Canadian Rheumatology Association/Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada Living Treatment Recommendations for the Management of Axial Spondyloarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a set of living treatment recommendations that will provide contemporary guidance on the management of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in Canada. METHODS: The Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC), in conjunction with the Canadian Rheumatology Association, organized a treatment recommendations panel composed of rheumatologists, researchers, allied health professionals, and a patient advocate. A Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT approach was used in which existing guidelines were adopted or adapted to a Canadian context. Recommendations were also placed in a health equity framework. RESULTS: 56 recommendations were made for patients with active axSpA, stable axSpA, active or stable axSpA, comorbidities, and for assessment, screening, and imaging. Recommendations were also made for principles of management, disease monitoring, and ethical considerations. CONCLUSION: These living treatment recommendations will provide up to date guidance for the management of axSpA for Canadian practice. As part of the living model, they will be updated regularly as changes occur in the treatment landscape.

Evaluating high-resolution computed tomography derived 3-D joint space metrics of the metacarpophalangeal joints between rheumatoid arthritis and age- and sex-matched control participants.

Introduction: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is commonly characterized by joint space narrowing. High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) provides unparalleled in vivo visualization and quantification of joint space in extremity joints commonly affected by RA, such as the 2nd and 3rd metacarpophalangeal joints. However, age, sex, and obesity can also influence joint space narrowing. Thus, this study aimed to determine whether HR-pQCT joint space metrics could distinguish between RA patients and controls, and determine the effects of age, sex and body mass index (BMI) on these joint space metrics. Methods: HR-pQCT joint space metrics (volume, width, standard deviation of width, maximum/minimum width, and asymmetry) were acquired from RA patients and age-and sex-matched healthy control participants 2nd and 3rd MCP joints. Joint health and functionality were assessed with ultrasound (i.e., effusion and inflammation), hand function tests, and questionnaires. Results: HR-pQCT-derived 3D joint space metrics were not significantly different between RA and control groups (p > 0.05), despite significant differences in inflammation and joint function (p < 0.05). Joint space volume, mean joint space width (JSW), maximum JSW, minimum JSW were larger in males than females (p < 0.05), while maximum JSW decreased with age. No significant association between joint space metrics and BMI were found. Conclusion: HR-pQCT did not detect group level differences between RA and age-and sex-matched controls. Further research is necessary to determine whether this is due to a true lack of group level differences due to well-controlled RA, or the inability of HR-pQCT to detect a difference.

"I couldn't carry on taking a drug like that": A qualitative study of patient perspectives on side effects from rheumatology drugs.

OBJECTIVES: There is growing interest in collecting outcome information directly from patients in clinical trials. This study evaluates what patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) consider important to know about symptomatic side effects they may experience from a new prescription drug. METHODS: Patients with inflammatory arthritis, who had one or more prescribed drugs for their disease for at least 12 months, participated in focus groups and individual interviews. Discussions were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: We conducted seven focus groups with 34 participants across three continents. We found four overarching and two underpinning themes. The 'impact on life' was connected to participants 'daily life', 'family life', 'work life', and 'social life'. In 'psychological and physical aspects' participants described 'limitation to physical function', 'emotional dysregulation' and 'an overall mental state'. Extra tests, hospital visits and payment for medication were considered a 'time, energy and financial burden' of side effects. Participants explained important measurement issues to be 'severity', 'frequency', and 'duration'. Underpinning these issues, participants evaluated the 'benefit-harm-balance' which includes 'the cumulative burden' of having several side effects and the persistence of side effects over time. CONCLUSIONS: In treatment for RMDs, there seems to be an urgent need for feasible measures of patient-reported bother (impact on life and cumulative burden) from side effects and the benefit-harm-balance. These findings contribute new evidence in support of a target domain-an outcome that represents the patient voice evaluating the symptomatic treatment-related side effects for people with RMDs enrolled in clinical trials.

