 9–10) for most recommendations). Reasons for agreement with the recommendations included the benefit of using PE to facilitate collaborative care and shared decision making, the value of flexible and tailored PE, and the value of gaining support from other patients. Reasons for disagreement included lack of resources for PE, not wanting information to be tailored by healthcare professionals and a reluctance to use telephone-based PE. Conclusion: The EULAR recommendations for PE have been disseminated among patients with IA. Overall, agreement levels were very high, suggesting that they reflect patients’ preferences for engaging in collaborative clinical care and using PE to facilitate and supplement their own understanding of IA. Reasons for not completely agreeing with the recommendations can inform implementation strategies and education of healthcare professionals