Estimation of the burden of shielding among a cross-section of patients attending rheumatology clinics with SLE-data from the BSR audit of systemic lupus erythematosus.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to estimate what proportion of people with SLE attending UK rheumatology clinics would be categorized as being at high risk from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and therefore asked to shield, and explore what implications this has for rheumatology clinical practice. METHODS: We used data from the British Society for Rheumatology multicentre audit of SLE, which included a large, representative cross-sectional sample of patients attending UK Rheumatology clinics with SLE. We calculated who would receive shielding advice using the British Society for Rheumatology's risk stratification guidance and accompanying scoring grid, and assessed whether ethnicity and history of nephritis were over-represented in the shielding group. RESULTS: The audit included 1003 patients from 51 centres across all 4 nations of the UK. Overall 344 (34.3%) patients had a shielding score ≥3 and would have been advised to shield. People with previous or current LN were 2.6 (1.9-3.4) times more likely to be in the shielding group than people with no previous LN (P < 0.001). Ethnicity was not evenly distributed between the groups (chi-squared P < 0.001). Compared with White people, people of Black ethnicity were 1.9 (1.3-2.8) and Asian 1.9 (1.3-2.7) times more likely to be in the shielding group. Increased risk persisted after controlling for LN. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates the large number of people with SLE who are likely to be shielding. Implications for clinical practice include considering communication across language and cultural differences, and ways to conduct renal assessment including urinalysis, during telephone and video consultations for patients who are shielding.

BSR guideline on the management of adults with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) 2018: baseline multi-centre audit in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the baseline care provided to patients with SLE attending UK Rheumatology units, audited against standards derived from the recently published BSR guideline for the management of adults with SLE, the NICE technology appraisal for belimumab, and NHS England's clinical commissioning policy for rituximab. METHODS: SLE cases attending outpatient clinics during any 4-week period between February and June 2018 were retrospectively audited to assess care at the preceding visit. The effect of clinical environment (general vs dedicated CTD/vasculitis clinic and specialized vs non-specialized centre) were tested. Bonferroni's correction was applied to the significance level. RESULTS: Fifty-one units participated. We audited 1021 episodes of care in 1003 patients (median age 48 years, 74% diagnosed >5 years ago). Despite this disease duration, 286 (28.5%) patients had active disease. Overall in 497 (49%) clinic visits, it was recorded that the patient was receiving prednisolone, including in 28.5% of visits where disease was assessed as inactive. Low documented compliance (<60% clinic visits) was identified for audit standards relating to formal disease-activity assessment, reduction of drug-related toxicity and protection against comorbidities and damage. Compared with general clinics, dedicated clinics had higher compliance with standards for appropriate urine protein quantification (85.1% vs 78.1%, P ≤ 0.001). Specialized centres had higher compliance with BILAG Biologics Register recruitment (89.4% vs 44.4%, P ≤ 0.001) and blood pressure recording (95.3% vs 84.1%). CONCLUSIONS: This audit highlights significant unmet need for better disease control and reduction in corticosteroid toxicity and is an opportunity to improve compliance with national guidelines. Higher performance with nephritis screening in dedicated clinics supports wider adoption of this service-delivery model.

Management of gout by UK rheumatologists: a British Society for Rheumatology national audit.

Objectives: To assess the concordance of gout management by UK rheumatologists with evidence-based best-practice recommendations. Methods: Data were collected on patients newly referred to UK rheumatology out-patient departments over an 8-week period. Baseline data included demographics, method of diagnosis, clinical features, comorbidities, urate-lowering therapy (ULT), prophylaxis and blood tests. Twelve months later, the most recent serum uric acid level was collected. Management was compared with audit standards derived from the 2006 EULAR recommendations, 2007 British Society for Rheumatology/British Health Professionals in Rheumatology guideline and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence febuxostat technology appraisal. Results: Data were collected for 434 patients from 91 rheumatology departments (mean age 59.8 years, 82% male). Diagnosis was crystal-proven in 13%. Of 106 taking a diuretic, this was reduced/stopped in 29%. ULT was continued/initiated in 76% of those with one or more indication for ULT. One hundred and fifty-eight patients started allopurinol: the starting dose was most commonly 100 mg daily (82%); in those with estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min the highest starting dose was 100 mg daily. Of 199 who started ULT, prophylaxis was co-prescribed for 94%. Fifty patients started a uricosuric or febuxostat: 84% had taken allopurinol previously. Of 44 commenced on febuxostat, 18% had a history of heart disease. By 12 months, serum uric acid levels ⩽360 and <300 µmol/l were achieved by 45 and 25%, respectively. Conclusion: Gout management by UK rheumatologists concords well with guidelines for most audit standards. However, fewer than half of patients achieved a target serum uric level over 12 months. Rheumatologists should help ensure that ULT is optimized to achieve target serum uric acid levels to benefit patients.

Outcomes and compliance with standards of care in anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis-insights from a large multiregion audit.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to conduct a large audit of routine care for patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis. METHODS: We invited all 34 hospitals within one health region in England to undertake a retrospective case note audit of all patients newly diagnosed or treated with CYC or rituximab (RTX) for ANCA-associated vasculitis from April 2013 to December 2014. We compared clinical practice to the British Society for Rheumatology guidelines for the management of adults with ANCA-associated vasculitis and the use of RTX with the National Health Service (NHS) England commissioning policy and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology appraisal. RESULTS: We received data from 213 patients. Among 130 newly diagnosed patients, delay from admission to diagnosis ranged from 0 to 53 days (median 6, interquartile range 3-10.5) for those diagnosed as inpatients. BVAS was recorded in 8% of patients at diagnosis. Remission at 6 months was achieved in 83% of patients. The 1-year survival was 91.5%. A total of 130 patients received CYC for new diagnosis or relapse. The correct dose of i.v. CYC (within 100 mg of the target dose calculated for age, weight and creatinine) was administered in 58% of patients. A total of 25% of patients had an infection requiring hospital admission during or within 6 months of completing their CYC therapy. Seventy-six patients received RTX for new diagnosis or relapse. A total of 97% of patients met the NHS England or NICE eligibility criteria. Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia prophylaxis (recommended in the summary of product characteristics) was given in only 65% of patients. CONCLUSION: We identified opportunities to improve care, including compliance with safety standards for delivery of CYC. Development of a national treatment protocol/checklist to reduce this heterogeneity in care should be considered as a priority.