A population-based analysis of rheumatology care patterns for inflammatory arthritis during COVID-19 in Alberta, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on inflammatory arthritis (IA) rheumatology care in Alberta, Canada. METHODS: We used linked provincial health administrative datasets to establish an incident cohort of individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) seen at least once by a rheumatologist. We examined incidence rates (IR) per 100,000 population, and patterns of follow-up care between 2011 and 2022. In a subset of individuals diagnosed five years prior to the pandemic, we report on those lost to follow-up during the pandemic, and those with virtual care visits followed by in-person visit within 30 days. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine patient characteristics associated with these patterns of care. RESULTS: The IR for RA in 2020 declined compared to previous years (44.6), but not for AS (9.2) or PsA (9.1). In 2021 IRs rose (RA 49.5; AS 11.8; PsA 11.8). Among those diagnosed within 5 years of the pandemic, 632 (6.0 %) were lost to follow-up, with characteristics of those lost to follow-up differing between IA types. 1444 individuals had at least one virtual visit followed within 30 days by an in-person follow-up. This was less common in males (OR 0.69-0.79) and more common for those with a higher frequency of physician visits prior to the pandemic (OR 1.27-1.32). CONCLUSION: Impacts of patterns of care during the pandemic should be further explored for healthcare planning to uphold optimal care access and promote effective use of virtual care.

Operationalizing the GRADE-equity criterion to inform guideline recommendations: application to a medical cannabis guideline.

OBJECTIVES: Incorporating health equity considerations into guideline development often requires information beyond that gathered through traditional evidence synthesis methodology. This article outlines an operationalization plan for the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-equity criterion to gather and assess evidence from primary studies within systematic reviews, enhancing guideline recommendations to promote equity. We demonstrate its use in a clinical guideline on medical cannabis for chronic pain. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We reviewed GRADE guidance and resources recommended by team members regarding the use of evidence for equity considerations, drafted an operationalization plan, and iteratively refined it through team discussion and feedback and piloted it on a medicinal cannabis guideline. RESULTS: We propose a seven-step approach: 1) identify disadvantaged populations, 2) examine available data for specific populations, 3) evaluate population baseline risk for primary outcomes, 4) assess representation of these populations in primary studies, 5) appraise analyses, 6) note barriers to implementation of effective interventions for these populations, and 7) suggest supportive strategies to facilitate implementation of effective interventions. CONCLUSION: Our approach assists guideline developers in recognizing equity considerations, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Its application across various guideline topics can verify its feasibility and necessary adjustments.

Stakeholder endorsement advancing the implementation of a patient-reported domain for harms in rheumatology clinical trials: Outcome of the OMERACT Safety Working Group.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an understanding of the concept of safety/harms experienced by patients involved in clinical trials for their rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and to seek input from the OMERACT community before moving forward to developing or selecting an outcome measurement instrument. METHODS: OMERACT 2023 presented and discussed interview results from 34 patients indicating that up to 171 items might be important for patients' harm-reporting. RESULTS: Domain was defined in detail and supported by qualitative work. Participants in the Special-Interest-Group endorsed (96 %) that enough qualitative data are available to start Delphi survey(s). CONCLUSION: We present a definition of safety/harms that represents the patient voice (i.e., patients' perception of safety) evaluating the symptomatic treatment-related adverse events for people with RMDs enrolled in clinical trials.

Crowd-sourcing and automation facilitated the identification and classification of randomized controlled trials in a living review.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate an approach using automation and crowdsourcing to identify and classify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a living systematic review (LSR). METHODS: Records from a database search for RCTs in RA were screened first by machine learning and Cochrane Crowd to exclude non-RCTs, then by trainee reviewers using a Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) annotator platform to assess eligibility and classify the trial to the appropriate review. Disagreements were resolved by experts using a custom online tool. We evaluated the efficiency gains, sensitivity, accuracy, and interrater agreement (kappa scores) between reviewers. RESULTS: From 42,452 records, machine learning and Cochrane Crowd excluded 28,777 (68%), trainee reviewers excluded 4,529 (11%), and experts excluded 7,200 (17%). The 1,946 records eligible for our LSR represented 220 RCTs and included 148/149 (99.3%) of known eligible trials from prior reviews. Although excluded from our LSRs, 6,420 records were classified as other RCTs in RA to inform future reviews. False negative rates among trainees were highest for the RCT domain (12%), although only 1.1% of these were for the primary record. Kappa scores for two reviewers ranged from moderate to substantial agreement (0.40-0.69). CONCLUSION: A screening approach combining machine learning, crowdsourcing, and trainee participation substantially reduced the screening burden for expert reviewers and was highly sensitive.

