Michaela Stoffer

Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: 2014 update of the recommendations of an international task force

Background Reaching the therapeutic target of remission or low-disease activity has improved outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) significantly. The treat-to-target recommendations, formulated in 2010, have provided a basis for implementation of a strategic approach towards this therapeutic goal in routine clinical practice, but these recommendations need to be re-evaluated for appropriateness and practicability in the light of new insights. Objective To update the 2010 treat-to-target recommendations based on systematic literature reviews (SLR) and expert opinion. Methods A task force of rheumatologists, patients and a nurse specialist assessed the SLR results and evaluated the individual items of the 2010 recommendations accordingly, reformulating many of the items. These were subsequently discussed, amended and voted upon by >40 experts, including 5 patients, from various regions of the world. Levels of evidence, strengths of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived. Results The update resulted in 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations. The previous recommendations were partly adapted and their order changed as deemed appropriate in terms of importance in the view of the experts. The SLR had now provided also data for the effectiveness of targeting low-disease activity or remission in established rather than only early disease. The role of comorbidities, including their potential to preclude treatment intensification, was highlighted more strongly than before. The treatment aim was again defined as remission with low-disease activity being an alternative goal especially in patients with long-standing disease. Regular follow-up (every 1–3 months during active disease) with according therapeutic adaptations to reach the desired state was recommended. Follow-up examinations ought to employ composite measures of disease activity that include joint counts. Additional items provide further details for particular aspects of the disease, especially comorbidity and shared decision-making with the patient. Levels of evidence had increased for many items compared with the 2010 recommendations, and levels of agreement were very high for most of the individual recommendations (≥9/10). Conclusions The 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations are based on stronger evidence than before and are supposed to inform patients, rheumatologists and other stakeholders about strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA.

Evidence for treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: results of a systematic literature search update

Objective A systematic literature review (SLR; 2009–2014) to compare a target-oriented approach with routine management in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to allow an update of the treat-to-target recommendations. Methods Two SLRs focused on clinical trials employing a treatment approach targeting a specific clinical outcome were performed. In addition to testing clinical, functional and/or structural changes as endpoints, comorbidities, cardiovascular risk, work productivity and education as well as patient self-assessment were investigated. The searches covered MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases and Clinicaltrial.gov for the period between 2009 and 2012 and separately for the period of 2012 to May of 2014. Results Of 8442 citations retrieved in the two SLRs, 176 articles underwent full-text review. According to predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria, six articles were included of which five showed superiority of a targeted treatment approach aiming at least at low-disease activity versus routine care; in addition, publications providing supportive evidence were also incorporated that aside from expanding the evidence provided by the above six publications allowed concluding that a target-oriented approach leads to less comorbidities and cardiovascular risk and better work productivity than conventional care. Conclusions The current study expands the evidence that targeting low-disease activity or remission in the management of RA conveys better outcomes than routine care.

EULAR recommendations for patient education for people with inflammatory arthritis

Objectives The task force aimed to: (1) develop evidence-based recommendations for patient education (PE) for people with inflammatory arthritis, (2) identify the need for further research on PE and (3) determine health professionals’ educational needs in order to provide evidence-based PE. Methods A multidisciplinary task force, representing 10 European countries, formulated a definition for PE and 10 research questions that guided a systematic literature review (SLR). The results from the SLR were discussed and used as a basis for developing the recommendations, a research agenda and an educational agenda. The recommendations were categorised according to level and strength of evidence graded from A (highest) to D (lowest). Task force members rated their agreement with each recommendation from 0 (total disagreement) to 10 (total agreement). Results Based on the SLR and expert opinions, eight recommendations were developed, four with strength A evidence. The recommendations addressed when and by whom PE should be offered, modes and methods of delivery, theoretical framework, outcomes and evaluation. A high level of agreement was achieved for all recommendations (mean range 9.4–9.8). The task force proposed a research agenda and an educational agenda. Conclusions The eight evidence-based and expert opinion-based recommendations for PE for people with inflammatory arthritis are intended to provide a core framework for the delivery of PE and training for health professionals in delivering PE across Europe.

Development of healthcare quality indicators for rheumatoid arthritis in Europe: the eumusc.net project

Background Eumusc.net (http://www.eumusc.net) is a European project supported by the EU and European League Against Rheumatism to improve musculoskeletal care in Europe. Objective To develop patient-centred healthcare quality indicators (HCQIs) for healthcare provision for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. Methods Based on a systematic literature search, existing HCQIs for RA were identified and their contents analysed and categorised referring to a list of 16 standards of care developed within the eumusc.net. An international expert panel comprising 14 healthcare providers and two patient representatives added topics and during repeated Delphi processes by email ranked the topics and rephrased suggested HCQIs with the preliminary set being established during a second expert group meeting. After an audit process by rheumatology units (including academic centres) in six countries (The Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Italy, Austria and Sweden), a final version of the HCQIs was established. Results 56 possible topics for HCQIs were processed resulting in a final set of HCQIs for RA (n=14) including two for structure (patient information and calculation of composite scores), 11 for process (eg, access to care, assessments, and pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments) and one for outcome (effect of treatment on disease activity). They included definitions to be used in clinical practice and also by patients. Further, the numerators and the denominators for each HCQI were defined. Conclusions A set of 14 patient-centred HCQIs for RA was developed to be used in quality improvement and bench marking in countries across Europe.

