Assessment of venous disease with different venous disease specific scales in Behçet's disease patients with deep vein thrombosis.

Objectives: Post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a frequent and important consequence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) for Behcet`s disease (BD) patients. Although various clinical scales are used to diagnose PTS, Villalta scale was accepted as the standard tool to diagnose and grade the severity of PTS. Poor quality of life (Qol) in the general population was defined for patients with PTS, however, studies in BD patients with PTS is limited. Our aim was to compare the performance of different scales to assess venous disease in BD patients with a history of DVT and to assess the relationship with quality of life.Methods: Patients with BD (n = 194, M/F:157/37, age:39.1 ± 9.5 years) with a DVT history were investigated. Villalta, VCSS,CEAP scale and SF 36,Veines scales were used to assess venous disease and QoL respectively.Results: Among BD patients, 120 (61.9 %) patients were classified as having PTS by Villalta and of patients 18% had severe PTS. Half of patients with CEAP score <4 were classified as having PTS. Also, 42% of patients with CEAP>4 and almost two third of VCSS classified severe CVD patients was grouped in severe PTS by Villalta scale. VCSS and Villalta classified PTS patients had decreased disease specific and general Qol scores compared to the patients without PTS. Also, severe PTS group (by VCSS) had decreased veines QoL scores and PCS compared to mild/moderate group.Conclusion: BD patients with DVT have a high risk of PTS. Our results show that both Villalta scale and VCSS should be used to assess venous disease BD patients with DVT. However, VCSS classified severity of PTS can show better correlation with venous disease -specific QoL.

Attitudes of patients with a rheumatic disease on drug use in the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Anti-rheumatic drugs can increase the predisposition to infection, and patients may be unaware of continuing their treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess whether patients maintain their treatment for rheumatic conditions during the pandemic period and determine the factors responsible for discontinuation. METHODS: Patients were randomly selected from the prospectively collected database of our tertiary referral center. The patients were interviewed by telephone through a standardized closed-ended questionnaire, which is targeting the continuity of the treatment plan and the considerations related to the individual choice. The patients were asked whether they hesitated to visit the hospital for follow-up or intravenous drug administration. RESULTS: A total of 278 patients completed the questionnaire. While 62 of the patients (22.3%) had reduced or interrupted the treatment, only 11 patients (3.9%) stopped the treatment completely. A significant difference was observed between the duration of illness and the discontinuation of treatment. (p = 0.023) There was a significant difference in disease activity between the group that stopped treatment and continued treatment. (p = 0.001) There was no statistically significant difference in other demographic characteristics. One hundred thirty-five patients (48.6%) made the treatment decision by themselves, and 80% continued the treatment. Reasons for stopping the treatment were anxiety (48.4%), not being able to go to the hospital for intravenous treatment (45.1%), and not being able to find the drug (6.5%). CONCLUSION: Since patients with long-term illnesses were found to be significantly more likely to stop their treatment, this group of patients should be monitored.

Impact of rheumatoid arthritis in Turkey: a questionnaire study.

OBJECTIVES: Unmet needs of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients regarding physician/patient communication, treatment preferences and quality of life issues were investigated in a Turkish survey study. METHODS: The study was conducted with the contribution of 33 rheumatologists, and included 519 RA patients. The study population included patients who had been on biologic therapy for >6 months and were still receiving biologic therapy (BT group), and those who were biologic naive, but found eligible for biologic treatment (NBT group). Of the RA patients, 35.5% initially had a visit to an internal disease specialist, 25.5% to a physical therapy and rehabilitation specialist, and 12.2% to a rheumatology specialist for their RA complaints. The diagnosis of RA was made by a rheumatologist in 48.2% of patients. RESULTS: The majority of RA patients (86.3%) visit their doctor within 15-week intervals. Most of the physician-patient communication focused on disease symptoms (99.0%) and impact of the disease on quality of life (61.8%). The proportion of RA patients who perceived their health status as good/very good/excellent was higher in the BT group than in the NBT group (74.3% vs. 51.5%, p<0.001). However, of those RA patients in the NBT group, only 24.8% have been recommended to start a biologic treatment by their doctors. With respect to dose frequency options, once-monthly injections were preferred (80%) to a bi-weekly injection schedule (8%). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, RA patients receiving biologic therapy reported higher rates of improved symptoms and better quality of life and seemed to be more satisfied with their treatment in our study.

The cost of care of rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis patients in tertiary care rheumatology units in Turkey.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the direct and indirect costs due to rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients in Turkey. METHODS: An expert panel was convened to estimate the direct and indirect costs of care of patients with RA and AS in Turkey. The panel was composed of 22 experts chosen from all national tertiary care rheumatology units (n=53). To calculate direct costs, the medical management of RA and AS patients was estimated using 'cost-of-illness' methodology. To measure indirect costs, the number of days of sick leave, the extent of disability, and the levels of early retirement and early death were also evaluated. Lost productivity costs were calculated using the 'human capital approach', based on the minimum wage. RESULTS: The total annual direct costs were 2,917.03 Euros per RA patient and 3,565.9 Euros for each AS patient. The direct costs were thus substantial, but the indirect costs were much higher because of extensive morbidity and mortality rates. The total annual indirect costs were 7,058.99 Euros per RA patient and 6,989.81 for each AS patient. Thus, the total cost for each RA patient was 9,976.01 Euros and that for an AS patient 10,555.72 Euros, in Turkey. CONCLUSIONS: From the societal perspective, both RA and AS have become burden in Turkey. The cost of lost productivity is higher than the medical cost. Another important conclusion is that indirect costs constitute 70% and 66% of total costs in patients with RA and AS, respectively.