Evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis: Results from the Australian 3E initiative in rheumatology

• As part of the 3E program, we conducted a systematic literature review and gathered consensus from 23 practising Australian rheumatologists to develop guidelines for early identification of ankylosing spondylitis and specialist referral. • In three rounds of break-out sessions followed by discussion and voting, the specialist panel addressed three questions related to diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis: In individuals with back pain, what are the early clinical features that suggest ankylosing spondylitis? How useful is imaging in identifying early ankylosing spondylitis? Based on which clinical features should a general practitioner refer a patient to a rheumatologist for further evaluation? • The panel agreed on six recommendations related to the three questions: 1a. Early clinical features to suggest ankylosing spondylitis include inflammatory back pain and age at symptom onset < 45 years. 1b. The absence of symptomatic response to an appropriate course of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs makes the diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis less likely. 1c. Raised inflammatory markers are supportive, but their absence does not rule out the diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis. 2a. Despite low sensitivity to detect changes of early ankylosing spondylitis, plain radiographs of the pelvis and spine are appropriate initial imaging techniques. 2b. Magnetic resonance imaging is a useful imaging modality for detecting early changes of ankylosing spondylitis. 3. Individuals with inflammatory back pain should be referred to a rheumatologist for further evaluation. • Effective dissemination and implementation of these recommendations are important to standardise the approach to early diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis.

Evidence-based recommendations for the monitoring and treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: Results from the Australian 3E initiative in rheumatology

Aim: To develop a set of Australian recommendations for the monitoring and treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) through systematic literature review combined with the opinion of practicing rheumatologists. Methods: A set of eight questions, four in each domain of monitoring and treatment, were formulated by voting and the Delphi method. The results of a systematic literature review addressing each question were presented to the 23 participants of the Australian 3E meeting. All participants were clinical rheumatologists experienced in the daily management of AS. Results: After three rounds of breakout sessions to discuss the findings of the literature review, a set of recommendations was finalized after discussion and voting. The category of evidence and strength of recommendation were determined for each proposal. The level of agreement among participants was excellent (mean 84%, range 64-100%). Conclusions: The 12 recommendations developed from evidence and expert opinion provide guidance for the daily management of AS patients. For most recommendations, we found a paucity of supportive evidence in the literature highlighting the need for additional clinical studies.

Can diagnostic triage by general practitioners or rheumatology nurses improve the positive predictive value of referrals to early arthritis clinics?

Objectives: To determine whether diagnostic triage by general practitioners (GPs) or rheumatology nurses (RNs) can improve the positive predictive value of referrals to early arthritis clinics (EACs).

Methods: Four GPs and two RNs were trained in the assessment of early in?ammatory arthritis (IA) by four visits to an EAC supervised by hospital rheumatologists. Patients referred to one of three EACs were recruited for study and assessed independently by a GP, an RN and one of six rheumatologists. Each assessor was asked to record their clinical ?ndings and whether they considered the patient to have IA. Each was then asked to judge the appropriateness of the referral according to predetermined guidelines. The rheumatologists had been shown previously to have a satisfactory level of agreement in the assessment of IA.

Results: Ninety-six patients were approached and all consented to take part in the study. In 49 cases (51%), the rheumatologist judged that the patient had IA and that the referral was appropriate. The assessments of GPs and RNs were compared with those of the rheumatologists. Levels of agreement were measured using the kappa value, where 1.0 represents total unanimity. The kappa value was
0.77 for the GPs when compared with the rheumatologists and 0.79 for the RNs. Signi?cant stiffness in the morning or after rest and objective joint swelling were the most important clinical features enabling the GPs and RNs to discriminate between IA and non-IA conditions.

Conclusion: Diagnostic triage by GPs or RNs improved the positive predictive value of referrals to an EAC with a degree of accuracy approaching that of a group of experienced rheumatologists.

The Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation provisional criteria for the evaluation of response to therapy in juvenile dermatomyositis.