Development of a new occupational balance-questionnaire: incorporating the perspectives of patients and healthy people in the design of a self-reported occupational balance outcome instrument

BackgroundSelf-reported outcome instruments in health research have become increasingly important over the last decades. Occupational therapy interventions often focus on occupational balance. However, instruments to measure occupational balance are scarce. The aim of the study was therefore to develop a generic self-reported outcome instrument to assess occupational balance based on the experiences of patients and healthy people including an examination of its psychometric properties.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative analysis of the life stories of 90 people with and without chronic autoimmune diseases to identify components of occupational balance. Based on these components, the Occupational Balance-Questionnaire (OB-Quest) was developed. Construct validity and internal consistency of the OB-Quest were examined in quantitative data. We used Rasch analyses to determine overall fit of the items to the Rasch model, person separation index and potential differential item functioning. Dimensionality testing was conducted by the use of t-tests and Cronbach’s alpha.ResultsThe following components emerged from the qualitative analyses: challenging and relaxing activities, activities with acknowledgement by the individual and by the sociocultural context, impact of health condition on activities, involvement in stressful activities and fewer stressing activities, rest and sleep, variety of activities, adaptation of activities according to changed living conditions and activities intended to care for oneself and for others. Based on these, the seven items of the questionnaire (OB-Quest) were developed. 251 people (132 with rheumatoid arthritis, 43 with systematic lupus erythematous and 76 healthy) filled in the OB-Quest. Dimensionality testing indicated multidimensionality of the questionnaire (t = 0.58, and 1.66 after item reduction, non-significant). The item on the component rest and sleep showed differential item functioning (health condition and age). Person separation index was 0.51. Cronbach’s alpha changed from 0.38 to 0.57 after deleting two items.ConclusionsThis questionnaire includes new items addressing components of occupational balance meaningful to patients and healthy people which have not been measured so far. The reduction of two items of the OB-Quest showed improved internal consistency. The multidimensionality of the questionnaire indicates the need for a summary of several components into subscales.

Extended report: Development of patient-centred standards of care for osteoarthritis in Europe: the eumusc.net-project

Objective The eumusc.net project is an initiative founded by the European Community and the European League Against Rheumatism. One aim of the project was to facilitate equal standards for musculoskeletal health across Europe. The aim of this work-package was to develop patient-centred and consensus based standards of care (SOC) for osteoarthritis (OA), which should be available in a professional and a patient version. Methods A systematic review concerning guidelines dealing with OA was conducted. Furthermore, experts in musculoskeletal diseases were contacted to ensure that ‘grey’ literature was not excluded. Documents that fulfilled predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria were included and all interventions for OA were extracted and categorised. Based on this list of interventions, a three round Delphi exercise with an international and multidisciplinary expert panel, including patient research partners, was performed to achieve expert consensus. Results Six documents were included and used for further analysis. Out of them, 46 interventions have been extracted and 10 consensus based SOC were formulated. In addition, a patient version, written in a lay-understandable wording and in the format of checklist questions was developed. An example is SOC 5: “People with OA should achieve optimal pain control using pharmacological and non-pharmacological means.” The matching patient-centred checklist question reads: “Do I know how to control pain associated with OA?” Conclusions The SOC for OA will be available in the 23 languages of the European Union to enhance unified information to patients and professionals and to further harmonise the treatment/care of OA within Europe.

Perceptions of risk and predictive testing held by the first degree relatives of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in England, Austria and Germany: a qualitative study

Objectives The family members of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at increased risk of developing RA and are potential candidates for predictive testing. This study explored the perceptions of first-degree relatives of people with RA about being at risk of RA and engaging in predictive testing. Methods 34 first-degree relatives (siblings and offspring) of patients with RA from the UK, Germany and Austria participated in semistructured interviews about their perceptions of RA risk and the prospect of predictive testing. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Results First-degree relatives were aware of their susceptibility to RA, but were unsure of the extent of their risk. When considering their future risk, some relatives were concerned about the potential impact that RA would have on their lives. Relatives were concerned that knowing their actual risk would increase their anxiety and would affect decisions about their future. Also, relatives were concerned about the levels of uncertainty associated with predictive testing. Those in favour of knowing their future risk felt that they would need additional support to understand the risk information and cope with the emotional impact of this information. Conclusions Identifying individuals at risk of RA may allow targeted interventions to reduce the risk and consequence of future disease; however, relatives have concerns about predictive testing and risk information. The development of strategies to quantify and communicate risk needs to take these views into account and incorporate approaches to mitigate concerns and minimise the psychological impact of risk information.

