[Prevalence, comorbidity and interdisciplinary treatment of rheumatoid arthritis - Insurance data on outpatient and inpatient care in Baden-Württemberg]

Systematic review to estimate the prevalence of inflammatory rheumatic diseases in Germany

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to update the prevalence estimates of inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) in Germany.

METHODS

A systematic literature search in PubMed and Web of Science (last search 08 November 2022) identified original articles (regional and nationwide surveys and claims data analyses for arthritides, connective tissue diseases, and vasculitides) on prevalences for the period 2014-2022. Data sources, collection period, case definition, and risk of bias are reported. Prevalences were estimated from available national data, with consideration of international data.

RESULTS

Screening by two authors yielded 263 hits, of which 18 claims data analyses and 2 surveys met the inclusion criteria. Prevalences ranged from 0.42 to 1.85% (rheumatoid arthritis), 0.32-0.5% (ankylosing spondylitis), 0.11-0.32% (psoriatic arthritis), 0.037-0.14% (systemic lupus erythematosus), 0.07-0.77% (Sjögren's disease/sicca syndrome), 0.14-0.15% (polymyalgia rheumatica, ≥ 40 years), 0.04-0.05% (giant cell arteritis, ≥ 50 years), and 0.015-0.026% (ANCA-associated vasculitis). The risk of bias was moderate in 13 and high in 7 studies. Based on the results, we estimate the prevalence of IRD in Germany to be 2.2-3.0%, which corresponds to approximately 1.5-2.1 million affected individuals. The prevalence of juvenile idiopathic arthritis was reported to be around 0.10% (0.07-0.10%) of 0-18-year-olds, corresponding to about 14,000 children and adolescents in Germany.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review shows an increase in the prevalence of IRD in Germany, which is almost exclusively based on claims data analyses. In the absence of multistage population studies, the available data are, overall, uncertain sources for prevalence estimates, with a moderate to high risk of bias.

[Systematic review to estimate the prevalence of inflammatory rheumatic diseases in Germany. German version]

OBJECTIVE

To update the estimated prevalence of inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) in Germany.

METHODS

A systematic literature search in PubMed and Web of Science (last search 8 November 2022) identified original articles (regional and nationwide surveys and routine data analyses for arthritides, connective tissue diseases, and vasculitides) on the prevalence for the period 2014-2022. Data sources, collection period, case definition, and risk of bias are reported. The prevalences were estimated from available national data, with consideration of international data.

RESULTS

Screening by 2 authors yielded 263 hits, of which 18 routine data analyses and 2 surveys met the inclusion criteria. Prevalence data ranged from 0.42% to 1.85% (rheumatoid arthritis), 0.32-0.5% (ankylosing spondylitis), 0.11-0.32% (psoriatic arthritis), 0.037-0.14% (systemic lupus erythematosus), 0.07-0.77% (Sjoegren's disease/sicca syndrome), 0.14-0.15% (polymyalgia rheumatica, ≥ 40 years), 0.04-0.05% (giant cell arteritis, ≥ 50 years), and 0.015-0.026% (ANCA-associated vasculitis). The risk of bias was moderate in 13 and high in 7 studies. Based on the results, we estimate the prevalence of IRD in Germany to be 2.2-3.0%, which corresponds to approximately 1.5-2.1 million affected individuals. Prevalence data of juvenile idiopathic arthritis was reported to be around 0.10% (0.07-0.10%) of patients 0-18 years old, corresponding to about 14,000 children and adolescents in Germany.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review shows an increase in the prevalence of IRD in Germany, which is almost exclusively based on routine data analyses. In the absence of multistage population studies, the available data are overall uncertain sources for prevalence estimates at moderate to high risk of bias.

[Outpatient medical specialist care (ASV): A multiperspective study on status quo, challenges and perspectives]

BACKGROUND

In 2012, the so-called ambulatory medical specialist care (ASV) was implemented in accordance with para. 116b of Book V of the German Social Code (SGB V), enabling physicians in outpatient practices and hospitals to treat patients with rare diseases or complex courses of disease in a uniform framework. The implementation, however, is slow. The Joint Federal Committee (G-BA) has therefore commissioned an evaluation of the ASV with the aim to examine the reasons for this and to provide recommendations for further development.

