Disease activity-based management of rheumatoid arthritis in Dutch daily clinical practice has improved over the past decade.

To re-evaluate the adherence to clinical practice guidelines recommended disease activity-based management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in daily clinical practice, among Dutch rheumatologists in the past decade. In 2007, disease activity was measured in only 16% of outpatient visits. All rheumatologists that participated in the 2007 study were invited to re-enter our study in 2016/2017. If necessary, data were supplemented with data from other rheumatologists. For all 26 rheumatologists who agreed to participate in our study, data were collected from 30 consecutive patients that visited the outpatient clinic. Per patient, data from four consecutive rheumatologist outpatient visits were collected. Since 2007, disease activity was measured more frequently in Dutch daily clinical practice, increasing from 16 to 79% of visits (2440/3081 visits). In addition, intensification of medication based on disease activity scores increased from 33 to 50% of visits (260/525 visits). DAS/DAS28 was the most frequently used disease activity measure (1596/2440 visits). There was a wide variation among rheumatologists in measuring disease activity and intensification of medication, 20-100% and 0-75% respectively. Over the past years, there has been a large improvement in disease activity assessment in daily clinical practice. Disease activity-based medication intensifications, also called tight control or treat to target, increased to a lesser extent. Large variation between different rheumatologists and clinics indicates that there is still room for improvement. Key Points • Following guideline dissemination disease activity is assessed more frequently (79%). • There is large variation between rheumatologists, indicating room for improvement. • Finding factors that explain variation is necessary to improve tight control in daily practice.

Meta-analysis of tight control strategies in rheumatoid arthritis: protocolized treatment has additional value with respect to the clinical outcome.

OBJECTIVES: Tight control studies including regular assessments of disease activity have shown that this approach has beneficial effects on disease activity, disability and joint damage in treating RA patients. Some of these studies included tight control with protocolized treatment, while others applied tight control without protocolized treatment. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of tight control with usual care and to compare the effects of tight control studies with and without protocolized treatment adjustments. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify clinical trials in RA that evaluated tight control strategies in comparison with usual care. Two types of study were compared: (i) those using disease activity monitoring with protocolized treatment adjustments, and (ii) those using disease activity monitoring without protocolized treatment adjustments. The databases PubMed and Cochrane were searched from 1995 up to 2009. Primary outcome measure was the mean change in the 28-joint DAS (DAS-28), which was used in a random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Six controlled trials regarding tight control in RA patients were included in the meta-analysis. In all trials, patients treated in the tight control arms had significantly higher DAS-28 responses than patients treated according to usual care [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 0.59, P < 0.001]. Moreover, tight control was significantly more effective (P < 0.001) by means of protocolized treatment adjustments (WMD = 0.97) compared with non-protocolized monitoring of disease activity (WMD = 0.25). CONCLUSION: Tight control in RA resulted in significantly better clinical outcomes than usual care. It is suggested but not proved that tight control with protocolized treatment adjustments is more beneficial than if no such protocol is used.

How to improve DAS28 use in daily clinical practice?--a pilot study of a nurse-led intervention.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether DAS28 measurements by a specialized nurse, before the rheumatologist visit, in combination with the advice to rheumatologists to reach a DAS28 < or = 3.2, had beneficial effects on disease activity and medication prescription in patients with RA and to explore possible predictors for variation in medication changes and reasons for non-adherence to the advice to reach a DAS28 < or = 3.2. METHODS: In this pilot study, rheumatologists were randomized to 'usual care' (n = 3) or DAS28 measurement by a nurse prior the rheumatologist visit (n = 4). In the usual care group, the DAS28 was measured but not provided to rheumatologists. Mixed model analyses were used for analysing between-group differences and for the prediction model. Rheumatologists in the intervention group were asked to provide reasons in cases of non-adherence to the advice. RESULTS: After 18 months, DAS28 was reduced by - 0.69 and - 0.66 (P = 0.70) in, respectively, the intervention (144 patients) and the usual care (104 patients) groups. In the intervention group, medication was changed by rheumatologists in 35% of the visits with a DAS28 > 3.2; in the usual care group this was 33% (P = 0.99). Baseline DAS28 (OR 1.6; P< or =0.0001) and HAQ (OR 1.3; P = 0.03) were positively related to a medication change. The most frequently mentioned reason not to change medication was patient refusal (26%). CONCLUSIONS: DAS28 measurement by a nurse was as effective as usual care; however, this intervention without protocolized treatment adjustments is not sufficient to lead to a considerable reduction in disease activity compared with trials with protocolized treatment adjustments.