Do patient-reported outcome measures cover personal factors important to people with rheumatoid arthritis? A mixed methods design using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health as frame of reference

BackgroundPersonal factors (PFs) are internal factors that determine functioning and the individuals’ experience of disability. Their coverage by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has not been examined in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) so far. The aims of this study were to identify PFs important in the life stories of people with RA and to determine their coverage by PROMs used in RA.MethodsThe qualitative data of people with RA was explored to identify PFs. Additionally a systematic literature search was conducted to find PROMs used in RA. PROMs items were linked to the components, domains and categories of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) to determine the coverage of important PFs by PROMs.ResultsTwelve PFs were found to be important in the life stories of people with RA. The PFs coping and reflecting about one’s life in an optimistic way were covered most frequently, each by 14 of the 42 explored PROMs, while job satisfaction was not covered at all. The London Coping with Rheumatoid Arthritis Questionnaire, General Self-Efficacy Scale, Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale, Rheumatoid Arthritis Self-Efficacy Questionnaire and Revised Ways of Coping Inventory covered most PFs. Nineteen PROMs did not cover any of the PFs.ConclusionSeveral PFs were identified as important in the life stories of people with RA, but only 55% of the PROMS covered some of these PFs. When evaluating PFs important to people with RA, health professionals should be alert on which PROMs can be used to assess which PFs.

Facilitators to implement standards of care for rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis: the EUMUSC.NET project

Background Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA) are important musculoskeletal diseases that the EUMUSC.NET project developed Standards of Care (SOC) for. Objective The purpose was to explore factors to enable successful implementation of the SOC for RA and OA. Methods A combined set of methods was used; a literature search, a European survey among patients, clinicians and policymakers; and focus groups. Results Potential facilitators were identified during a literature search. The online survey captured 282 responses from clinicians, patients and policymakers from 35 European countries, and focus groups from 5 countries contributed with knowledge about possible additional facilitators and strategies. Both the survey and the focus groups endorsed all 11 facilitators. The most important facilitators for implementing the SOC were motivation, agreement, knowledge and personal attitude. The focus groups underlined the lack of access to recommended care in some countries, that multidisciplinary teams should be strengthened and that some healthcare reimbursement systems need change to implement recommended clinical practice. Conclusion Eleven facilitators key for the implementation of the SOC for RA and OA were endorsed by patients and clinicians from 35 European countries. This knowledge may contribute to improved care for patients with RA and OA in Europe.

FRI0492-HPR Life stories, gender and chronic autoimmune diseases: results of a qualitative study

Background Functioning in daily activities is commonly regarded as one of the most important outcomes in people with chronic rheumatic diseases, although there is a lack of data comparing the experiences of patients with different chronic autoimmune diseases and scarce data comparing between women and men. Objectives The aim of this qualitative study was to describe functioning from the perspective of people with different chronic autoimmune diseases, to compare between diseases and with so-called healthy people without a chronic autoimmune disease and to compare between women and men. Methods Seventy-five people with a chronic autoimmune disease and 15 healthy people were interviewed twice using a biographic narrative interview style. Fifteen people had rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 15 Scleroderma (SSc), 15 Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), 15 Crohn’s disease (CD), 15 Diabetes Type 1 (D). All interviews were transcribed and analysed by using a narrative biographic method. To ensure rigor and accuracy of the analysis, reflective research diaries were kept by the researchers and a large part of the data analysis was performed by two to three people together. Results Demographic data Age (median; range) N (%) women RA 54; 36–61 11 (73) SLE 67; 36–75 11 (73) SSc 46; 22–67 8 (53) CD 43; 25–62 8 (53) D 53; 26–81 8 (53) Healthy 38; 22–69 10 (67) Regardless if people had a disease or not, functioning in daily life was experienced positively when a balance between challenging and rewarding activities, as well as a balance between physical activities and rest was represented. The popular concept “work-life balance” was only meaningful for 7 (9%) of the participants. People with chronic autoimmune diseases faced several problems which were hardly covered in their clinical assessments, such as difficulties when caring for others, decreased career perspectives or problems of over-compensation. For example, participant “SSc 8” (female, age 69, retired) described her current main problem in taking care of others: “I have to take care for my grandchildren, they cannot stay the whole day in kindergarten and I have to pick them up, I have to drive 45 minutes home, it is very difficult, but I promised that I will do it, because I love my children.” Participant SLE 9 (female, age 50, full-time paid work) felt that she could not be as ambitious as her colleagues in her professional career: “I was sitting at the computer until 12-13 hours per day, so the index finger was damaged. Because we never had children, I could work in principle the whole day, but I felt exploited, they others have their career, but I do not know if I could do it ... I wanted to over-compensate, to show that I could do it – despite my disease.” Conclusions Functioning in daily activities may differ largely between women (more involved in caring for others, more inconsistent professional careers) and men (prioritise work commitments over health concerns) in chronic autoimmune diseases. Several problems of patients with chronic autoimmune diseases are not covered by the instruments most commonly used to assess functioning in daily life. These instruments may not be sensitive enough to detect changes of non-pharmacological interventions of health professionals. Instruments that allow patients to select target activities may be an alternative. Disclosure of Interest None Declared