Use of video consultations in an outpatient rheumatology clinic. / Bruk av videokonsultasjon ved en revmatologisk poliklinikk.

BACKGROUND: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the implementation of video consultations as an alternative to hospital face-to-face consultations was advanced for persons with rheumatic diseases at Diakonhjemmet Hospital. Video consultations were introduced in March 2020, and this article presents the experiences gained by healthcare professionals and patients. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The data was collected in June 2020 through focus-group interviews with healthcare professionals and through an anonymous online survey of patients who had attended video consultations during a period of three weeks in June 2020. RESULTS: The data from the focus-group interviews with seven rheumatologists and seven nurses were sorted into main thematic categories: patient, healthcare professional, consultation, and technology. The healthcare professionals felt that video consultations, with some exceptions, were appropriate in the follow-up of patients with rheumatic diseases, and especially for stable patients with no confounding issues. Of the 383 patients who were invited to participate, 139 (36 %) responded to the survey. The patients were largely satisfied with the video consultation, with a median score of 10 (quartiles 8-10) on a numerical rating scale from 0 to 10, however, 32 (27 %) patients considered the lack of clinical examination to be detrimental. INTERPRETATION: Video consultations are often appropriate in the follow-up of patients with a rheumatic disease.

Task shifting in the care for patients with hand osteoarthritis. Protocol for a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Current health policy states that patients with osteoarthritis (OA) should mainly be managed in primary health care. Still, research shows that patients with hand OA have poor access to recommended treatment in primary care, and in Norway, they are increasingly referred to rheumatologist consultations in specialist care. In this randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, we will test if a new model, where patients referred to consultation in specialist health care receive their first consultation by an occupational therapy (OT) specialist, is as safe and effective as the traditional model, where they receive their first consultation by a rheumatologist. More specifically, we will answer the following questions: 1. What are the characteristics of patients with hand OA referred to specialist health care with regards to joint affection, disease activity, symptoms and function? 2. Is OT-led hand OA care as effective and safe as rheumatologist-led care with respect to treatment response, disease activity, symptoms, function and patient satisfaction? 3. Is OT-led hand OA care equal to, or more cost effective than rheumatologist-led care? 4. Which factors, regardless of hand OA care, predict improvement 6 and 12 months after baseline? METHODS: Participants will be patients with hand OA diagnosed by a general practitioner and referred for consultation at one of two Norwegian departments of rheumatology. Those who agree will attend a clinical assessment and report their symptoms and function in validated outcome measures, before they are randomly selected to receive their first consultation by an OT specialist (n = 200) or by a rheumatologist (n = 200). OTs may refer patients to a rheumatologist consultation and vice versa. The primary outcome will be the number of patients classified as OMERACT/OARSI-responders after six months. Secondary outcomes are pain, function and satisfaction with care over the twelve-month trial period. The analysis of the primary outcome will be done by logistic regression. A two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in response probability will be formed, and non-inferiority of OT-led care will be claimed if the upper endpoint of this interval does not exceed 15%. DISCUSSION: The findings will improve access to evidence-based management of people with hand OA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03102788. Registered April 6th, 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03102788?term=Kjeken&draw=2&rank=1 Date and version identifier: December 17th, 2020. First version.

Guideline recommended treatment to targets of cardiovascular risk is inadequate in patients with inflammatory joint diseases.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with inflammatory joint diseases (IJD) have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Our goal was to examine indications for, and use of, lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) and antihypertensive treatment (AntiHT) in patients with IJD. Furthermore, to investigate the frequency of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) and blood pressure (BP) goal attainment among IJD patients. METHODS: The cohort was derived from the NOrwegian Collaboration on Atherosclerosis in patients with Rheumatic joint diseases (NOCAR). Indications for AntiHT were: systolic/diastolic BP ≥ 140/90 mm Hg, self-reported hypertension or AntiHT. CVD risk was estimated by the systematic coronary risk evaluation (SCORE) algorithm. LDL-c goals were <2.6 mmol/L in case of diabetes, total cholesterol > 8 mmol/L or a SCORE estimate ≥ 5%, and <1.8 mmol/L for those with established CVD or SCORE ≥ 10%. Comparisons across IJD entities were performed using age and sex adjusted logistic regression. RESULTS: In total, 2277 patients (rheumatoid arthritis: 1376, axial spondyloarthritis: 474, psoriatic arthritis: 427) were included. LLT and AntiHT were indicated in 36.1% and 52.6% of the patients, of whom 37.6% and 47.0% were untreated, respectively. LDL-c and BP targets were obtained in 26.2% and 26.3%, respectively. Guideline recommended treatment and/or corresponding treatment targets were not initiated or obtained in approximately 50%. Rheumatoid arthritis patients were particularly likely to be undertreated with LLT, whereas hypertension undertreatment was most common in psoriatic arthritis. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate CVD prevention encompasses all the three major IJD entities. The unmet need for CVD preventive measures is not only prevalent in RA, but exists across all the major IJD entities.

