Implementation of the EULAR cardiovascular risk management guideline in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results of a successful collaboration between primary and secondary care

Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis in Primary Care: A Scoping Review

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can lead to severe joint impairment and chronic disability. Primary care (PC), provided by general practitioners (GPs), is the first level of contact for the population with the healthcare system. The aim of this scoping review was to analyze the approach to RA in the PC setting. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched using the MESH terms "rheumatoid arthritis" and "primary care" from 2013 to 2023. The search strategy followed the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The 61 articles selected were analyzed qualitatively in a table and discussed in two sections, namely criticisms and strategies for the management of RA in PC. The main critical issues in the management of RA in PC are the following: difficulty and delay in diagnosis, in accessing rheumatological care, and in using DMARDs by GPs; ineffective communication between GPs and specialists; poor patient education; lack of cardiovascular prevention; and increase in healthcare costs. To overcome these criticisms, several management strategies have been identified, namely early diagnosis of RA, quick access to rheumatology care, effective communication between GPs and specialists, active patient involvement, screening for risk factors and comorbidities, clinical audit, interdisciplinary patient management, digital health, and cost analysis. PC appears to be the ideal healthcare setting to reduce the morbidity and mortality of chronic disease, including RA, if a widespread change in GPs' approach to the disease and patients is mandatory.

Cardiovascular risk factors among Jordanian patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A cohort study

AIM

To determine the frequency of risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Jordan.

METHOD

During this study, 158 patients with RA were enlisted from the outpatient rheumatology clinic at King Hussein Hospital of the Jordanian Medical Services, from 1 June 2021, to 31 December 2021. Demographic data and disease duration were recorded. After 14 h of fasting, venous blood samples were drawn to determine the levels of cholesterol, triglyceride, high-density lipoprotein, and low-density lipoprotein. History of smoking, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension was recorded. Body mass index and Framingham's 10-year risk score (FRS) were calculated for each patient. Disease duration was noted.

RESULTS

The mean age of the male population was 49.29 years and that of the female population was 46.06 years. Most of the study population were female (78.5%) and 27.2% of the study population had one modifiable risk factor. The most frequent risk factors observed in the study were obesity (38%) and dyslipidemia (38%). Diabetes mellitus was the least frequent risk factor, with a frequency of 14.6%. The FRS differed significantly between the sexes, with the risk score of men being 9.80, whereas that of women was 5.34 (p < .00). Regression analysis revealed that age increased the odds ratio of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, obesity, and a high-to-moderate FRS by 0.7%, 10.9%, 0.33%, and 10.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Rheumatoid arthritis patients have increased chances of developing cardiovascular risk factors leading to cardiovascular events.

Clinical effect and biological mechanism of exercise for rheumatoid arthritis: A mini review

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common systematic, chronic inflammatory, autoimmune, and polyarticular disease, causing a range of clinical manifestations, including joint swelling, redness, pain, stiffness, fatigue, decreased quality of life, progressive disability, cardiovascular problems, and other comorbidities. Strong evidence has shown that exercise is effective for RA treatment in various clinical domains. Exercise training for relatively longer periods (e.g., ≥ 12 weeks) can decrease disease activity of RA. However, the mechanism underlying the effectiveness of exercise in reducing RA disease activity remains unclear. This review first summarizes and highlights the effectiveness of exercise in RA treatment. Then, we integrate current evidence and propose biological mechanisms responsible for the potential effects of exercise on immune cells and immunity, inflammatory response, matrix metalloproteinases, oxidative stress, and epigenetic regulation. However, a large body of evidence was obtained from the non-RA populations. Future studies are needed to further examine the proposed biological mechanisms responsible for the effectiveness of exercise in decreasing disease activity in RA populations. Such knowledge will contribute to the basic science and strengthen the scientific basis of the prescription of exercise therapy for RA in the clinical routine.

