Development of an activity disease score in patients with uveitis (UVEDAI)

To develop a disease activity index for patients with uveitis (UVEDAI) encompassing the relevant domains of disease activity considered important among experts in this field. The steps for designing UVEDAI were: (a) Defining the construct and establishing the domains through a formal judgment of experts, (b) A two-round Delphi study with a panel of 15 experts to determine the relevant items, (c) Selection of items: A logistic regression model was developed that set ocular inflammatory activity as the dependent variable. The construct “uveitis inflammatory activity” was defined as any intraocular inflammation that included external structures (cornea) in addition to uvea. Seven domains and 15 items were identified: best-corrected visual acuity, inflammation of the anterior chamber (anterior chamber cells, hypopyon, the presence of fibrin, active posterior keratic precipitates and iris nodules), intraocular pressure, inflammation of the vitreous cavity (vitreous haze, snowballs and snowbanks), central macular edema, inflammation of the posterior pole (the presence and number of choroidal/retinal lesions, vascular inflammation and papillitis), and global assessment from both (patient and physician). From all the variables studied in the multivariate model, anterior chamber cell grade, vitreous haze, central macular edema, inflammatory vessel sheathing, papillitis, choroidal/retinal lesions and patient evaluation were included in UVEDAI. UVEDAI is an index designed to assess the global ocular inflammatory activity in patients with uveitis. It might prove worthwhile to motorize the activity of this extraarticular manifestation of some rheumatic diseases.

Spanish Rheumatology Society and Hospital Pharmacy Society Consensus on recommendations for biologics optimization in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis

The aim of this study was to establish guidelines for the optimization of biologic therapies for health professionals involved in the management of patients with RA, AS and PsA. Recommendations were established via consensus by a panel of experts in rheumatology and hospital pharmacy, based on analysis of available scientific evidence obtained from four systematic reviews and on the clinical experience of panellists. The Delphi method was used to evaluate these recommendations, both between panellists and among a wider group of rheumatologists. Previous concepts concerning better management of RA, AS and PsA were reviewed and, more specifically, guidelines for the optimization of biologic therapies used to treat these diseases were formulated. Recommendations were made with the aim of establishing a plan for when and how to taper biologic treatment in patients with these diseases. The recommendations established herein aim not only to provide advice on how to improve the risk:benefit ratio and efficiency of such treatments, but also to reduce variability in daily clinical practice in the use of biologic therapies for rheumatic diseases

Evaluation of the impact of nursing clinics in the rheumatology services

Nursing clinics in rheumatology (NCRs) are organisational care models that provide care centred within the scope of a nurse’s abilities. To analyse the impact of NCR in the rheumatology services, national multicenter observational prospective cohort studied 1-year follow-up, comparing patients attending rheumatology services with and without NCR. NCR was defined by the presence of: (1) office itself; (2) at least one dedicated nurse; and (3) its own appointment schedule. Variables included were (baseline, 6 and 12 months): (a) test to evaluate clinical activity of the disease, research and training, infrastructure of unit and resources of NCR and (b) tests to evaluate socio-demographics, work productivity (WPAI), use of services and treatments and quality of life. A total of 393 rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis patients were included: 181 NCR and 212 not NCR, corresponding to 39 units, 21 with NCR and 18 without NCR (age 53 + 11.8 vs 56 + 13.5 years). Statistically significant differences were found in patients attended in sites without NCR, at some of the visits (baseline, 6 or 12 months), for the following parameters: higher CRP level (5.9 mg/l ± 8.3 vs 4.8 mg/l ± 7.8; p < 0.005), global disease evaluation by the patient (3.6 ± 2.3 vs 3.1 ± 2.4), physician (2.9 ± 2.1 vs 2.3 ± 2.1; p < 0.05), use of primary care consultations (2.7 ± 5.4 vs 1.4 ± 2.3; p < 0.001) and worse work productivity. The presence of NCR in the rheumatology services contributes to improve some clinical outcomes, a lower frequency of primary care consultations and better work productivity of patients with rheumatic diseases.