Feasibility of cardiovascular disease risk assessments in rheumatology outpatient clinics: experiences from the nationwide NOCAR project.

OBJECTIVE: The European League Against Rheumatism recommends implementing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessments for patients with inflammatory joint diseases (IJDs) into clinical practice. Our goal was to design a structured programme for CVD risk assessments to be implemented into routine rheumatology outpatient clinic visits. METHODS: The NOrwegian Collaboration on Atherosclerosis in patients with Rheumatic joint diseases (NOCAR) started in April 2014 as a quality assurance project including 11 Norwegian rheumatology clinics. CVD risk factors were recorded by adding lipids to routine laboratory tests, self-reporting of CVD risk factors and blood pressure measurements along with the clinical joint examination. The patients' CVD risks, calculated by the European CVD risk equation SCORE, were evaluated by the rheumatologist. Patients with high or very high CVD risk were referred to their primary care physician for initiation of CVD preventive measures. RESULTS: Data collection (autumn 2015) showed that five of the NOCAR centres had implemented CVD risk assessments. There were 8789 patients eligible for CVD risk evaluation (rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 4483; ankylosing spondylitis (AS), 1663; psoriatic arthritis (PsA), 1928; unspecified and other forms of spondyloarthropathies (SpA), 715) of whom 41.4 % received a CVD risk assessment (RA, 44.7%; AS, 43.4%; PsA, 36.3%; SpA, 30.6%). Considerable differences existed in the proportions of patients receiving CVD risk evaluations across the NOCAR centres. CONCLUSION: Patients with IJD represent a patient group with a high CVD burden that seldom undergoes CVD risk assessments. The NOCAR project lifted the offer of CVD risk evaluation to over 40% in this high-risk patient population.

Discrepancies in risk age and relative risk estimations of cardiovascular disease in patients with inflammatory joint diseases.

OBJECTIVE: The European guidelines on cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention advise use of relative risk and risk age algorithms for estimating CVD risk in patients with low estimated absolute risk. Patients with inflammatory joint diseases (IJD) are associated with increased risk of CVD. We aimed to estimate relative risk and risk age across IJD entities and evaluate the agreement between 'cardiovascular risk age' and 'vascular age models'. METHODS: Using cross-sectional data from a nationwide project on CVD risk assessment in IJD, risk age estimations were performed in patients with low/moderate absolute risk of fatal CVD. Risk age was calculated according to the cardiovascular risk age and vascular age model, and risk age estimations were compared using regression analysis and calculating percentage of risk age estimations differing ≥5years. RESULTS: Relative risk was increased in 53% and 20% had three times or higher risk compared to individuals with optimal CVD risk factor levels. Furthermore, 20-42% had a risk age ≥5years higher than their actual age, according to the specific risk age model. There were only minor differences between IJD entities regarding relative risk and risk age. Discrepancies ≥5years in estimated risk age were observed in 14-43% of patients. The largest observed difference in calculated risk age was 24years. CONCLUSION: In patients with low estimated absolute risk, estimation of relative CVD risk and risk age may identify additional patients at need of intensive CVD preventive efforts. However, there is a substantial discrepancy between the risk age models.

Cardiovascular disease risk profiles in inflammatory joint disease entities.

BACKGROUND: Patients with inflammatory joint diseases (IJD) have increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Our aim was to compare CVD risk profiles in patients with IJD, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and evaluate the future risk of CVD. METHODS: The prevalence and numbers of major CVD risk factors (CVD-RFs) (hypertension, elevated cholesterol, obesity, smoking, and diabetes mellitus) were estimated in patients with RA, axSpA and PsA. Relative and absolute risk of CVD according to Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) was calculated. RESULTS: In total, 3791 patients were included. CVD was present in 274 patients (7.2%). Of those without established CVD; hypertension and elevated cholesterol were the most frequent CVD-RFs, occurring in 49.8% and 32.8% of patients. Patients with PsA were more often hypertensive and obese. Overall, 73.6% of patients had a minimum of one CVD-RF, which increased from 53.2% among patients aged 30 to <45 years, to 86.2% of patients aged 60 to ≤80 years. Most patients (93.5%) had low/moderate estimated risk of CVD according to SCORE. According to relative risk estimations, 35.2% and 24.7% of patients had two or three times risk or higher, respectively, compared to individuals with no CVD-RFs. CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide Norwegian project, we have shown for the first time that prevalence and numbers of CVD-RFs were relatively comparable across the three major IJD entities. Furthermore, estimated absolute CVD risk was low, but the relative risk of CVD was markedly high in patients with IJD. Our findings indicate the need for CVD risk assessment in all patients with IJD.