Preferences of Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease for Invasive Versus Conservative Treatment of Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Background Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) can experience acute coronary syndromes (ACS) with high morbidity and mortality. Early invasive management of ACS is recommended for most high-risk patients; however, choosing between an early invasive versus conservative management approach may be influenced by the unique risk of kidney failure for patients with CKD. Methods and Results This discrete choice experiment measured the preferences of patients with CKD for future cardiovascular events versus acute kidney injury and kidney failure following invasive heart procedures for ACS. The discrete choice experiment, consisting of 8 choice tasks, was administered to adult patients attending 2 CKD clinics in Calgary, Alberta. The part-worth utilities of each attribute were determined using multinomial logit models, and preference heterogeneity was explored using latent class analysis. A total of 140 patients completed the discrete choice experiment. The mean age of patients was 64 years, 52% were male, and mean estimated glomerular filtration rate was 37 mL/min per 1.73 m2. Across the range of levels, risk of mortality was the most important attribute, followed by risk of end-stage kidney disease and risk of recurrent myocardial infarction. Latent class analysis identified 2 distinct preference groups. The largest group included 115 (83%) patients, who placed the greatest value on treatment benefits and expressed the strongest preference for reducing mortality. A second group of 25 (17%) patients was identified who were procedure averse and had a strong preference toward conservative management of ACS and avoiding acute kidney injury requiring dialysis. Conclusions The preferences of most patients with CKD for management of ACS were most influenced by lowering mortality. However, a distinct subgroup of patients was strongly averse to invasive management. This highlights the importance of clarifying patient preferences to ensure treatment decisions are aligned with patient values.

Preferences for COVID-19 Vaccination in People With Chronic Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how people with chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) trade off the benefits and risks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine options. METHODS: We conducted an online discrete-choice experiment in people with IMIDs to quantify the relative importance (RI) of attributes relevant to COVID-19 vaccination. Participants were recruited between May and August 2021 through patient groups and clinics in Canada, and completed 10 choices where they selected 1 of 2 hypothetical vaccine options or no vaccine. The RI of each attribute was estimated and heterogeneity was explored through latent class analysis. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 551 people (89% female, mean age 46 yrs) with a range of IMIDs (inflammatory bowel disease [48%], rheumatoid arthritis [38%], systemic lupus erythematosus [16%]). Most had received 1 (94%) or 2 (64%) COVID-19 vaccinations. Across the ranges of levels considered, vaccine effectiveness was most important (RI = 66%), followed by disease flare (21%), rare but serious risks (9%), and number/timing of injections (4%). Patients would accept a risk of disease flare requiring a treatment change of ≤ 8.8% for a vaccine with a small absolute increase in effectiveness (10%). Of the 3 latent classes, the group with the greatest aversion to disease flare were more likely to be male and have lower incomes, but this group still valued effectiveness higher than other attributes. CONCLUSION: Patients perceived the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination to outweigh rare serious risks and disease flare. This supports COVID-19 vaccine strategies that maximize effectiveness, while recognizing the heterogeneity in preferences that exists.

