Burden of gout in the Nordic region, 1990-2015: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the burden of gout in the Nordic region, with a population around 27 million in 2015 distributed across six countries. METHOD: We used the findings of the 2015 Global Burden of Diseases study to report prevalence and disability associated with gout in the Nordic region. RESULTS: From 1990 to 2015, the number of prevalent gout cases rose by 30% to 252 967 [95% uncertainty interval (UI) 223 478‒287 288] in the Nordic region. In 2015, gout contributed to 7982 (95% UI 5431‒10 800) years lived with disability (YLDs) in the region, an increase of 29% (95% UI 24‒35%) from 1990. While the crude YLD rate of gout increased by 12.9% (95% UI 7.8‒18.1%) between 1990 and 2015, the age-standardized YLD rate remained stable. Gout was ranked as the 63rd leading cause of total YLDs in the region in 2015, with the highest rank in men aged 55-59 years (38th leading cause of YLDs). The corresponding rank at the global level was 94. Of 195 countries studied, four Nordic countries [Greenland (2nd), Iceland (12th), Finland (14th), and Sweden (15th)] were among the top 15 countries with the highest age-standardized YLD rate of gout. CONCLUSION: The burden of gout is rising in the Nordic region. Gout's contribution to the total burden of diseases in the region is more significant than the global average. Expected increases in gout burden owing to population growth and ageing call for stronger preventive and therapeutic strategies for gout management in Nordic countries.

Economic considerations and patients' preferences affect treatment selection for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a discrete choice experiment among European rheumatologists.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the value that rheumatologists across Europe attach to patients' preferences and economic aspects when choosing treatments for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: In a discrete choice experiment, European rheumatologists chose between two hypothetical drug treatments for a patient with moderate disease activity. Treatments differed in five attributes: efficacy (improvement and achieved state on disease activity), safety (probability of serious adverse events), patient's preference (level of agreement), medication costs and cost-effectiveness (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)). A Bayesian efficient design defined 14 choice sets, and a random parameter logit model was used to estimate relative preferences for rheumatologists across countries. Cluster analyses and latent class models were applied to understand preference patterns across countries and among individual rheumatologists. RESULTS: Responses of 559 rheumatologists from 12 European countries were included in the analysis (49% females, mean age 48 years). In all countries, efficacy dominated treatment decisions followed by economic considerations and patients' preferences. Across countries, rheumatologists avoided selecting a treatment that patients disliked. Latent class models revealed four respondent profiles: one traded off all attributes except safety, and the remaining three classes disregarded ICER. Among individual rheumatologists, 57% disregarded ICER and these were more likely from Italy, Romania, Portugal or France, whereas 43% disregarded uncommon/rare side effects and were more likely from Belgium, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden or UK. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, European rheumatologists are willing to trade between treatment efficacy, patients' treatment preferences and economic considerations. However, the degree of trade-off differs between countries and among individuals.

Does the content really matter? A study comparing structure, process, and outcome of team rehabilitation for patients with inflammatory arthritis in two different clinical settings.

OBJECTIVES: To provide a thorough description of team rehabilitation care and compare the structure, process, and outcomes in two specialized arthritis rehabilitation settings. METHODS: Patients with inflammatory arthritis scheduled for inpatient rehabilitation in seven specialized rehabilitation centres and three rheumatology hospital departments in Norway were included consecutively in a prospective cohort study. Patients completed questionnaires at admission, at discharge, and at a 6-month follow-up, and kept a diary regarding structure and process variables during the rehabilitation stay. RESULTS: Eighty patients in rehabilitation centres and 73 in hospital departments were included and 80% responded to the 6-month follow-up questionnaire. The two clinical settings differed significantly with regard to structure variables such as cost, referral of patients, length of stay, and number of health professionals involved, and most process variables reflecting treatment modalities. The most remarkable difference was in the amount of individual intervention compared with group intervention. Despite significant improvements in most outcomes at discharge, the scores deteriorated towards baseline level 6 months later. There was a trend towards more significant improvement during rehabilitation for patients at rehabilitation centres whereas patients at hospitals had more prolonged improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Team rehabilitation for inflammatory arthritis in two different clinical settings differed across most variables for structure and process, but few significant differences in outcome were found. Considering the substantial differences in cost, there is an urgent need for consensus concerning which patients should receive rehabilitation in which setting. Future research on the development and evaluation of methods for prolonging the beneficial effects of rehabilitation is needed.

