Which factors predict discordance between a patient and physician on a gout flare?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the factors associated with discordance between patient and physician on the presence of a gout flare. METHODS: Patients' self-reports of current gout flares were assessed with the question, 'Are you having a gout flare today?' which was then compared with a concurrent, blinded, physician's assessment. Based on agreement or disagreement with physicians on the presence of a gout flare, flares were divided into concordant and discordant groups, respectively. Within the discordant group, two subgroups-patient-reported flare but the physician disagreed and physician-reported flare but the patient disagreed-were identified. The factors associated with discordance were analysed with multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 268 gout flares, 81 (30.2%) flares were discordant, with either patient or physician disagreeing on the presence of a flare. Of the discordant flares, in 57 (70.4%) the patient reported a flare but the physician disagreed. In multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted for demographics, disagreement among patients and physicians on the presence of a gout flare was associated with lower pain scores at rest [odds ratio (OR) for each point increase on 0-10 point pain scale 0.81 (95% Wald CI 0.73, 0.90), P < 0.0001] and less presence of joint swelling [OR 0.24 (95% CI 0.10, 0.61), P = 0.003] or joint warmth [OR 0.39 (95% CI 0.20, 0.75), P = 0.005]. CONCLUSION: Although patients and physicians generally agree about the presence of gout flare, discordance may occur in the setting of low pain scores and in the absence of swollen or warm joints.

Which patient reported outcome domains are important to the rheumatologists while assessing patients with rheumatoid arthritis?

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) aid in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management, but it is not well understood which measures would be most relevant to the rheumatologists for making treatment decisions. METHODS: We recruited rheumatologists nationally to participate in moderated structured group teleconference discussions using the nominal group technique. Participants in each group generated lists of the elements from patient's history and signs that they use to make treatment recommendations for RA. Each participant then selected the three most important elements from the generated list. The results of each group were then combined and summarized. RESULTS: Twenty-five rheumatologists participated in 4 groups (group size ranged from 4 to 8) and 150 available ranking votes across all groups. The statements generated across the 4 groups were categorized into 13 topics (including symptoms, physical function, comorbidities, social aspects, physical findings, response to treatment, treatment adherence, pain management, side effects, tests, access to care, contraception, and organ involvement), 10 of which received ranking votes. Symptoms received the highest ranking (46% of votes), followed by physical function (16%), and physical findings (13%). Among the unranked topics, social aspects had the highest number of statements (8 statements). CONCLUSION: Rheumatologists highly valued patient-reported RA symptoms and physical function to inform their treatment decisions, even above objective data such as physical findings and test results. These results can guide the selection of validated PRO measures to assess these domains to inform the clinical care of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Severe arthritis and tenosynovitis caused by immune checkpoint blockade therapy with pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1 antibody).

Pembrolizumab, a monoclonal antibody against the immune checkpoint receptor-programmed cell death protein 1, has proven clinical efficacy in melanoma and other solid tumors. It increases the body's immune response against the tumor cells. However, because of an uninhibited immune system, immune-mediated adverse effects can arise. Though most adverse effects from pembrolizumab involve the gastrointestinal tract, skin, and endocrine system, rheumatologic manifestations are not very well defined. We describe two cases of severe inflammatory arthritis and tenosynovitis, which are rare adverse effects of pembrolizumab. Increased awareness of this manifestation is imperative to establish the diagnosis and initiate timely treatment.

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).

Gastrointestinal Perforations with Biologics in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Implications for Clinicians.

Gastrointestinal (GI) perforations are rare events in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, but cause significant morbidity and mortality. Several studies indicate that RA patients may be at higher risk of GI perforation. Traditional RA treatments such as glucocorticoids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs increase the risk of perforation. In the past two decades, a new class of therapeutic agents called biologics has been added to the RA treatment armamentarium. Biologics are effective in controlling disease activity and are generally well tolerated; however, reports of GI perforations in association with biologics have arisen. In particular, drugs that inhibit the interleukin (IL)-6 cytokine receptor have demonstrated a higher risk of perforation compared with other therapies. Recent reports also suggest that janus kinase inhibitors may increase the risk of perforation, perhaps via downstream effects on IL-6 signaling. In this review, we discuss current data on the risk of GI perforations among RA patients receiving targeted therapies and its clinical relevance.

Cardiovascular co-morbidity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a narrative review of risk factors, cardiovascular risk assessment and treatment.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is markedly increased in patients with rheumatoid arthritis partly due to accelerated atherosclerosis from chronic inflammation. Traditional cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, smoking, diabetes mellitus and physical inactivity are also highly prevalent among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and contribute to the CVD risk. The impact of traditional risk factors on the CVD risk appears to be different in the RA and non-RA population. However, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus, body mass index and family history of CVD influence the CVD risk in RA patients the same way they do for the non-RA population. Despite that, screening and treatment of these risk factors is suboptimal among patients with RA. Recent guidelines from the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommend aggressive management of traditional risk factors in addition to RA disease activity control to decrease the CVD risk. Several CVD risk calculators are available for clinical use to stratify a patients' risk of developing a CVD event. Most of these calculators do not account for RA as a risk factor; thus, a multiplication factor of 1.5 is recommended to predict the risk more accurately. In order to reduce CVD in the RA population, national guidelines for the prevention of CVD should be applied to manage traditional risk factors in addition to aggressive control of RA disease activity. While current data suggests a protective effect of non-biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologics on cardiovascular events among patients with RA, more data is needed to define this effect more accurately.