Causes and predictors of death among Finnish patients with systemic sclerosis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess causes and predictors of death among Finnish patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc). METHOD: Medical records of patients registered with the ICD-10 code M34 from 1996 to 2018 in two university hospitals were reviewed retrospectively. Clinical data were collected until the end of 2020. Death certificates were obtained from Statistics Finland up to August 2021. Using death certificates and patient records, the cause of death for each patient was determined. The mean age at death, median time from SSc diagnosis, and factors predicting death were analysed. RESULTS: Among 313 SSc patients, 91 deaths occurred between April 2000 and September 2020. Overall 5 and 10 year survival rates were 88.4% and 80.2%, respectively. SSc was the most common primary cause of death (n = 35) and interstitial lung disease (ILD) was the most common SSc-related cause of death (n = 13). Moreover, 52% of the patients with diffuse SSc and 33% of those with limited cutaneous SSc died as a result of SSc itself. Patients who died because of SSc were significantly younger [mean ± sd age 65.6 ± 12.7 years, 95% confidence interval (CI) 61.2-70.1] than those who died from other causes (74.2 ± 9.6 years, 95% CI 71.5-76.9) (p = 0.0006). ILD, pulmonary arterial hypertension, gastrointestinal involvement, male gender, and older age at disease onset predicted death. CONCLUSION: The disease itself was the major cause of death among Finnish SSc patients, in both diffuse and limited forms of SSc.

Systemic sclerosis: changes in the incidence rates in the Finnish population during the years 1999-2018.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to examine changes in the incidence of systemic sclerosis (SSc) in Finland using two different classification criteria. METHOD: Medical records of patients who had been registered with ICD-10 code M34 from 1999 to 2018 in two university hospitals were reviewed retrospectively. This period was divided into 5 year periods: 1999-2003, 2004-2008, 2009-2013, and 2014-2018. Using American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2013 criteria and clinical findings, we reclassified patients into four groups: diffuse SSc, limited SSc, sine SSc, or early SSc. In the same population, we also investigated whether the ACR 1980 criteria were fulfilled. RESULTS: In 1999-2018, 246 new patients with SSc and 45 patients with early SSc were identified using ACR/EULAR 2013 criteria. Of these patients, 70 fulfilled the ACR 1980 criteria. Using ACR/EULAR 2013 criteria, the increase in new diagnoses was statistically significant when comparing the fourth period with the first period (p = 0.0012). The increase was due to a rise in limited SSc. Mean annual incidence rates in these groups were 0.9, 1.2, 1.9, and 2.8 per 100 000 inhabitants ≥ 16 years old. An increasing trend was also seen when using ACR 1980 criteria, but this was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The incidence of SSc increased during the period between 1999-2003 and 2014-2018 using ACR/EULAR 2013, but not using ACR 1980 criteria. The increase was detected within a limited SSc subclass, owing to more sensitive classification criteria.

Differential diagnostics of polymyalgia rheumatica in a university hospital in Finland.

OBJECTIVES: Diagnosing polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) can be difficult as many conditions present with similar symptoms and findings. This study aimed to analyse how often the diagnosis of PMR changes during follow-up in a university hospital setting and to determine the most common clinical conditions initially misdiagnosed as PMR. METHOD: All patients with a new primary diagnosis of PMR on at least one visit during the years 2016-2019 were identified from the hospital discharge register of Turku University Hospital, Finland. A diagnosis of PMR was confirmed if the patient met at least one of the five classification criteria, complete clinical follow-up (median 34 months) was compatible with PMR, and no other diagnosis better explained their condition. RESULTS: Of the patients initially diagnosed with PMR, 65.5% were considered to have PMR after further evaluation and clinical follow-up. The most common conditions initially diagnosed as PMR were inflammatory arthritides (34.9%), degenerative or stress-related musculoskeletal disorders (13.2%), infection (9.3%), malignancy (9.3%), giant cell vasculitis (6.2%) and other vasculitis (6.2%), and a wide range of other less common diseases. The diagnosis of PMR remained in 81.3% of patients who fulfilled the 2012 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism PMR classification criteria and in 45.5% of patients who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosing PMR is challenging, even in a university hospital. One-third of the initial diagnoses of PMR changed during further evaluation and follow-up. There is a substantial risk of misdiagnosis, especially in patients with atypical presentation, and the differential diagnoses of PMR must be considered carefully.