Investigating Associations Between Access to Rheumatology Care, Treatment, Continuous Care, and Healthcare Utilization and Costs Among Older Individuals With Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between rheumatologist access, early treatment, and ongoing care of older-onset rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and healthcare utilization and costs following diagnosis. METHODS: We analyzed data from a population-based inception cohort of individuals aged > 65 years with RA in Ontario, Canada, diagnosed between 2002 and 2014 with follow-up to 2019. We assessed 4 performance measures in the first 4 years following diagnosis, including access to rheumatology care, yearly follow-up, timely treatment, and ongoing treatment with a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. We examined annual healthcare utilization, mean direct healthcare costs, and whether the performance measures were associated with costs in year 5. RESULTS: A total of 13,293 individuals met inclusion criteria. The mean age was 73.7 (SD 5.7) years and 68% were female. Total mean direct healthcare cost per individual increased annually and was CAD $13,929 in year 5. All 4 performance measures were met for 35% of individuals. In multivariable analyses, costs for not meeting access to rheumatology care and timely treatment performance measures were 20% (95% CI 8-32) and 6% (95% CI 1-12) higher, respectively, than where those measures were met. The main driver of cost savings among individuals meeting all 4 performance measures were from lower complex continuing care, home care, and long-term care costs, as well as fewer hospitalizations and emergency visits. CONCLUSION: Access to rheumatologists for RA diagnosis, timely treatment, and ongoing care are associated with lower total healthcare costs at 5 years. Investments in improving access to care may be associated with long-term health system savings.

Canadian Rheumatology Association Recommendations for the Screening, Monitoring, and Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis-Associated Uveitis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop Canadian recommendations for the screening, monitoring, and treatment of uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). METHODS: Recommendations were developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT approach. A working group of 14 pediatric rheumatologists, 6 ophthalmologists, 2 methodologists, and 3 caregiver/patient representatives reviewed recent American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/Arthritis Foundation (AF) recommendations and worked in pairs to develop evidence-to-decision (EtD) tables. A survey to assess agreement and recommendations requiring group discussion was completed. EtD tables were presented, discussed, and voted upon at a virtual meeting, to produce the final recommendations. A health equity framework was applied to all aspects of the adolopment process including the EtD tables, survey responses, and virtual meeting discussion. RESULTS: The survey identified that 7 of the 19 recommendations required rigorous discussion. Seventy-five percent of working group members attended the virtual meeting to discuss controversial topics as they pertained to the Canadian environment, including timing to first eye exam, frequency of screening, escalation criteria for systemic and biologic therapy, and the role of nonbiologic therapies. Equity issues related to access to care and advanced therapeutics across Canadian provinces and territories were highlighted. Following the virtual meeting, 5 recommendations were adapted, 2 recommendations were removed, and 1 was developed de novo. CONCLUSION: Recommendations for JIA-associated uveitis were adapted to the Canadian context by a working group of pediatric rheumatologists, ophthalmologists with expertise in the management of uveitis, and parent/patient input, taking into consideration cost, equity, and access.

Exploring perceptions of using preference elicitation methods to inform clinical trial design in rheumatology: A qualitative study and OMERACT collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trial design requires value judgements and understanding patient preferences may help inform these judgements, for example when prioritizing treatment candidates, designing complex interventions, selecting appropriate outcomes, determining clinically important thresholds, or weighting composite outcomes. Preference elicitation methods are quantitative approaches that can estimate patients' preferences to quantify the absolute or relative importance of outcomes or other attributes relevant to the decision context. We aimed to explore stakeholder perceptions of using preference elicitation methods to inform judgements when designing clinical trials in rheumatology. METHODS: We conducted 1-on-1 semi-structured interviews with patients with rheumatic diseases and rheumatology clinicians/researchers, recruited using purposive and snowball sampling. Participants were provided pre-interview materials, including a video and a document, to introduce the topic of preference elicitation methods and case examples of potential applications to clinical trials. Interviews were conducted via Zoom and were audio-recorded and transcribed. We used thematic analysis to analyze our data. RESULTS: We interviewed 17 patients and 9 clinicians/researchers, until data and inductive thematic saturation were achieved within each group. Themes were grouped into overall perceptions, barriers, and facilitators. Patients and clinicians/researchers generally agreed that preference elicitation studies can improve clinical trial design, but that many considerations are required around preference heterogeneity and feasibility. A key barrier identified was the additional resources and expertise required to measure and incorporate preferences effectively in trial design. Key facilitators included developing guidance on how to use preference elicitation to inform trial design, as well as the role of external decision-makers in developing such guidance, and the need to leverage the movement towards patient engagement in research to encourage including patient preferences when designing trials. CONCLUSION: Our findings allowed us to consider the potential applications of patient preferences in trial design according to stakeholders within rheumatology who are involved in the trial process. Future research should be conducted to develop comprehensive guidance on how to meaningfully include patient preferences when designing clinical trials in rheumatology. Doing so may have important downstream effects for shared decision-making, especially given the chronic nature of rheumatic diseases.