Cardiology co-management of rheumatoid arthritis patients with coronary artery disease as an intervention reduces hospitalization rates and adverse event occurrence

INTRODUCTION

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic autoimmune disease with important cardiovascular (CV) implications. CV disease represents over half of RA patient deaths and causes significant morbidity. CV manifestations in RA can be complex, raising concerns for adequate patient management and provider-dependent roles.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of patients diagnosed with RA and coronary artery disease (CAD). Patients were identified and filtered via EPIC Database search engine. Parameters were set from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2020. Inclusion criteria consisted of patients who met diagnostic criteria for both RA and CAD. A total of 399 patients met criteria.

RESULTS

Of the 399 identified patients, 272 were female (68.2%) and 127 were male (31.8%) with a median age of 73 (range 26-98). The population was further divided into two groups: those with established cardiology care versus those without. Patients without cardiology follow-up experienced significantly more hospitalizations (RR 1.63 95% CI 1.12, 2.38), higher rates of adverse events including myocardial infarction (MI) (RR 4.82 95% CI 1.94, 11.98), heart failure (HF) (OR 15.81 95% CI 3.54, 70.52), and stroke (RR 2.55 95% CI 1.29, 5.03). Patients not followed by cardiology also had numerical increases in CV death (4 deaths compared to none in those with cardiology follow) and all-cause mortality (HR 1.03 95% CI 0.63, 1.67).

CONCLUSION

Patients with regular cardiology follow-up demonstrated fewer cardiac-related adverse events. This suggests that co-management may have a role in adverse cardiac event risk reduction and should therefore be an early consideration. Key Points • Rheumatoid arthritis patients demonstrate higher rates of coronary disease compared to the general population. Traditional cardiac risk factors may not be entirely responsible for this phenomenon • Hospitalization rates and adverse event occurrence are significantly higher in patients with single-provider care (rheumatology only) compared to dual provider care (rheumatology and cardiology) • Cardiology co-management should be an early consideration in the management of RA patients • Early screening, risk stratification of coronary disease, and utilization of appropriate treatment algorithms are important to decrease morbidity and mortality.

Systematic review and meta-analysis on prevalence of metabolic syndrome in psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriasis (PsO) are associated with systemic inflammation and increased cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is associated with systemic inflammation, and conditions associated with MetS, such as obesity, are associated with difficulty in attaining minimal disease activity (MDA) in individuals with inflammatory arthritis. This systematic review aims to determine whether there is an increased prevalence of MetS in PsA populations compared with PsO and RA populations.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to assess the prevalence of MetS in PsA, PsO, and RA populations following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. The quality of the studies reviewed was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Prevalence Studies.

RESULTS

The pooled prevalence of MetS in PsA populations was 0.46 ± 0.06 (95% CI 0.40-0.51). In comparison, the prevalence of MetS in PsO and RA populations was 0.34 ± 0.03 (95% CI 0.32-0.37) and 0.31 ± 0.04 (95% CI 0.27-0.35), respectively. Patients with PsA were 1.62 ± 0.036 (95% CI 1.50-1.74) and 1.66 ± 0.038 (95% CI 1.54-1.79) times more likely to have MetS compared with PsO and RA populations.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of MetS is significantly increased in PsA populations compared with PsO and RA populations. Further studies should be performed using a standardized definition of MetS in PsA, RA, and PsO populations to determine whether addressing the metabolic components in MetS offers any therapeutic benefits and in terms of attaining MDA and improving cardiovascular health.

Cardiovascular risk in inflammatory arthritis: rheumatoid arthritis and gout

The increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in rheumatoid arthritis and gout has been increasingly acknowledged in past decades, with accumulating evidence that gout, just as with rheumatoid arthritis, is an independent cardiovascular risk factor. Although both diseases have a completely different pathogenesis, the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms in systemic inflammation overlap to some extent. Following the recognition that systemic inflammation has an important causative role in cardiovascular disease, anti-inflammatory therapy in both conditions and urate-lowering therapies in gout are expected to lower the cardiovascular burden of patients. Unfortunately, much of the existing data showing that urate-lowering therapy has consistent beneficial effects on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with gout are of low quality and contradictory. We will discuss the latest evidence in this respect. Cardiovascular disease risk management for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and gout is essential. Clinical guidelines and implementation of cardiovascular risk management in daily clinical practice, as well as unmet needs and areas for further investigation, will be discussed.