Comparison of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and the modified HAQ (MHAQ) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Physical disability in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is often assessed by questionnaires. We compared the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) with the modified HAQ (MHAQ) in a cohort of RA patients across various levels of disability, and examined correlations with other measures of physical function. METHODS: Patients with RA (n = 182) completed self-report questionnaires assessing functional capacity. Instruments included the MHAQ and HAQ completed separately, as well as SF-36 and the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales (AIMS). Scores from unadjusted and adjusted HAQ were compared with MHAQ at various disability levels. RESULTS: A clear ceiling effect with aggregation of normal scores for physical function was observed for MHAQ (23%) and HAQ (12%), but not for SF-36 (4%) or AIMS (5%). The correlations between adjusted/unadjusted HAQ and MHAQ scores were 0.85/0.88. A discrepancy in HAQ and MHAQ scores was observed in patients with high levels of disability, especially when MHAQ was compared with the adjusted final HAQ score. Adjustment of HAQ by aids or help increased the final score by an average of 0.15, and both adjusted and unadjusted HAQ scores were numerically clearly higher (mean 0.45 and 0.30, respectively) than the MHAQ score. CONCLUSION: The present findings indicate that MHAQ and HAQ may be applicable as measures of physical capacity in RA patients, but clinicians and researchers should select the appropriate instrument for the setting, and be aware of differences in scores, especially at different disability levels.

Performance of health status measures with a pen based personal digital assistant.

BACKGROUND: Increasing use of self reported health status in clinical practice and research, as well as patient appreciation of monitoring fluctuations of health over time, suggest a need for more frequent collection of data. Electronic use of health status measures in the follow up of patients is a possible way to achieve this. OBJECTIVE: To compare self reported health status measures in a personal digital assistant (PDA) version and a paper/pencil version for test-retest reliability, agreement between scores, and feasibility. METHODS: 30 patients with stable rheumatoid arthritis (mean age 61.6 years, range 49.8 to 70.0; mean disease duration, 16.7 years; 63% female; 67% rheumatoid factor positive; 46.6% on disease modifying antirheumatic drugs) completed self reported health status measures (pain, fatigue, and global health on visual analogue scales (VAS), rheumatoid arthritis disease activity index, modified health assessment questionnaire, SF-36) in a conventional paper based questionnaire version and on a PDA (HP iPAQ, model h5450). Completion was repeated after five to seven days. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability was similar, as evaluated by the Bland-Altman approach, the coefficient of variation, and intraclass correlation coefficients. The scores showed acceptable agreement, but with a slight tendency to higher scores on VAS with the PDA than the paper/pencil version. No significant differences were seen for measures of feasibility (time to complete, satisfaction score), but 65.5% preferred PDA, 20.7% preferred paper, and 13.8% had no preference. CONCLUSIONS: The clinimetric performance of paper/pencil versions of self reported health status measures was similar to an electronic version, using an inexpensive PDA.