The Evaluation of Guideline Quality in Rheumatic Diseases.

We evaluated the quality of selected rheumatology guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Guidelines were also assessed to determine if Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology had been used during development and for the inclusion of health inequity considerations. Only half of the guidelines used the GRADE methodology, and this was associated with higher AGREE II ratings in the Rigor of Development domain. Ongoing areas identified for improvement included more meaningful engagement of patients in guideline panels, increased transparency of the management of conflicts of interest, improved reporting of strategies for guideline implementation, and increased consideration of the health equity implications throughout guideline development and implementation.

A Framework for the Development of Living Practice Guidelines in Health Care.

BACKGROUND: Living practice guidelines are increasingly being used to ensure that recommendations are responsive to rapidly emerging evidence. OBJECTIVE: To develop a framework that characterizes the processes of development of living practice guidelines in health care. DESIGN: First, 3 background reviews were conducted: a scoping review of methods papers, a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and an analytic review of selected living practice guidelines. Second, the core team drafted the first version of the framework. Finally, the core team refined the framework through an online survey and online discussions with a multidisciplinary international group of stakeholders. SETTING: International. PARTICIPANTS: Multidisciplinary group of 51 persons who have experience with guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: Not applicable. RESULTS: A major principle of the framework is that the unit of update in a living guideline is the individual recommendation. In addition to providing definitions, the framework addresses several processes. The planning process should address the organization's adoption of the living methodology as well as each specific guideline project. The production process consists of initiation, maintenance, and retirement phases. The reporting should cover the evidence surveillance time stamp, the outcome of reassessment of the body of evidence (when applicable), and the outcome of revisiting a recommendation (when applicable). The dissemination process may necessitate the use of different venues, including one for formal publication. LIMITATION: This study does not provide detailed or practical guidance for how the described concepts would be best implemented. CONCLUSION: The framework will help guideline developers in planning, producing, reporting, and disseminating living guideline projects. It will also help research methodologists study the processes of living guidelines. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Canadian Rheumatology Association Living Guidelines for the Pharmacological Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis With Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs.

OBJECTIVE: To provide the initial installment of a living guideline that will provide up-to-date guidance on the pharmacological management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Canada. METHODS: The Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) formed a multidisciplinary panel composed of rheumatologists, researchers, methodologists, and patients. In this first installment of our living guideline, the panel developed a recommendation for the tapering of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/ts DMARD) therapy in patients in sustained remission using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach, including a health equity framework developed for the Canadian RA population. The recommendation was adapted from a living guideline of the Australia & New Zealand Musculoskeletal Clinical Trials Network. RESULTS: In people with RA who are in sustained low disease activity or remission for at least 6 months, we suggest offering stepwise reduction in the dose of b/tsDMARD without discontinuation, in the context of a shared decision, provided patients are able to rapidly access rheumatology care and reestablish their medications if needed. In patients where rapid access to care or reestablishing access to medications is challenging, we conditionally recommend against tapering. A patient decision aid was developed to complement the recommendation. CONCLUSION: This living guideline will provide contemporary RA management recommendations for Canadian practice. New recommendations will be added over time and updated, with the latest recommendation, evidence summaries, and Evidence to Decision summaries available through the CRA website (www.rheum.ca).