Cardiovascular Risk in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Mechanistic Links: From Pathophysiology to Treatment

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune inflammatory arthritis. Inflammation, however, can spread beyond the joints to involve other organs. During the past few years, it has been well recognized that RA associates with increased risk for cardiovascular (CV) disease (CVD) compared with the general population. This seems to be due not only to the increased occurrence in RA of classical CVD risk factors and comorbidities like smoking, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and others but also to the inflammatory burden that RA itself carries. This is not unexpected given the strong links between inflammation and atherosclerosis and CVD. It has been shown that inflammatory cytokines which are present in abundance in RA play a significant role in every step of plaque formation and rupture. Most of the therapeutic regimes used in RA treatment seem to offer significant benefits to that end. However, more studies are needed to clarify the effect of these drugs on various parameters, including the lipid profile. Of note, although pharmacological intervention significantly helps reduce the inflammatory burden and therefore the CVD risk, control of the so-called classical risk factors is equally important. Herein, we review the current evidence for the underlying pathogenic mechanisms linking inflammation with CVD in the context of RA and reflect on the possible impact of treatments used in RA.

Use of healthcare resources in a cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or tofacitinib

Introduction/objectives

The objective of this study is to describe the treatment patterns and use of healthcare resources in a cohort of Colombian patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) or tofacitinib.

Method

This is a descriptive study from a retrospective cohort of patients diagnosed with RA who were treated with bDMARDs or tofacitinib after failure of conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs) or first bDMARD. Patients who were receiving pharmacological treatment between 01 January 2014 and 30 June 2018 were included. The analysis is through the revision of claim database and electronical medical records. Demographic and clinical data were collected. The costs of healthcare resources were estimated from the billing expense of healthcare service provider.

Results

We evaluated 588 RA patients on treatment with bDMARDs (n = 505) or tofacitinib (n = 83), most of them were in combination with cDMARDs (85.4%). The 88.1% were females and mean age was 57.3 ± 12.5 years. The median evolution of RA since diagnosis was 9 years (IQR:4–17.2). The mean duration of use during follow-up of the bDMARDs or tofacitinib was similar, with a mean of 9.8 ± 1.9 months. It was identified that 394 (67.0%) discontinued therapy. The average annual direct cost of care per patient was USD 8997 ± 2172, where 97.2% was due to drug costs. The average annual cost of treatment per patient with bDMARDs was USD 8604 and tofacitinib was USD 6377.

Conclusions

In the face of a first failure of cDMARD, bDMARDs are frequently added. A high frequency of patients do not persist treatment during the first year of follow-up. The pharmacological treatment is the most representative cause of healthcare costs.

Key Points • Rheumatoid arthritis is a disease with a high burden of comorbidities, complications, and worse health-related quality of life and is associated with elevated healthcare costs. • The biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or tofacitinib medications are indicated for those with significant progression of the disease and when there is a need for alternatives to achieve low levels of activity and remission. • Patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or tofacitinib represent a significant economic burden to the health system, especially in the costs derived from pharmacological treatment.

Does socioeconomic status make a difference? A register-based study on the extent to which cardiovascular screening in patients with inflammatory arthritis leads to recommended follow-up in general practice

OBJECTIVE

To investigate to what extent patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) follow recommendations given in a secondary care nurse-led cardiovascular (CV) risk screening consultation to consult their general practitioner (GP) to reduce their CV risk and whether their socioeconomic status (SES) affects adherence.

METHODS

Adults with IA who had participated in a secondary care screening consultation from July 2012 to July 2015, based on the EULAR recommendations, were identified. Patients were considered to have high CV risk if they had risk Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) ≥5%, according to the European SCORE model or systolic blood pressure ≥145 mmHg, total cholesterol ≥8 mmol/L, LDL cholesterol ≥5 mmol/L, HbA1c ≥42 mmol/mol or fasting glucose ≥6 mmol/L. The primary outcome was a consultation with their GP and at least one action focusing on CV risk factors within 6 weeks after the screening consultation.

