[Measuring disease activity for rheumatoid arthritis]

Comparison of patient- and clinician-reported outcome measures in lower back rehabilitation: introducing a new integrated performance measure (t2D)

Purpose

Patient- and clinician-reported outcome measures (PROMs, CROMs) are used in rehabilitation to evaluate and track the patient’s health status and recovery. However, controversy still exists regarding their relevance and validity when assessing a change in health status.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the changes in a CROM (Fingertip-To-Floor Test – FTF) and PROMs (ODI, HAQ-DI, NPRS, EQ5D) and the associations between these outcomes in 395 patients with lower back pain (57.2 ± 11.8 years, 49.1% female). We introduced a new way to measure and classify outcome performance using a distribution-based approach (t2D). Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and after 21 days of inpatient rehabilitation.

Results

Overall, the rehabilitation (Cohens d = 0.94) resulted in a large effect size outcome. Medium effect sizes were observed for FTF (d = 0.70) and PROMs (d > 0.50). Best performance rating was observed for pain (NPRS). We found that 13.9% of patients exhibited a deterioration in the PROMs, but only 2.3%, in the FTF. The correlation between the PROMs and FTF were low to moderate, with the highest identified for HAQ-DI (rho = 0.30–0.36); no significant correlations could be shown for changes. High consistency levels were observed among the performance scores (t2D) in 68.9% of the patients.

Conclusions

Different and complementary assessment modalities of PROMs and CROMs can be used as valuable tools in the clinical setting. Results from both types of measurements and individual performance assessments in patients provide a valid basis for the meaningful interpretation of the patients’ health outcomes.

Trial registration. This clinical study was entered retrospectively on August 14, 2020 into the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS, registration number: DRKS00022854).

[Quality in acute inpatient rheumatology 2021 : Current aspects of the KOBRA quality label of the Association of Rheumatological Acute Care Clinics]

Mit einer umfassenden gesundheitspolitischen Qualitätsoffensive ab 2021 sollen die Qualität und Transparenz in der Versorgung von Menschen mit Krankheiten in Krankenhäusern in Deutschland verbessert werden. Gesetzliche Vorgaben zu Mindestmengen und die Ausweitung von Qualitätsverträgen zwischen Kostenträgern und Krankenhäusern sowie die Verwendung von planungsrelevanten Qualitätsindikatoren für eine bedarfs- und qualitätsorientierte Weiterentwicklung der stationären Versorgung werden den Wettbewerb in der Versorgungsqualität zwischen den Krankenhäusern verstärken. Dem Thema „Entwicklung und Definition von Qualität in der Medizin“ hat sich auch der Verband der Rheumatologischen Akutkliniken e. V. (VRA) schon früh nach der Gründung im Jahr 1998 umfassend angenommen. Im Zentrum der akutstationären Qualitätssicherung stehen verbindlich festgelegte Strukturkriterien in Verknüpfung mit dem 2003 in der Rheumatologie gestarteten und bis heute kontinuierlich durchgeführten KOBRA-Projekt (Kontinuierliches Outcome Benchmarking in der Rheumatologischen Akutversorgung) mit der Messung von Prozess- und Ergebnisqualität. Auf der Basis dieses Rahmenkonzeptes (Erfüllung der Strukturkriterien und Durchführung des KOBRA-Projektes) können erfolgreich teilnehmende rheumatologische Einrichtungen für jeweils 2 Jahre das KOBRA-Label erwerben, welches von der Projektleitung – dem aQua-Institut – vergeben wird. Die herausragende Stellung des KOBRA-Projektes wird beispielhaft anhand von Datenauswertungen des Projektzyklus 2018 gezeigt mit Auswertungen zum Therapiestrategiewechsel bei aktiver rheumatoider Arthritis, Diagnosesicherung von Kollagenosen und Vaskulitiden während des stationären Aufenthaltes sowie zur partizipativen Entscheidungsfindung bei rheumatoider Arthritis. Auf den gesundheitspolitisch geforderten „Paradigmenwechsel – weg vom Bett, hin zu einer leistungs-, bedarfs- und qualitätsorientierten Planung“ – ist die akutstationäre Rheumatologie mit der Verankerung von Projekten zur Struktur‑, Prozess- und Ergebnisqualität sehr gut vorbereitet. Für die in der vom Gemeinsamen Bundesausschuss (G-BA) erstellten Richtlinie zu „Rheumatologischen Zentren“ geforderten Qualitätssicherung ist das KOBRA-Projekt ebenfalls eine sehr gute Voraussetzung.

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

OBJECTIVES

To summarise existing evidence on a target oriented approach for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search including all clinical trials testing clinical, functional, or structural values of a targeted treatment approach. Our search covered Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases until December 2008 and also conference abstracts (2007, 2008).

RESULTS

The primary search yielded 5881 citations; after the selection process, 76 papers underwent detailed review. Of these, only seven strategic clinical trials were extracted: four studies randomised patients to routine or targeted treatment, two compared two different randomised targets and one compared targeted treatment to a historical control group. Five trials dealt with early RA patients. All identified studies showed significantly better clinical outcomes of targeted approaches than routine approaches. Disability was reported in two studies with no difference between groups. Four studies compared radiographic outcomes, two showing significant benefit of the targeted approach.

CONCLUSION

Only few studies employed randomised controlled settings to test the value of treatment to a specific target. However, they provided unanimous evidence for benefits of targeted approaches. Nevertheless, more data on radiographic and functional outcomes and on patients with established RA are needed.

Developing a standardized definition for disease "flare" in rheumatoid arthritis (OMERACT 9 Special Interest Group)

OBJECTIVE

Traditional outcome measures in randomized controlled trials (RCT) include well-established response criteria as well as ACR EULAR responses using Disease Activity Score 44 (DAS44)/DAS28 to assess improvement; however, a measure to assess worsening of disease has yet to be developed. This special interest group (SIG) was established to develop an evidence-based, consensus-driven standard definition of "flare" in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

At OMERACT 8, the need for a standardized definition of RA flare was recognized; interested individuals developed a proposal to form a SIG. A literature review was performed to identify publications and abstracts with flare definitions applied in RA, JIA, and lupus RCT as well as concerning patient perspectives on disease worsening. A SIG was held at OMERACT 9 with breakout sessions for patients and investigators.

RESULTS

The RA flare SIG was attended by about 120 participants, including 11 patients. Patients and investigators held separate breakout sessions to discuss various aspects of disease worsening. The following consensus was obtained at OMERACT 9: a working definition of flare should indicate worsening of disease activity (88%), persistence, and duration as critical elements (77%), and consideration of change or increase in therapy (74%).

CONCLUSION

A working definition of RA flare was developed based on these votes: flare is any worsening of disease activity that would, if persistent, in most cases lead to initiation or change of therapy; and a flare represents a cluster of symptoms of sufficient duration and intensity to require initiation, change, or increase in therapy. Using this working definition, evaluation of candidate domains will be conducted via Delphi exercise and further informed by patient focus groups. Validation of candidate definitions in appropriate RCT will be required.