A comparison of agreement and sensitivity to change between AIMS2 and a short form of AIMS2 (AIMS2-SF) in more than 1,000 rheumatoid arthritis patients.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the agreement between and compare the sensitivity to change of the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale (AIMS2) and AIMS2 Short Form (AIMS2-SF) in a large sample of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients examined within the framework of a longitudinal observational study. METHODS: Data were collected from patients in a community based RA register by a postal survey in April 1994 (1,030 respondents) and again in 1996 (1,153 respondents), comprising AIMS2, Modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (MHAQ), Medical Outcome Survey SF-36, and other commonly used health status measures. The degree of agreement was examined by plotting differences between AIMS2 and AIMS2-SF against the mean of the 2 scores for the 5 main components. The upper and lower limits of agreement (mean diff. +/- 1.96 SD) were calculated and plotted. The intraclass correlation coefficients were computed by repeated measurement ANOVA. Validity was assessed on the basis of external indicators of health status, and responsiveness on the basis of standardized response means. RESULTS: The AIMS2 and AIMS2-SF showed substantial to near-perfect agreement. Best agreement was seen for the physical and affect components. Better agreement for the symptom component was obtained when replacing item 42 with item 38. Internal consistency was high in all components. The 2 forms correlated similarly with scores from other instruments within the same domains, showing similar construct validity. There was no difference in responsiveness between the 2 forms when using changes in patient assessed global disease activity as external indicator of change in health status, and responsiveness for the physical and symptom dimension was similar to other instruments (SF-36, MHAQ). CONCLUSION: The AIMS2-SF is amenable for use in large surveys with a modification of one item in the symptom scale.

[Management and methodological approaches for the assessment of emotional states in anesthesiology]. / Verfahren und methodische Ansätze zur Erfassung emotionaler Zustände in der Anästhesiologie.

In anaesthesiology emotional states are of great importance. Reduction of anxiety and sedation in the preoperative preparation as well as stress reduction and the process of recovery are a challenge for anaesthetists as perioperative physicians. As emotions have different dimensions of manifestation like experience, expression, behaviour and somatic indicators, all these are needed to describe emotions sufficiently. In a multidimensional approach for the measure of emotional states, the different dimensions, their relationships and interactions are taken into account. The methodological approaches to registration of emotions in the anaesthesiological context are heterogeneous. In this summary the possibilities are differentiated by the source of information. Self-rating by the patient, rating by the observer, expression and behaviour and somatic indicators are taken into consideration. Analysis of the methods for the assessment of emotional states in anaesthesiological setting leads to the following recommendations: The most sensitive source of information is the patient. The rating scale used should be multidimensional and it should take specific as well as unspecific emotional aspects into account. As there are enough rating scales thoroughly developed and up to the demands of the classical test-theory, no ad hoc developed scales should be used. The rating of the emotional state should be supplemented by a rating of the physical state. The rating by the observer can be a valuable addition. The agreement between observers and the reliability of the method must be guaranteed. At presence there is no alternative in clinical practice to simple autonomic parameters such as blood pressure and heart rate as somatic indicators of emotion. Still it is important to consider the normal values for the individual patient. It is necessary to develop and to evaluate simple methods to register characteristics of expression in clinical context.

The responsiveness of health status measures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: comparison of disease-specific and generic instruments.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the responsiveness of 2 disease-specific questionnaires, the Modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (MHAQ) and the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale (AIMS2) with corresponding dimensions (physical function, mental health, pain, and fatigue) in a generic health status measure [the MOS Short Form-36)] in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Within the framework of an observational study, a prospective cohort of 595 patients with RA from a community based patient register responded to a questionnaire at baseline and after 2 years' followup. Changes in patient global disease activity assessed on a categorical verbal rating scale (range 1-5) were used as external indicator of improvement or deterioration. Responsiveness was evaluated with standardized response means (SRM), calculated as mean change score divided by the standard deviation of the mean change score. RESULTS: Changes in patient global disease activity were classified as much better (n = 33), slightly better (n = 108), no change (n = 291), slightly worse (n = 108), and much worse (n = 20). There were no significant differences in responsiveness between SF-36 and the disease-specific measures within the same dimensions of health. The SRM of the tools within the dimension of pain (AIMS2 and SF-36) were moderate (0.5-0.8) to large (> 0.8) consistently in both directions (improvement and deterioration). The physical function subscales detected the same pattern, but the magnitude of the gradients was smaller. The fatigue and mental health subscales did not show any clear and consistent pattern of change. CONCLUSION: In patients with RA, there was no difference in responsiveness of subscales from SF-36 and disease-specific instruments when using changes in patient assessed global disease activity as an external indicator of change in health status. The dimension of pain was most sensitive to changes in patient assessed global disease activity followed by physical function, fatigue, and mental health.