RESULTS

The study comprised 1265 patients, aged 18-85 years. Of these, 336/447 (75%) of the high-risk patients and 580/819 (71%) of the low-risk patients had a GP consultation. 127/336 (38%) of high-risk patients and 160/580 (28%) of low-risk patients received relevant actions related to their CV risk, for example, blood pressure home measurement or prescription for statins, antihypertensives or antidiabetics. Education ≥10 years increased the odds for non-adherence (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.0.37 to 0.92, p=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

75% of the high-risk patients consulted their GP after the secondary care CV risk screening, and 38% of these received an action relevant for their CV risk. Higher education decreased adherence.

Screening of Hyperlipidemia Among Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To determine the proportion of primary lipid screening among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and compare it with those among patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and patients with neither RA nor DM, and to assess whether primary lipid screening varied according to the health care provider (rheumatologist versus non-rheumatologist).

METHODS

We analyzed claims data from US private and public health plans from 2006-2010. Eligibility requirements included continuous medical and pharmacy coverage for ≥12 months (baseline period) and >2 physician diagnoses and relevant medications to define RA, DM, RA and DM, or neither condition. Among the 330,695 eligible participants, we calculated the proportion with a lipid profile ordered during the 2 years following baseline. Time-varying Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine the probability of hyperlipidemia screening in participants with RA according to provider specialty.

RESULTS

More than half of the patients were ages 41-71 years. Among patients with RA (n = 12,182), DM (n = 62,834), RA and DM (n = 1,082), and those who did not have either condition (n = 167,811), the proportion screened for hyperlipidemia was 37%, 60%, 55%, and 41%, respectively. Patients with RA who visited a rheumatologist and a non-rheumatology clinician during follow-up had a 55% (95% confidence interval 1.36-1.78) higher screening probability than those who only visited a rheumatologist.

CONCLUSION

Primary lipid screening was suboptimal among patients with RA. It was also lower for patients with DM and minimally different from the general population. Screening was higher for RA patients who received care from both a rheumatologist and a non-rheumatologist (e.g., primary care physician).

Strategies for implementation of guideline recommended cardiovascular risk management for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from a questionnaire survey of expert rheumatology centers

The aim was to study the different strategies used to implement cardiovascular risk evaluation and management for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in daily clinical practice. A questionnaire survey was performed among both the members of the international Trans-Atlantic Cardiovascular Risk Consortium for Rheumatoid Arthritis (ATACC-RA) as well as the Survey of cardiovascular disease risk factors (CVD-RF) in patients with RA (SURF-RA) group. The questionnaire included 18 questions with the overarching topics: (1) organization and responsibility of cardiovascular risk management (CVRM); (2) screening of CVD-RFs; (3) overview current CVRM status; and (4) availability of data regarding CVRM. Based on the answers, two researchers (JW, PR) independently categorized the different strategies. Thirteen out of 27 rheumatology centers responded to the questionnaire. One rheumatology center did not have organized CVRM for their RA patients. Among the other centers, three strategies to organize CVRM in daily practice were distinguished: (1) the rheumatologist performs CVRM during outpatient visits (n = 6); (2) cardiologists and rheumatologists co-operate in a cardio-rheuma-clinic/team with different tasks and responsibilities (n = 3); and (3) the general practitioner screens and intervenes on CVD-RFs (n = 3). Each CVRM strategy was based on agreements between medical professionals and was also dependent on the national healthcare system and available financial resources. Three strategies were identified for CVRM implementation in daily clinical practice based on who is primarily responsible for performing CVRM. More research is warranted to compare their relative merits and effectiveness in relation to CVRM.

Outreach to Promote Management of Cardiovascular Risk in Primary Care Among Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Seen in Rheumatology Practice

Objective

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) confers a 1.5‐ to 2.0‐fold increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). A prior multifaceted quality improvement approach to improving CVD preventive care increased CVD risk factor assessments, but there was no significant effect on the management of risk factors. We tested the impact of adding a proactive outreach strategy promoting primary care treatment of CVD risk factors among patients with RA through their rheumatology practice.

