Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: To analyse associations between the clinical status of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the gross domestic product (GDP) of their resident country. METHODS: The Quantitative Standard Monitoring of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (QUEST-RA) cohort includes clinical and questionnaire data from 6004 patients who were seen in usual care at 70 rheumatology clinics in 25 countries as of April 2008, including 18 European countries. Demographic variables, clinical characteristics, RA disease activity measures, including the disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28), and treatment-related variables were analysed according to GDP per capita, including 14 "high GDP" countries with GDP per capita greater than US$24,000 and 11 "low GDP" countries with GDP per capita less than US$11,000. RESULTS: Disease activity DAS28 ranged between 3.1 and 6.0 among the 25 countries and was significantly associated with GDP (r = -0.78, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.90, r(2) = 61%). Disease activity levels differed substantially between "high GDP" and "low GDP" countries at much greater levels than according to whether patients were currently taking or not taking methotrexate, prednisone and/or biological agents. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical status of patients with RA was correlated significantly with GDP among 25 mostly European countries according to all disease measures, associated only modestly with the current use of antirheumatic medications. The burden of arthritis appears substantially greater in "low GDP" than in "high GDP" countries. These findings may alert healthcare professionals and designers of health policy towards improving the clinical status of patients with RA in all countries.

The clinical approach to patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases differs substantially from the approach to patients with many typical chronic diseases, such as hypertension or diabetes. Further elucidation of these differences may be informative in efforts to advance quantitative scientific patient assessment and management in rheumatic diseases, with improved patient outcomes

Radiographs present several attractive features for the assessment and monitoring of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Radiographic erosions are the closest to a pathognomonic sign in RA. Radiographs provide a permanent record of permanent damage. Excellent quantitative scoring systems have been developed by Larsen, Sharp, van der Heijde, Genant, Rau, and others. However, quantitative radiographic scoring is used only in research studies and is not included in usual treatment. Furthermore, magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography may be more sensitive than radiography in detecting abnormalities. Moreover, treatment of patients with RA should be initiated before evidence of damage. Reports that biologic therapy is superior to methotrexate in preventing radiographic progression are accurate for groups of patients, although methotrexate and other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs control inflammation in 70% to 80% of patients and most patients present no radiographic progression with methotrexate. Radiographic findings are also much less significant and functional measures are far more significant in the prediction of severe outcomes of RA, including costs and mortality. Whereas prevention of radiographic progression is certainly desirable, it appears that prevention of functional disability is far more important for successful patient outcomes

In many chronic diseases, objective gold standard measures such as blood pressure, cholesterol, and bone densitometry often provide most of the information used to establish a diagnosis and guide therapy. By contrast, in inflammatory rheumatic diseases, information from a patient history usually is considerably more prominent in clinical management. Patient history data can be recorded as standardized, quantitative scientific data through use of validated self-reported questionnaires. Patient questionnaires address the primary concerns of patients and their families. Questionnaire scores distinguish active from control treatments in clinical trials at similar levels to swollen and tender joint counts or laboratory tests. Patient questionnaire data are correlated significantly with joint counts, radiographic scores, and laboratory tests, but usually are far more significant than these measures in the prognosis of severe outcomes of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), including work disability, costs, and premature death. Limitations of patient questionnaires are based on cultural features involving variation in responses among ethnic groups, and a need for translation, although translated questionnaires can be as valuable as a translator. Patient questionnaires do not replace further medical history, physical examination, laboratory tests, and imaging data, and they require interpretation in a context of these standard sources of information at any clinical encounter. Patient questionnaires are useful to monitor patient status in usual clinical care, with almost no effort on the part of the physician and staff if distributed by the receptionist in the infrastructure of office practice

