Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurements in chronic and malignant diseases: ten years' experience with PRO-algorithm-based patient-clinician interaction (telePRO) in AmbuFlex.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported Outcome (PRO) measures may be used as the basis for out-patient follow-up instead of fixed appointments. The patients attend follow-up from home by filling in questionnaires developed for that specific aim and patient group (telePRO). The questionnaires are handled in real time by a specific algorithm, which assigns an outcome color reflecting clinical need. The specific questionnaires and algorithms (named solutions) are constructed in a consensus process with clinicians. We aimed to describe AmbuFlex' telePRO solutions and the algorithm outcomes and variation between patient groups, and to discuss possible applications and challenges. METHODS: TelePRO solutions with more than 100 processed questionnaires were included in the analysis. Data were retrieved together with data from national registers. Characteristics of patients, questionnaires and outcomes were tabulated for each solution. Graphs were constructed depicting the overall and within-patient distribution of algorithm outcomes for each solution. RESULTS: From 2011 to 2021, 29 specific telePRO solutions were implemented within 24 different ICD-10 groups. A total of 42,015 patients were referred and answered 171,268 questionnaires. An existing applicable instrument with cut-off values was available for four solutions, whereas items were selected or developed ad hoc for the other solutions. Mean age ranged from 10.7 (Pain in children) to 73.3 years (chronic kidney disease). Mortality among referred patients varied between 0 (obesity, asthma, endometriosis and pain in children) and 528 per 1000 patient years (Lung cancer). There was substantial variation in algorithm outcome across patient groups while different solutions within the same patient group varied little. DISCUSSION: TelePRO can be applied in diseases where PRO can reflect clinical status and needs. Questionnaires and algorithms should be adapted for the specific patient groups and clinical aims. When PRO is used as replacement for clinical contact, special carefulness should be observed with respect to patient safety.

Concurrent baseline diagnosis of giant cell arteritis and polymyalgia rheumatica - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Giant cell arteritis (GCA) and polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) can be concurrent diseases. We aimed to estimate the point-prevalence of concurrent GCA and PMR. Additionally, an incidence rate (IR) of GCA presenting after PMR diagnosis in patients was estimated. METHODS: Two authors performed a systematic literature search, data extraction and risk of bias assessment independently. Studies assessing cohorts of patients presenting with both GCA and PMR were included. The outcomes were point-prevalence of concurrent GCA and PMR and IR for development of GCA after PMR diagnosis. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate a pooled prevalence of concurrent PMR and GCA. RESULTS: We identified 29 studies investigating concurrent GCA and PMR. Only two studies applied imaging systematically to diagnose GCA and none to diagnose PMR. GCA presenting after PMR diagnosis was assessed in 12 studies but imaging was not applied systematically. The point-prevalence of concurrent GCA present at PMR diagnosis ranged from 6%-66%. The pooled estimate of the point-prevalence from the meta-analysis was 22%. The point-prevalence of PMR present at GCA diagnosis ranged from 16%-65%. The pooled estimate of the point-prevalence from the meta-analysis was 42%. The IR ranged between 2-78 cases of GCA presenting after PMR per 1000 person-years. CONCLUSION: This review and meta-analysis support that concurrent GCA and PMR is frequently present at the time of diagnosis. Additionally, we present the current evidence of GCA presenting in patients after PMR diagnosis. These results emphasize the need for studies applying imaging modalities to diagnose GCA.

Defining conditions where long-term glucocorticoid treatment has an acceptably low level of harm to facilitate implementation of existing recommendations: viewpoints from an EULAR task force.

There is convincing evidence for the known and unambiguously accepted beneficial effects of glucocorticoids at low dosages. However, the implementation of existing recommendations and guidelines on the management of glucocorticoid therapy in rheumatic diseases is lagging behind. As a first step to improve implementation, we aimed at defining conditions under which long-term glucocorticoid therapy may have an acceptably low level of harm. A multidisciplinary European League Against Rheumatism task force group of experts including patients with rheumatic diseases was assembled. After a systematic literature search, breakout groups critically reviewed the evidence on the four most worrisome adverse effects of glucocorticoid therapy (osteoporosis, hyperglycaemia/diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular diseases and infections) and presented their results to the other group members following a structured questionnaire for final discussion and consensus finding. Robust evidence on the risk of harm of long-term glucocorticoid therapy was often lacking since relevant study results were often either missing, contradictory or carried a high risk of bias. The group agreed that the risk of harm is low for the majority of patients at long-term dosages of ≤5 mg prednisone equivalent per day, whereas at dosages of >10 mg/day the risk of harm is elevated. At dosages between >5 and ≤10 mg/day, patient-specific characteristics (protective and risk factors) determine the risk of harm. The level of harm of glucocorticoids depends on both dose and patient-specific parameters. General and glucocorticoid-associated risk factors and protective factors such as a healthy lifestyle should be taken into account when evaluating the actual and future risk.