The perplexity of prescribing and switching of biologic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: a UK regional audit of practice.

BACKGROUND: Biologic drugs are expensive treatments used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Switching among them is common practice in patients who have had an inadequate response or intolerable adverse events. The National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) UK, which aims to curtail postcode prescribing, has provided guidance on the sequential prescription of these drugs. This study sought to evaluate the extent to which rheumatology centres across the Midlands were complying with NICE guidance on the switching of biologic drugs in RA, as well as analyse the various prescribing patterns of these drugs. METHODS: Data was collected via a web-based tool on RA patients who had undergone at least one switch of a biologic drug during 2011. The standards specified in NICE technology appraisals (TA130, TA186, TA195, TA198, and TA225) were used to assess compliance with NICE guidance. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: There were 335 biologic drug switches in 317 patients. The most common reason given for switching to a drug was NICE guidelines (242, 72.2%), followed by Physician's choice (122, 33.4%). Lack of effect was the most common reason for discontinuing a drug (224, 67%). For patients on Rituximab, Methotrexate was used in 133 switches (76.9% of the time). Overall NICE compliance for all units was 65% (range 50 to 100%), with anti-TNFα to anti-TNFα switches for inefficacy making up the majority of non-compliant switches. CONCLUSION: This study draws attention to the enigma and disparity of commissioning and prescribing of biologic drugs in RA. Currently the evidence would not support switching of a biologic drug for non-clinical purposes such as economic pressures. Flexibility in prescribing should be encouraged: biologic therapy should be individualised based on the mode of action and likely tolerability of these drugs. Further work should focus on the evidence for using particular sequences of biologic drugs.

To what extent is NICE guidance on the management of rheumatoid arthritis in adults being implemented in clinical practice? A regional survey.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic disease associated with significant morbidity. The 2009 NICE guidance advises on the management of patients with RA. In this study, we undertook a survey to assess the implementation of the guidance into practice across the Midlands. In total, 19 rheumatology units participated, of which nine have designated early inflammatory arthritis clinics (EIAC). Data for 311 patients with RA attending clinics were collected during a two week period. The median time from symptom onset to first visit was four months. Of the patients, 95.6% were seen within 12 weeks of referral. Of those seen in EIAC, 75.9% had erosions documented on X-rays versus 49.4% of non-EIAC patients. In addition, 57.9% of patients were offered combination disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) therapy in EIAC, versus 30.4% in non-EIAC units. Monthly disease-activity scores were calculated more in patients attending EIAC than non-EIAC units (51.1% versus 25.4%). Based on our results, there is significant regional variation in implementation of the NICE guidance. In addition, patients with RA attending EIACs are more likely to receive a treat-to-target approach.

Compliance with NICE guidance on the use of anti-TNFalpha agents in ankylosing spondylitis: an east and west Midlands regional audit.

Here we report on an audit performed to examine compliance with National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines for the use of anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNFalpha) in treating patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Data from 17 rheumatology centres across the Midlands were collected prospectively from patients with AS attending outpatient clinics and retrospectively in patients receiving anti-TNFalpha but not attending outpatient clinics during the audit. In total, 80% of the 416 patients for whom data were collected were male. Of the 238 patients recruited prospectively, 41% were receiving anti-TNFalpha. Reviewing all patients on anti-TNFalpha (N=275), pre-treatment assessments 12 weeks apart were documented in 55% of patients. After anti-TNFalpha treatment had started, regular 12-weekly assessments occurred in 46% of patients. Therefore, compliance with NICE guidance was found to vary among centres. Based on our audit, clinical capacity, and clinical or patient choice might be influencing the suboptimal adherence seen in assessment timing suggested by NICE guidelines relating to the use of anti-TNFalpha in treating patients with AS.

Patient evaluation of a novel patient education leaflet about heart disease risk among people with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: People with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) require access to clear and consistent information about their condition, and Arthritis Research UK produces a wide range of leaflets to meet this need. There is no patient information leaflet about cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the context of having RA, despite the fact that CVD accounts for 50% of the mortality in RA. A leaflet was developed; this paper describes the patient evaluation of this novel education resource. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed to evaluate the leaflet's content, literacy, graphics, layout and ability to stimulate learning. It was distributed, with the leaflet, to 500 National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society members. RESULTS: There was a 72.8% response rate. Of the respondents: 96% agreed that the purpose of the leaflet was clear; 78% agreed that the leaflet was relevant to them; 96% agreed that they understood the leaflet; 53% agreed that the leaflet cover was appealing; 81% agreed that the size of the typing was suitable; 71% agreed that the advice was appropriate for their lifestyle. Omissions included adequately describing any risks associated with its advice, what sources of information were used to compile the leaflet and when this information was produced. Eighty-four per cent of respondents said that they would recommend this leaflet to other people with RA. Qualitatively, many people felt more empowered as a result of reading the leaflet. CONCLUSIONS: Patient evaluation of new educational resources is important and ensures that materials meet patients' needs and are presented in a user-friendly style. Ultimately, the test of the effectiveness of the leaflet will be if patients change their behaviour appropriately.