Objective To develop a provisional definition for the evaluation of response to therapy in juvenile dermatomyositis (DM) based on the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation juvenile DM core set of variables. Methods Thirty-seven experienced pediatric rheumatologists from 27 countries achieved consensus on 128 difficult patient profiles as clinically improved or not improved using a stepwise approach (patient's rating, statistical analysis, definition selection). Using the physicians' consensus ratings as the “gold standard measure,” chi-square, sensitivity, specificity, false-positive and-negative rates, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and kappa agreement for candidate definitions of improvement were calculated. Definitions with kappa values >0.8 were multiplied by the face validity score to select the top definitions. Results The top definition of improvement was at least 20% improvement from baseline in 3 of 6 core set variables with no more than 1 of the remaining worsening by more than 30%, which cannot be muscle strength. The second-highest scoring definition was at least 20% improvement from baseline in 3 of 6 core set variables with no more than 2 of the remaining worsening by more than 25%, which cannot be muscle strength (definition P1 selected by the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies group). The third is similar to the second with the maximum amount of worsening set to 30%. This indicates convergent validity of the process. Conclusion We propose a provisional data-driven definition of improvement that reflects well the consensus rating of experienced clinicians, which incorporates clinically meaningful change in core set variables in a composite end point for the evaluation of global response to therapy in juvenile DM.

High prevalence of hypovitaminosis D in a Swiss rheumatology outpatient population.

Vitamin D is important for bone metabolism and neuromuscular function. While a routine dosage is often proposed in osteoporotic patients, it is not so evident in rheumatology outpatients where it has been shown that the prevalence of hypovitaminosis D is high. The aim of the current study was to systematically evaluate the vitamin D status in our outpatient rheumatology population to define the severity of the problem according to rheumatologic diseases. During November 2009, all patients were offered a screening test for 25-OH vitamin D levels and categorised as deficient (<10 µg/l [ng/ml] [25 nmol/l]), insufficient (10 µg/l to 30 µg/l [25 to 75 nmol/l]) or normal (>30 µg/l [75 nmol/l]). A total of 272 patients were included. The mean 25-OH vitamin D level was 21 µg/l (range 1.5 to 45.9). A total of 20 patients had vitamin D deficiency, 215 patients had an insufficiency and 37 patients had normal results. In the group of patients with osteoporosis mean level of 25-OH vitamin D was 25 µg/l and 31% had normal results. In patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (N = 219), the mean level of 25-OH vitamin D was 20.5 µg/l, and only 12% had normal 25-OH vitamin D levels. In the small group of patients with degenerative disease (N = 33), the mean level of 25-OH vitamin D was 21.8 µg/l, and 21% had normal results. Insufficiency and deficiency were even seen in 38% of the patients who were taking supplements. These results confirm that hypovitaminosis D is highly prevalent in an outpatient population of rheumatology patients, affecting 86% of subjects. Despite oral supplementation (taken in 38% of our population), only a quarter of those on oral supplementation attained normal values of 25-OH vitamin D.

Changing the awareness of low vitamin D status in a rheumatology population: a pre/post-study.

INTRODUCTION: In 2009 hypovitaminosis D was highly prevalent in a population of Swiss rheumatology patients (86%). We aimed to evaluate the evolution of vitamin D status in the same population two years later, after the results of the first study were disseminated to local physicians and patients, in order to determine the evolution of the problem and the impact of physician information. METHOD: Patients in our rheumatology clinic were screened for 25-OH vitamin D. Results were categorised as: deficient (<10 ng/ml or <25 nmol/l), insufficient (10 to 30 ng/ml or 25 to 75 nmol/l) or normal (>30 ng/ml or >75 nmol/l). We also used another cut-off of 20 ng/ml (50 nmol/l). We evaluated the evolution of 25-OH vitamin D dosages and vitamin D3 prescriptions between 2008 and 2011 in our institution and the number of publications on vitamin D in three important medical journals of the French speaking part of Switzerland. RESULTS: Compared with 2009, significantly more patients had normal results in 2011. Fifty-two percent of patients had levels >20 ng/ml in 2009 and 66% in 2011, difference statistically significant (p = 0.001). During the years separating the two study periods the number of 25-OH vitamin D dosages and the prescription of high doses of vitamin D3 increased in our hospital. In addition the number of publications on vitamin D increased between 2008 and 2011. CONCLUSION: We concluded that lower prevalence in hypovitaminosis D is certainly related to better adherence to daily supplements, and to better information and awareness of the physicians about hypovitaminosis D.