The validity of systemic sclerosis diagnoses in two university hospitals in Finland.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the validity of systemic sclerosis (SSc) diagnoses in Finnish university hospitals. METHOD: Electronic medical records for 385 patients with a registered diagnosis of SSc (ICD-10 code M34) in two Finnish university hospitals from 2008 to 2018 were reviewed to assess whether each patient's diagnosis was correct. RESULTS: The positive predictive value (PPV) of a diagnosis of SSc was 0.66 when fulfilment of the 2013 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) classification criteria for SSc was required; the PPV was 0.75 if patients meeting the 2001 LeRoy and Medsger classification criteria for early SSc were also included. When a diagnosis of SSc was made in a department of rheumatology, the PPV was 0.78, and 0.90 when including patients with early SSc. For the more specific diagnosis of limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc), the PPV was 0.80, and 0.95 when including early SSc. For an lcSSc diagnosis made in rheumatology, the PPV was 0.81, and 0.97 with early SSc included. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that in these two Finnish university hospitals, the diagnostic validity of a diagnosis of SSc was good if it was diagnosed in the department of rheumatology. For a more specific diagnosis of lcSSc, the most prevalent form of SSc in Finland, the validity was good even when registered in any department.

The validity of rheumatoid arthritis diagnoses in Finnish biobanks.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the validity of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) diagnoses in patients participating in Finnish biobanks. METHOD: We reviewed the electronic medical records of 500 Finnish biobank participants: 125 patients with at least one visit with a diagnosis of seropositive RA, 125 patients with at least one visit with a diagnosis of seronegative RA, and 250 age- and gender-matched controls. The patients were chosen from five different biobank hospitals in Finland. A rheumatologist reviewed the medical records to assess whether each patients' diagnosis was correct. The diagnosis was compared with the diagnostic codes in the Finnish Care Register for Health Care (CRHC) and special reimbursement data of the Social Insurance Institution of Finland. RESULTS: The positive predictive value (PPV) of CRHC diagnosis of RA (for seropositive and seronegative RA combined) was 0.82. For patients with a special reimbursement for anti-rheumatic medications for RA, the PPV was 0.89. The PPV was higher in patients with more than one visit. For one, two, five, and 10 visits, the PPV was 0.82, 0.85, 0.89, and 0.90, respectively, and for patients who also had the special reimbursement, the PPV was 0.89, 0.91, 0.93, and 0.94 for one, two, five, and 10 visits, respectively. In patients positive for anti-citrullinated protein antibodies, the PPV was 0.98. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that the validity of RA diagnoses in Finnish biobanks was good and can be further improved by including data on special reimbursement for medication, number of visits, and serological data.

Three out of four disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug-naïve rheumatoid arthritis patients meet 28-joint Disease Activity Score remission at 12 months: results from the FIN-ERA cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To assess what proportion of patients with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD)-naïve early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA) reach 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) remission over 1 year, and remission variability across clinics in Finland. METHOD: Patients with DMARD-naïve newly diagnosed inflammatory arthritis were recruited. The proportion of patients in 28-joint Disease Activity Score with three variables (DAS28-3) remission was compared across sites. Repeated measures were analysed using a mixed models approach with appropriate distribution and link function. RESULTS: In total, 611 patients were recruited at five sites: 67% were female; the mean (sd) age was 57 (16) years; 71% and 68% were positive for rheumatoid factor and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptides, respectively; and 23% had radiographic erosions. A total of 506 (83%) fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism 2010 classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis for further analyses. DAS28-3 remission was met by 68% and 75% at 3 and 12 months, respectively. The clinical site had no effect on remission when adjusted for confounders. At baseline, 68% used methotrexate-based combination therapy, and 31% used triple therapy with methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and sulphasalazine (the Fin-RACo regimen). In multivariate analysis, the only independent predictors of DAS28-3 remission at 12 months were lower baseline DAS28-3 and triple therapy as the initial treatment. CONCLUSION: Three out of four DMARD-naïve ERA patients in Finland are in remission during the first year from the diagnosis. High remission rates were achieved for most patients with the use of conventional synthetic DMARDs in combination. Treatment of DMARD-naïve ERA patients with the FIN-RACo regimen is a predictor of DAS28-3 remission in real-life rheumatology settings.