[Basic considerations for increasing flexibility of services in medical rehabilitation]. / Grundsätzliche Uberlegungen zur Flexibilisierung von Leistungen der medizinischen Rehabilitation.

Medical rehabilitation measures continue to be delivered nearly exclusively on an inpatient basis. A graded treatment concept comparable to those in place for instance in the acute or long-term care fields, is non-existent, while the medical need for a community-based ambulatory rehabilitation system is uncontested. Not least before a background of ever scacer financial resources among the rehabilitation agencies involved, non-inpatient rehabilitation has been gaining significance as it is generally hoped to achieve greater economy of service delivery. As a logical consequence, the demand for greater flexibility in delivering medical rehabilitation services and benefits is a focus of attention in the current rehabilitation policy debate. Greater flexibility in medical rehabilitation delivery means replacing portions of rehabilitation measures currently provided on an inpatient basis by partial-hospitalization or ambulatory service delivery; or continuing and complementing inpatient rehabilitation measures by non-inpatient ones; or using non-inpatient measures to provide aftercare post-discharge from inpatient rehabilitation. Moreover, ambulatory rehabilitation is intended to reach the population unamenable to attending far-away inpatient programmes. It is of utmost significance for the future evolution of ambulatory rehabilitation that the various financially responsible agencies involved in rehabilitation take a joint position on the subject of non-inpatient rehabilitation. Several proposals are submitted in this respect; for indications in the fields of neurology, orthopedics, cardiology, and geriatrics, catalogues of degrees of severity considered suitable for ambulatory rehabilitation are first presented.

[Multidimensional psychometric assessment of preoperative mood. Effects of zolpidem compared to phenobarbital combined with promethazine as premedication]. / Mehrdimensionale psychometrische Erfassung des präoperativen psychischen Befindens. Wirkungsvergleich von Zolpidem und Phenobarbital in Kombination mit Promethazin als vorabendliche Prämedikation.

The following double-blind, randomised study dealt with three questions: (1) Is a multidimensional psychometric rating scale suitable for the measurement of mood before anaesthesia? (2) What are the effects of the new benzodiazepine-like drug zolpidem on preoperative mood compared with phenobarbital? (3) Is the combination with Promethazine suggestive? METHODS. Three hundred and four patients were assigned to four groups (group 1: zolpidem 8.03 mg/promethazine 50 mg; group 2: zolpidem 8.03 mg/placebo; group 3: phenobarbital 100 mg/promethazine 50 mg; group 4: phenobarbital 100 mg/placebo). The drugs were given the evening before anaesthesia (09:30-10:00 p.m.). The sample was shifted by age and sex. Mood was measured by a multidimensional rating scale, which assessed aspects of elated mood, anxiety, hostility, deactivation, vigilance, and introversion. Statistics were performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS. Zolpidem led to significantly higher expressions of hostility (negative mood, irritability, aggressiveness) than phenobarbital. Compared with placebo, promethazine led to greater deactivation (more tiredness and numbness, lower level of wakefulness). Specific emotions and somatic aspects were not affected. Patients who had received promethazine received a lower dose of thiopentone for induction of anaesthesia than patients with placebo. CONCLUSIONS. Zolpidem and phenobarbital have many common effects on preoperative mood. Differences were found in the unspecific emotional aspects of agitation and hostility. These negative effects must be weighed against the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic advantages of zolpidem when this drug is administered for premedication. The effects of zolpidem seem to be more sedative than anxiolytic. The study shows that a combination with promethazine is suggestive, because promethazine has a selective deactivating effect. The finding that promethazine lowers the dose of thiopentone required for induction of anaesthesia is an additional interesting point. The results of this study highlight the importance of using multidimensional rating scales for the measurement of mood before anaesthesia.