Wait Times to Rheumatology and Rehabilitation Services for Persons with Arthritis in Quebec

L’arthrite est l’une des causes principales de douleur et d’incapacité auprès de la population canadienne. Les gens atteints d’arthrite rhumatoïde (AR) devraient être évalués par un rhumatologue moins de trois mois suivant l’apparition des premiers symptômes et ce afin de débuter un traitement médical approprié qui leur sera bénéfique. La physiothérapie et l’ergothérapie s’avèrent bénéfiques pour les patients atteints d’ostéoarthrite (OA) et d’AR, et aident à réduire l’incapacité. Notre étude a pour but d’évaluer les délais d’attente afin d’obtenir un rendez-vous pour une consultation en rhumatologie et en réadaptation dans le système de santé public québécois, et d’explorer les facteurs associés. Notre étude est de type observationnel et transversal et s’intéresse à la province de Québec. Un comité d’experts a élaboré trois scénarios pour les consultations en rhumatologie : AR présumée, AR possible, et OA présumée ; ainsi que deux scénarios pour les consultations en réadaptation : AR diagnostiquée, OA diagnostiquée. Les délais d’attente ont été mesurés entre le moment de la requête initiale et la date de rendez-vous fixée. L’analyse statistique consiste en une analyse descriptive de même qu’une analyse déductive, à l’aide de régression logistique et de comparaison bivariée. Parmi les 71 bureaux de rhumatologie contactés, et pour tous les scénarios combinés, 34% ont donné un rendez-vous en moins de trois mois, 32% avaient une attente de plus de trois mois et 34% ont refusé de fixer un rendez-vous. La probabilité d’obtenir une évaluation en rhumatologie en moins de trois mois est 13 fois plus grande pour les cas d’AR présumée par rapport aux cas d’OA présumée (OR=13; 95% Cl [1.70;99.38]). Cependant, 59% des cas d’AR présumés n’ont pas obtenu rendez-vous en moins de trois mois. Cent centres offrant des services publics en réadaptation ont été contactés. Pour tous les scénarios combinés, 13% des centres ont donné un rendez-vous en moins de 6 mois, 13% entre 6 et 12 mois, 24% avaient une attente de plus de 12 mois et 22% ont refusé de fixer un rendez-vous. Les autres 28% restant requéraient les détails d’une évaluation relative à l’état fonctionnel du patient avant de donner un rendez-vous. Par rapport aux services de réadaptation, il n’y avait aucune différence entre les délais d’attente pour les cas d’AR ou d’OA. L’AR est priorisée par rapport à l’OA lorsque vient le temps d’obtenir un rendez-vous chez un rhumatologue. Cependant, la majorité des gens atteints d’AR ne reçoivent pas les services de rhumatologie ou de réadaptation, soit physiothérapie ou ergothérapie, dans les délais prescrits. De meilleures méthodes de triage et davantage de ressources sont nécessaires.

Patients' attitudes towards, and information needs in relation to, nurse prescribing in rheumatology

Aims and objectives: To assess the level of confidence that rheumatology patients would have in nurse prescribing, the effects on likely adherence and particular concerns that these patients have. In addition, given that information provision has been cited as a potential benefit of nurse prescribing, the present study assessed the extent to which these patients would want an explanation for the selected medicine, as well as which types of information should be included in such an explanation. Background: Nurse prescribing has been successfully implemented in the UK in several healthcare settings. Existing research has not addressed the effects on patients' confidence and likely adherence, nor have patients' information needs been established. However, we know that inadequate medicines information provision by health professionals is one of the largest causes of patient dissatisfaction. Methods: Fifty-four patients taking disease-modifying drugs for inflammatory joint disease attending a specialist rheumatology clinic self-completed a written questionnaire. Results: Patients indicated a relatively high level of confidence in nurse prescribing and stated that they would be very likely to take the selected medication. The level of concern was relatively low and the majority of concerns raised did not relate to the nurse's status. Strong support was expressed for the nurse providing an explanation for medicine choice. Conclusion: This research provides support for the prescription of medicines by nurses working in the area of rheumatology, the importance of nurses providing a full explanation about the selected medicines they prescribe for these patients and some indication as to which categories of information should be included. Relevance to clinical practice: Rheumatology patients who have not yet experienced nurse prescribing are, in general, positive about nurses adopting this role. It is important that nurses provide appropriate information about the prescribed medicines, in a form that can be understood.