METHODS

The health services research study "GOAL-ASV" (Innovation Fund, 01VSF19002) included a multi-perspective design with primary data collection as well as secondary data analyses. Data from the ASV service center and the central association of statutory health insurances and the notification forms of the extended state committees were analyzed. Data from the Robert Koch-Institute, the Federal Joint Committee, the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds and a literature database analysis were used in order to estimate the proportion of insured persons qualifying for ASV. Care was examined by analyzing pseudonymized routine data from the statutory health insurances using selected indicators. Participating and not participating physicians were asked to complete an online survey.

RESULTS

Since the start of ASV, 615,531 insured persons have been treated in this form of care. At the time of analysis, 509 teams were operating, with 26,540 physicians treating 102,898 patients by the end of March 2021 in all indications. This comprises less than 9.8 %. of all approx. 1.05 million eligible patients. Especially in the case of rare diseases, a low willingness of participation can be seen. In addition, there was a relevant proportion of multiple uses of physicians within and outside ASV at 31 percent as well as indications of passive participation of doctors. We found significant regional differences in type and scope of the notification procedure as well as the implementation of teams with 13.4 teams per 1 million inhabitants in Schleswig-Holstein and no team in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Patient benefits (84 %), interdisciplinary (82 %) and cross-sectoral cooperation (75 %) were cited as motivations for participation. The main barriers reported by the respondents were the complex and laborious notification procedure (60 %), the administrative and documentation effort during participation (50 %), insufficient billing figures (49 %), and a small proportion of patients (32 %) with a consecutively unfavorable assessment of the cost to income ratio due to the current reimbursement system.

DISCUSSION

Nearly ten years after its introduction, the ASV has not become established nationwide. The reasons for this probably are the complex notification procedure and the reimburesement system for rare diseases. In the case of rare diseases, the risk of underuse is becoming apparent.

CONCLUSION

Strategies to further develop the ASV should, in particular, simplify the notification procedure and reduce the obstacles during participation. The remuneration system should take more account of the specific care required.

[Is the prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis truly on the rise?]

A growing number of health insurance data analyses show an increase in the prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Germany. The studies refer to the claims diagnosis of RA, which is more frequent in recent years compared to earlier periods. Depending on the case definition, the numbers vary between 0.6% and 1.4% of the adult population. In this paper, the different studies are reviewed with regard to their data sources, the case definitions of RA and the frequency of the diagnosis. Due to the lack of clinical validation, the prevalence cannot be precisely determined from claims data.

[Interprofessional Care of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis from the Perspective of a General Practitioner Perspective: Results of a Cross-sectional Study]

BACKGROUND

General practitioners, specialists, occupational and physical therapists, nursing services and other professional groups are all involved in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. This study aims to describe interprofessional cooperation in daily ambulatory care from the perspective of a general practitioner.

METHODS

The cross-sectional study investigated cooperation between general practitioners (n=121 in 68 medical practices) and several other health care providers in Hesse and Rhineland Palatinate, Germany, from February to September 2017. It was part of the prospective cohort study PANORA (Prevalence of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) positivity in patients with new onset of non-specific musculoskeletal symptoms). The questionnaire that was used contained closed-ended questions on socio-demographics and frequency of contact, and asked physicians to assess and weigh existing collaboration. Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

When caring for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, 70%, of the physicians often took responsibility for synchronizing medications, and discussing diagnoses and test results. The most frequent cooperation was with rheumatologists and was considered as highly important but the least satisfactory. The second most frequent cooperation was with physical therapists and this was also rated as very important. Physicians had highest level of satisfaction with their collaboration with the nursing services.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that general practitioners perform several medical tasks when treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis. During the process, they work together with several health care providers to various degrees. Cooperation with rheumatologists and physical therapists is particularly important to general practitioners; cooperation with rheumatologists is considered inadequate and in need of improvement.