Rhekiss-The German Register for Child Wish and Pregnancies in Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases.

In pharmacoepidemiology, robust data are needed to judge the impact of drug treatment on pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes and breast-fed infants. As pregnant and breastfeeding women are usually excluded from randomised clinical trials, observational studies are required. One of those data sources are pregnancy registers specifically developed to focus on certain diseases or disease groups. The German Rhekiss register investigates pregnancies in women with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD). Rhekiss is a nationwide, multicentre, longitudinal study, in which women aged 18 years or older with an underlying IRD can be enrolled by a rheumatologist either when planning a pregnancy or in the first half of pregnancy. Data are collected prospectively at regular follow-up visits. Rheumatologists and patients provide information in a web-based system before conception (if enrolment was at the time of pregnancy planning), during and after pregnancy. A smartphone app is available for patients. Maternal and clinical information, general laboratory markers, treatment with antirheumatic and other drugs, adverse events, items related to course and outcome of pregnancy and the health of the child are uniformly assessed for all diseases. Individual information on the IRD includes classification criteria, diagnosis-specific laboratory parameters, clinical parameters and validated instruments to measure disease activity or damage. Furthermore, patient-reported outcome measures are captured. A total of 2013 individual patients have been enrolled in the register, and data on 1801 completed pregnancies are available. In summary, Rhekiss is a comprehensive and complex register that can answer various research questions about pregnancy in women with chronic IRDs.

Medical Care as Flea Market Bargaining? An International Interdisciplinary Study of Varieties of Shared Decision Making in Physician-Patient Interactions.

Phenomenon: Shared decision making (SDM) is a core ideal in the interaction between healthcare providers and patients, but the implementation of the SDM ideal in clinical routines has been a relatively slow process. Approach: In a sociological study, 71 interactions between physicians and simulated patients enacting chronic heart failure were video-recorded in China, Germany, the Netherlands, and Turkey as part of a quasi-experimental research design. Participating physicians varied in specialty and level of experience. The secondary analysis presented in this article used content analysis to study core components of SDM in all of the 71 interactions and a grounded theory approach to observe how physicians responded actively to patients even though they did not actively employ the SDM ideal. Findings: Full realization of the SDM ideal remains an exception, but various aspects of SDM in physician-patient interaction were observed in all four locations. Analyses of longer interactions show dynamic processes of interaction that sometimes surprised both patient and physician. We observed varieties of SDM that differ from the SDM ideal but arguably achieve what the SDM ideal is intended to achieve. Our analysis suggests a need to revisit the SDM ideal-to consider whether varieties of SDM may be acceptable, even valuable, in their own right. Insights: The gap between the SDM ideal and SDM as implemented in clinical practice may in part be explained by the tendency of medicine to define and teach SDM through a narrow lens of checklist evaluations. The authors support the argument that SDM defies a checklist approach. SDM is not uniform, but nuanced, dependent on circumstances and setting. As SDM is co-produced by patients and physicians in a dynamic process of interaction, medical researchers should consider and medical learners should be exposed to varieties of SDM-related practice rather than a single idealized model. Observing and discussing worked examples contributes to the physician's development of realistic expectations and personal professional growth.

No difference in clinical parameters and drug retention in PsA patients receiving b/tsDMARD monotherapy versus combination with methotrexate: data from the RABBIT-SpA registry.

BACKGROUND: The potential benefit of methotrexate (MTX) in combination with biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is still a matter of debate. OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical and patient reported characteristics as well as drug retention rates in PsA patients receiving b/tsDMARD monotherapy or in combination with MTX. METHODS: RABBIT-SpA is a prospective longitudinal cohort study including axSpA and PsA patients. In this analysis, PsA patients were stratified into two groups: starting b/tsDMARD as monotherapy or in combination with MTX. Treatment retention was compared by drug survival analysis. RESULTS: 69% of the patients (n=900) started b/tsDMARD as monotherapy while 31% were treated in combination with MTX (n=405). At baseline, clinical domains like skin, nail and joint affection, dactylitis, enthesitis and axial involvement were similar between the groups. Only the patients' satisfaction concerning tolerability of the previous treatment was significantly better in the combination group at treatment start. Drug retention rates did not differ between the groups (p=0.4). At 6/12 months, 66%/48% of patients in monotherapy and 67%/48% in the combination group were still on their original treatment. CONCLUSIONS: We did not identify any clinical parameters with notable influence on the choice of b/tsDMARD mono or MTX-combination therapy in PsA. Drug retention rates are similar between mono and combination therapy. It seems that the decision to continue MTX at initiation of b/tsDMARDs is mostly based on the subjective tolerability of MTX treatment.