Methods

Through electronic health record searches, we identified patients with RA who were potential candidates for hypertension treatment initiation or intensification, statin therapy, or a smoking‐cessation intervention. A nonclinician care manager contacted patients by phone and mail on behalf of the rheumatologists, provided information about the identified risk factor(s), recommend follow‐up with primary care physicians (PCPs), sent correspondence to PCPs, and followed up with patients to see what actions had been taken. We measured preventive cardiology quality indicators and compared preintervention and intervention time periods using interrupted time series methods.

Results

During the 6‐month intervention period, the proportion of patients prescribed at least moderate‐intensity statin treatment for primary prevention rose from 18.4% to 23.8%. The rate of increase was 1.06% greater per month than during the preceding period (P < 0.001). Rates of increase in hypertension diagnosis and control improved more rapidly during this phase (P < 0.001 for each) and reversed preceding negative trends.

Conclusion

Implementing proactive nonclinician outreach to encourage primary care–based treatment of CVD risk factors was associated with increases in statin prescribing and in hypertension diagnosis and control. Smoking was not affected.

Facilitating patient-centered care: the development of illustrated multidimensional patient-reported outcome measures for children/adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the validity, reliability, comprehensibility, and responsiveness to change of an illustrated child/parent multidimensional patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) questionnaire which can assess construct outcome measures of children with juvenile inflammatory arthritis.

METHODS

A total of 122 children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis were included in this work in a multicenter study. The questionnaire included seven categories: (1) functional ability; (2) health-related quality of life; (3) disease activity measures: pain, global assessment, fatigue, and morning stiffness; (4) self-reported joint tenderness; (5) current medication, side effects, and adherence to therapy; (6) comorbidities; and (7) patient motivation. All the items were supported by illustrations to provide children with a visual impression of what was meant by the questions. The questionnaire has parent and patient versions. The disease activity status was assessed using JADAS-27.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was reliable as demonstrated by a high-standardized alpha (0.890-0.978). The questionnaire items correlated significantly (p < 0.01) with clinical parameters of disease activity. The patient-reported tender joints correlated significantly with the physician's scores (0.842). Changes in functional disability, quality of life, and the motivation score showed significant variation (p < 0.01) with disease activity status in response to therapy. The illustrated PROMs questionnaire showed also a high degree of comprehensibility (9.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Integrating PROMs into standard clinical practice is feasible and applicable. The illustrated questionnaire was valid and reliable. It provides an informative, quantitative measure for the disease activity score set data, and in the meantime, facilitates the assessment of the children's adherence to therapy, comorbidities, and motivation on an individual basis.

Feasibility of cardiovascular disease risk assessments in rheumatology outpatient clinics: experiences from the nationwide NOCAR project

Objective

The European League Against Rheumatism recommends implementing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessments for patients with inflammatory joint diseases (IJDs) into clinical practice. Our goal was to design a structured programme for CVD risk assessments to be implemented into routine rheumatology outpatient clinic visits.

Methods

The NOrwegian Collaboration on Atherosclerosis in patients with Rheumatic joint diseases (NOCAR) started in April 2014 as a quality assurance project including 11 Norwegian rheumatology clinics. CVD risk factors were recorded by adding lipids to routine laboratory tests, self-reporting of CVD risk factors and blood pressure measurements along with the clinical joint examination. The patients’ CVD risks, calculated by the European CVD risk equation SCORE, were evaluated by the rheumatologist. Patients with high or very high CVD risk were referred to their primary care physician for initiation of CVD preventive measures.

Results

Data collection (autumn 2015) showed that five of the NOCAR centres had implemented CVD risk assessments. There were 8789 patients eligible for CVD risk evaluation (rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 4483; ankylosing spondylitis (AS), 1663; psoriatic arthritis (PsA), 1928; unspecified and other forms of spondyloarthropathies (SpA), 715) of whom 41.4 % received a CVD risk assessment (RA, 44.7%; AS, 43.4%; PsA, 36.3%; SpA, 30.6%). Considerable differences existed in the proportions of patients receiving CVD risk evaluations across the NOCAR centres.

Conclusion

Patients with IJD represent a patient group with a high CVD burden that seldom undergoes CVD risk assessments. The NOCAR project lifted the offer of CVD risk evaluation to over 40% in this high-risk patient population.