Development of an interdisciplinary early rheumatoid arthritis care pathway.

BACKGROUND: To develop an interdisciplinary care pathway for early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) including referral triage, diagnosis, and management. METHODS: Our process was a four-phase approach. In Phase 1, an anonymous survey was electronically distributed to division rheumatologists. This provided data to a small interprofessional working group of rheumatology team members who drafted an initial care pathway informed by evidence-based practice in Phase 2. In Phase 3, an education day was held with approximately 40 physicians (rheumatologists and rheumatology residents), members of our interprofessional team, and two clinic managers to review the proposed care elements through presentations and small group discussions. The care pathway was revised for content and implementation considerations based on feedback received. Implementation of the care pathway and development of strategies for evaluation is ongoing across multiple practice sites (Phase 4). RESULTS: Our care pathway promotes an approach to patient-centered early RA care using an interdisciplinary approach. Care pathway elements include triage processes, critical diagnostics, pre-treatment screening and vaccinations, and uptake of suggested RA pharmacologic treatment using shared decision-making strategies. Pathway implementation has been facilitated by nursing protocols and evaluation includes continuous monitoring of key indicators. CONCLUSION: The 'Calgary Early RA Care Pathway' emphasizes a patient-centered and interdisciplinary approach to early RA identification and treatment. Implementation and evaluation of this care pathway is ongoing to support, highest quality care for patients.

Crowdsourcing trainees in a living systematic review provided valuable experiential learning opportunities: a mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVES: To understand trainee experiences of participating in a living systematic review (LSR) for rheumatoid arthritis and the potential benefits in terms of experiential evidence-based medicine (EBM) education. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a mixed-methods study with trainees who participated in the LSR and who were recruited broadly from training programs in two countries. Trainees received task-specific training and completed one or more tasks in the review: assessing article eligibility, data extraction, and quality assessment. Trainees completed a survey followed by a one-on-one interview. Data were triangulated to produce broad themes. RESULTS: Twenty one trainees, most of whom had a little prior experience with systematic reviews, reported a positive overall experience. Key benefits included learning opportunities, task segmentation (ability to focus on a single task, as opposed to an entire review), working in a supportive environment, international collaboration, and incentives such as authorship or acknowledgment. Trainees reported improvement in their competency as a Scholar, Collaborator, Leader, and Medical Expert. Challenges included communication and technical difficulties and appropriate matching of tasks to trainee skillsets. CONCLUSION: Participating in an LSR provided benefits to a wide range of trainees and may provide an opportunity for experiential EBM training, while helping LSR sustainability.

Development and testing of the rheumatoid arthritis quality of care survey.

OBJECTIVES: The Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) Quality of Care Survey (RAQCS) was developed to measure care quality according to a previously developed national RA quality improvement framework. METHODS: The development of the RAQCS occurred over 3 phases. First, the survey was developed by a team of healthcare providers, researchers, and two patient partners based on the existing national quality framework's 21 performance measures (PMs) and strategic objectives. Second, cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted with individuals living with RA to identify survey clarity, appropriateness of survey questions, and response options. Third, the survey was revised and distributed to participants recruited from Rheum4U (rheumatology longitudinal cohort). Results were tabulated and compared with a chart audit of participant medical records. RESULTS: Fifty-three participants completed the RAQCS. High performance (i.e., ≥70% meeting PM) was observed for 13 of 20 PMs. Lower performance was seen for the remaining PMs, which included documentation of body mass index (BMI) and smoking status, discussion of physical activity goals, comorbidity management including risk assessments for cardiovascular health and fragility fractures and disease activity assessment. There was high agreement (≥70%) between the RAQCS and chart review for 9 of 20 PMs. CONCLUSIONS: High agreement was observed between the RAQCS and chart review for selected PMs. The RAQCS may also be a valuable tool for quality improvement for measures where data are not usually available through other sources. Further testing of the RAQCS is needed to ascertain its reliability and validity as a patient self-reported tool to measure RA care quality.