Belgian rheumatologists' perception on eligibility of RA patients for anti-TNF treatment matches more closely Dutch rather than Belgian reimbursement criteria.

OBJECTIVES: To assess discrepancies between perception of Belgian rheumatologists on eligibility of RA patients for anti-TNF treatment and Belgian reimbursement criteria and to compare Belgian with Dutch criteria and UK guidelines. METHODS: Consecutive MTX-experienced patients with active RA were recruited from 25 private and academic rheumatology practices. Discrepancies between eligibility for anti-TNF treatment according to the rheumatologist and fulfillment of Belgian reimbursement criteria [HAQ > or =25%, tender joint count (TJC) and swollen joint count (SJC) > or =8; > or =1 erosion; failure of > or =2 DMARDs including MTX; no tuberculosis] were recorded. Reasons for failing the Belgian criteria and results of applying Dutch reimbursement criteria and UK guidelines on the dataset were analysed. RESULTS: Of 492 patients, rheumatologists considered 135 (27.4%) as eligible, whereas Belgian criteria were fulfilled for only 34 (6.9%). Positive predictive value (PPV) of rheumatologists' perception on eligibility for fulfillment of Belgian criteria was 22.9%, whereas negative predictive value (NPV) was 99.1%. The 104 patients (21.1%) considered eligible despite criteria not being fulfilled had significantly greater TJCs, SJCs, disease activity score (DAS28) and Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index scores than the 385 patients (78.2%) in the no-discrepancy group. Number of swollen joints, HAQ and erosions mainly accounted for discrepancies. Of 492 patients, 263 (53.4%) qualified for Dutch criteria and 41 (8.3%) for UK guidelines. PPV of Belgian rheumatologists' perception was 72.6% for fulfilling Dutch criteria (NPV 49.6%) and 23.4% for UK guidelines (NPV 96.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Rheumatologists consider more RA patients eligible for anti-TNF treatment than would be reimbursed according to Belgian criteria. Dutch guidelines, based on DAS28, match more closely eligibility according to Belgian rheumatologists.

Effectiveness of an integrated outpatient care programme compared with present-day standard care in early rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effectiveness of an integrated care programme in daily practice compared with present-day standard care for ambulatory early rheumatoid arthritis patients. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, group A received programmed multidisciplinary outpatient care and group B standard rheumatologist-centred care. Demographics, disease duration, initial and actual treatment, disease activity (Disease Activity-28 Score), general health (Short Form-36 [SF-36]), functionality (Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ]), coping style (Utrecht's Coping List), illness perception (Dutch-Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire) and satisfaction about care were recorded. RESULTS: Eight-nine patients were included in group A and 102 in group B. Demographics, rheumatoid factor, antibodies against cyclic citrullinated peptides and disease duration were comparable. More patients in group A received initial combination therapy (35% versus 3%). Actual treatment regimens were comparable. More patients were in remission (69% versus 39%) or had low disease activity (80% versus 60%), mean HAQ-scores were lower (0.52 versus 0.80), more patients had no functional impairment (38% versus 15%) and SF-36 scores were higher in group A. Coping style and illness perception were similar, except for illness coherence. Satisfaction differed only for aspects typically favouring a care programme. Participation in a care programme independently predicted remission and absence of disability in a regression model, including gender and initial treatment as other predictors. CONCLUSION: Disease activity was better controlled and functionality and general health better preserved in patients following an outpatient care programme. This was partly due to the easier implementation of an intensive initial treatment strategy but apparently also to other aspects of organized pharmacological and non-pharmacological care, to be defined in randomized, controlled studies.