Flare Rate Thresholds for Patient Assessment of Disease Activity States in Gout.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between gout flare rate and self-categorization into remission, low disease activity (LDA), and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS). METHODS: Patients with gout self-categorized as remission, LDA, and PASS, and reported number of flares over the preceding 6 and 12 months. Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine the association between being in each disease state (LDA and PASS were combined) and flare count, and self-reported current flare. A distribution-based approach and extended Youden index identified possible flare count thresholds for each state. RESULTS: Investigators from 17 countries recruited 512 participants. Remission was associated with a median recalled flare count of zero over both 6 and 12 months. Each recalled flare reduced the likelihood of self-perceived remission compared with being in higher disease activity than LDA/PASS, by 52% for 6 months and 23% for 12 months, and the likelihood of self-perceived LDA/PASS by 15% and 5% for 6 and 12 months, respectively. A threshold of 0 flares in preceding 6 and 12 months was associated with correct classification of self-perceived remission in 58% and 56% of cases, respectively. CONCLUSION: Flares are significantly associated with perceptions of disease activity in gout, and no flares over the prior 6 or 12 months is necessary for most people to self-categorize as being in remission. However, recalled flare counts alone do not correctly classify all patients into self-categorized disease activity states, suggesting that other factors may also contribute to self-perceived gout disease activity.

The eumusc.net standards of care for rheumatoid arthritis: importance and current implementation according to patients and healthcare providers in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: The eumusc.net standards of care (SOCs) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) aimed to improve quality of care across Europe. This study investigated importance and implementation of each standard according to patients and health care professionals (HCPs) in the Netherlands and identified barriers towards implementation. METHODS: Dutch patients, rheumatologists and rheumatology nurses rated importance and implementation (0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS); 10=most important/best implemented) for each of the 20 SOCs. A care gap, adjusted for importance, was calculated: (100=highest gap). Statistical differences between a) patients and HCPs and b) subgroups of patients (demographics, health) were tested. Additionally, patients indicated agreement (0-10) with 6 implementation barriers. RESULTS: 386 patients and 91 HCPs were included. Both ranked adequate disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug treatment (9.3(SD1.2), 9.2(SD0.8)), access to care in emergencies (9.2(SD1.2), 9.2(SD1.0)) and regular re-appraisal when treatment fails (9.2(SD1.3), 9.0(SD1.0)) the most important SOCs, and these were among the best implemented (NRS≥8.5) SOCs. After accounting for applicability, patients and HCP identified care gaps for early diagnosis (25.5(SD32.0), 22.3(SD16.3)), availability of a treatment plan (25.1(SD22.7), 25.7(SD18.5)) and patients also for a regular schedule of assessment of disease (28.6(SD25.5)).Patients with poorer health or higher education scored systematically lower on care received while sharing similar priorities. Patients and HCPs considered limited reimbursement of specific health services a main barrier for implementation and patients additionally identified limited time of physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Dutch patients and HCPs overall agreed on priorities in care and found relevant SOCs well implemented. However, suggestions for improvement were raised especially by patients with poorer health and/or higher education.