RAPID3 (routine assessment of patient index data 3) is a pooled index of the 3 patient-reported American College of Rheumatology rheumatoid arthritis (RA) Core Data Set measures: function, pain, and patient global estimate of status. Each of the 3 individual measures is scored 0 to 10, for a total of 30. Disease severity may be classified on the basis of RAPID3 scores: >12 = high; 6.1-12 = moderate; 3.1-6 = low; < or =3 = remission. RAPID3 scores are correlated with the disease activity score 28 (DAS28) and clinical disease activity index (CDAI) in clinical trials and clinical care, and are comparable to these indices in capacity to distinguish active from control treatments in clinical trials. RAPID3 on a multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ) is scored in 5 to 10 seconds, versus 90 to 94 seconds for a formal 28-joint count, 108 seconds for a CDAI, and 114 seconds for a DAS28. An MDHAQ can be completed by each patient at each visit in the waiting room in 5 to 10 minutes, as a component of the infrastructure of routine care, with minimal effort of the rheumatologist and staff, to provide RAPID3 scores as well as additional data including a self-report joint count, fatigue, review of systems, and recent medical history. In all rheumatic diseases RAPID3 is able to provide a baseline quantitative value, and to quantitatively monitor and document improvement or worsening over time

Indices of multiple measures have been developed to assess and monitor patients with rheumatic diseases, as no single 'gold standard' measure is available for diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring of all individual patients. Rheumatology indices generally include 4 types of measures from a standard medical evaluation: patient history, physical examination, laboratory tests, and imaging studies. Well-characterized indices are available for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), ankylosing spondylitis, vasculitis, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, and other rheumatic diseases. These indices are complex and applied widely in clinical research, but rarely are scored in usual rheumatology patient encounters, which generally are conducted without quantitative data other than laboratory tests. Information from a patient often is as prominent in clinical decisions as information from a physical examination or laboratory tests, and is easily collected as standardized 'scientific' data on patient questionnaires designed for usual clinical care, which require minimal professional effort. Patient-derived data-along with physical examination, laboratory, and imaging data-are useful rheumatology 'vital signs' to assess and monitor patient status, provide documentation, and improve the quality of clinical care, in addition to their possible value for clinical research. Differences between complex measures for research and simple questionnaires designed for usual clinical care might be more widely recognized, to promote quantitative measurement in the infrastructure of usual rheumatology care

A method is summarized to improve quality control of the patient history in the medical record, incorporating the patient as a partner to review and correct the information. This method has been implemented at every patient visit to the senior author since 2000, in the infrastructure of usual medical care, using a database. This procedure engenders a more accurate patient history with no effort on the part of the physician, saving time for the physician and improving the quality of the medical record

OBJECTIVES:To assess the process related to each infusible biologic used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with regard to patient and physician engagement in the infusion process, ancillary services required, and participant preferences.METHODS:This was a cross-sectional survey of patients with RA and their physicians. Biologic-naive patients with RA starting abatacept, infliximab, or rituximab were included. Both patients and physicians completed detailed questionnaires related to the infusion and satisfaction with the process.RESULTS:A total of 205 patients were enrolled: abatacept (n=102), infliximab (n=74), rituximab (n=29). Patients were primarily female (75%), Caucasian (85%), with a mean age of 58 years. Patients had a mean disease duration of approximately 8 years and had typically failed multiple DMARDs. Rituximab required the most pre-infusion preparation and the longest infusion time. Abatacept was associated with a shorter mean infusion time (42 minutes) than infliximab (131 minutes; p<0.0001) or rituximab (274 minutes; p<0.0001) and required less time away from work/home (p=0.01 and p<0.0001, respectively). Abatacept patients reported significantly less discomfort than rituximab patients (p=0.03), while discomfort was similar between abatacept and infliximab. From the physicians' perspective, compared to infliximab and rituximab abatacept was very easy to administer (57% vs. 27% and 5%, respectively), caused no pain/discomfort (52% vs. 42% and 31%), and had very infrequent infusion reactions (75% vs. 30% and 44%).CONCLUSION:The process involved in infusion administration, as perceived by both the patient and physician, seems to differ across the three infusible biologic agents and may have an impact on the decision-making process regarding which infusible biologic to use

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of the duration of morning stiffness (MS), as a patient-reported outcome (PRO), in assessing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity. METHODS: We acquired information on 5439 patients in QUEST-RA, an international database of patients with RA evaluated by a standard protocol. MS duration was assessed from time of waking to time of maximal improvement. Ability of MS duration to differentiate RA activity states, based on Disease Activity Score (DAS)28, was assessed by analysis of variance; and a receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted for discriminating clinically active (DAS28 > 3.2) from less active (DAS28 3.2). CONCLUSION: MS duration has a moderate correlation with RA disease activity. Assessment of MS duration may be clinically helpful in patients with low RAPID3 scores.