Practice Variations in the Diagnosis, Monitoring, and Treatment of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in Canada. METHODS: A 63-question electronic survey was developed with the Canadian Rheumatology Association and others. Descriptive analyses of responses were performed. RESULTS: Survey respondents (n = 175) reported varying practices in the diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of SLE. Performance of laboratory investigations for diagnosis and monitoring varied, with 78% of responders performing them at least every 6 months. Validated measures of SLE disease activity and damage were not commonly used. Most common first-line agents besides steroids for induction therapy for class III or IV lupus nephritis included intravenous cyclophosphamide and mycophenolate mofetil. Antimalarial use was common, with 96% of respondents using these in active skin disease. Over 60% of respondents indicated that 80-100% of their patients were taking antimalarials, while another 25% indicated they used these drugs in up to 80% of their patients. There were 71% of responders who reported completing frequent (6-12 mos) ophthalmology screening in patients taking antimalarials. Biologics were infrequently used. Responders were more likely to stop azathioprine and chloroquine than hydroxychloroquine in pregnant patients with SLE. Other aspects of routine care including vaccination and cardiovascular risk management varied considerably. The majority (80%) agreed that a dedicated multidisciplinary care team would improve SLE care. CONCLUSION: Considerable practice variation in SLE management was noted. This may help inform future recommendations for the diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of SLE in Canada.

Measuring Disease Activity and Damage with Validated Metrics: A Systematic Review on Mortality and Damage in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the effect of disease activity and damage, measured by validated indices, on mortality and damage accrual, in order to inform upcoming Canadian systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) recommendations. METHODS: Following GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology to fill in evidence-to-decision tables to create recommendations for "minimal investigations needed to monitor SLE patients at baseline and subsequent visits," a systematic literature review was performed. The effect of disease activity and damage, measured by validated metrics, on mortality and damage was systematically reviewed, with metaanalyses performed when available. RESULTS: A title/abstract screen of 5599 articles identified 816 articles for full paper review, with 102 meeting inclusion criteria and 53 with extractable data. Thirty-three articles describing outcomes related to disease activity and 20 articles related to damage were identified. Mortality was associated with higher SLE Disease Activity Index-2000 scores in 6 studies (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.06-1.22) and higher Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/ACR Damage Index scores in 6 studies (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.28-1.83). Higher SLE Activity Measure scores were associated with increased risk of damage in 3 studies (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04-1.08). British Isles Lupus Assessment Group was associated with mortality in 1 study with HR of 1.15. CONCLUSION: Active SLE disease and damage are associated with and predict greater mortality and damage. The use of validated disease activity and damage metrics is important in the assessment of disease activity and damage and will inform upcoming Canadian recommendations for the assessment of SLE.

Care partnerships between family physicians and rheumatologists.

OBJECTIVE: To describe care partnerships between family physicians and rheumatologists. METHODS: A random sample (20%, n = 478) of family physicians was mailed a questionnaire, asking if there was at least 1 particular rheumatologist to whom the physician tended to refer patients. If the answer was affirmative, the physician would be considered as having a "care partnership" with that rheumatologist. The family physician then rated, on a 5-point scale, factors of importance regarding the relationship with that rheumatologist. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 84/462 (18.2%) of family physicians; 52/84 (61.9%) reported having rheumatology care partnerships according to our definition. Regarding interactions with rheumatologists, most respondents rated the following as important (score ≥ 4): adequate communication and information exchange (44/50, 88.0%); waiting time for new patients (40/50, 80.0%); clear and appropriate balance of responsibilities (39/49, 79.6%); and patient feedback and preferences (34/50, 68%). Male family physicians were more likely than females to accord high importance to personal knowledge of the rheumatologist, and to physical proximity of the rheumatologist's practice. Regarding relationships with rheumatologists, 30/50 (60.0%) of respondents felt communication and information exchange were adequate, and 35/50 (70.0%) felt they had a clear balance of responsibilities. CONCLUSION: Almost two-thirds of family physicians have rheumatology care partnerships, according to our definition. In this partnership, establishing adequate communication and shorter waiting time seem of paramount importance to family physicians. A balanced sharing of responsibilities and patients' preferences are also valued. Although many physicians reported adequate communication and clear and appropriate balance of responsibilities in their current interactions with rheumatologists, there appears to be room for improvement.

A retrospective review of rheumatology referral wait times within a health centre in Quebec, Canada.

It is important that inflammatory arthropathies such as rheumatoid arthritis be diagnosed promptly so that treatment can be administered in a timely fashion. However, there is considerable evidence that this process of care is delayed in many people. The aim of the study is to assess wait times between primary care referral and rheumatology assessment for new-onset inflammatory arthropathies. We performed a retrospective review related to new rheumatology consultations (N = 202) between September and November 2008 within the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada. At this centre, no formal triaging of rheumatology referrals exists. Of the 202 charts reviewed, wait times could be calculated in 164 cases. Only consultations for new-onset conditions were analyzed (N = 161). The results showed that patients with inflammatory arthritis were seen approximately 34.6 days (median 26) post-referral. Wait times for individuals who were ultimately diagnosed with non-urgent conditions (osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia and soft-tissue rheumatism) averaged 41.0 days (median 29). In conclusions, compared to non-urgent cases, individuals with inflammatory arthritis were seen about 1 week sooner. Nevertheless, provisional diagnosis provided on referrals did not appear to expedite wait times for persons with suspected inflammatory arthritis. This suggested that other factors, such as the concern of the patient, may have an influence on referral wait times. Implementation of a rapid access program or triage system may be helpful to further decrease wait times for inflammatory arthropathies.