Psychological distress over 12 months post-diagnosis in an early inflammatory arthritis cohort.

OBJECTIVES: People with inflammatory arthritis (IA) experience worsened mental wellbeing alongside disease progression. Using the National Early Inflammatory Arthritis Audit (NEIAA), we assessed trends in psychological distress during 12-months following IA diagnosis, mapping these against clinical outcomes to identify associations. METHODS: This is a prospective study of people recruited to NEIAA receiving an IA diagnosis and completing the baseline patient survey. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) at baseline, 3-months and 12-months were collected, including psychological distress (assessed using Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Screener (PHQ4ADS)). Mixed effects linear regression models estimated associations between predictor variables with psychological distress at baseline and over time. RESULTS: Of 6,873 eligible patients, 3,451 (50.2%) showed psychological distress at baseline. Of those completing follow-ups, 30.0% and 24.1% were distressed at 3-months and 12-months, respectively. Higher psychological distress at diagnosis was more commonly reported by younger, female, and non-white patients. Clinical factors, including higher counts of comorbidities, prior depression, and higher disease activity at diagnosis were associated with higher distress. Higher distress at baseline was associated with poorer outcomes over time in quality of life, disability, work performance, disease activity, as well as reduced likelihood of achieving good treatment response by EULAR criteria. CONCLUSION: Half of patients with IA show significant mental health comorbidity at presentation, which associated with worse disease outcomes and quality of life. Screening for anxiety and depression should be a universal standard, and access to effective mood therapies alongside arthritis treatments is essential. Strategies should be culturally valid and consider multi-morbidities.

Data quality predicts care quality: findings from a national clinical audit.

BACKGROUND: Missing clinical outcome data are a common occurrence in longitudinal studies. Data quality in clinical audit is a particular cause for concern. The relationship between departmental levels of missing clinical outcome data and care quality is not known. We hypothesise that completeness of key outcome data in a national audit predicts departmental performance. METHODS: The National Clinical Audit for Rheumatoid and Early Inflammatory Arthritis (NCAREIA) collected data on care of patients with suspected rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from early 2014 to late 2015. This observational cohort study collected data on patient demographics, departmental variables, service quality measures including time to treatment, and the key RA clinical outcome measure, disease activity at baseline, and 3 months follow-up. A mixed effects model was conducted to identify departments with high/low proportions of missing baseline disease activity data with the results plotted on a caterpillar graph. A mixed effects model was conducted to assess if missing baseline disease activity predicted prompt treatment. RESULTS: Six thousand two hundred five patients with complete treatment time data and a diagnosis of RA were recruited from 136 departments. 34.3% had missing disease activity at baseline. Mixed effects modelling identified 13 departments with high levels of missing disease activity, with a cluster observed in the Northwest of England. Missing baseline disease activity was associated with not commencing treatment promptly in an adjusted mix effects model, odds ratio 0.50 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.61, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that poor engagement in a national audit program correlates with the quality of care provided. Our findings support the use of data completeness as an additional service quality indicator.

Variation and implications of treatment decisions in early rheumatoid arthritis: results from a nationwide cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Trial data have provided an evidence base to guide early treatment in RA. Few studies have investigated rheumatologists' adherence to guidelines, and subsequent impact on outcomes. The objectives of this study are to characterize baseline prescribing for patients with RA across the National Health Service, identifying treatment decisions that associate with patient outcomes. METHODS: A nationwide audit of RA collected information on treatment choices, DAS and sociodemographic factors at baseline. Treatment response was assessed at 3 months. Multilevel regression models were used to characterize departmental variations in prescribing. Heat maps were used to visualize geographical variation. Mixed effects regression models were constructed to assess the relationship between treatment decisions and disease outcomes, adjusting for patient and department level covariates. RESULTS: A total of 7154 patients with a diagnosis of RA were recruited from 136 departments. There was broad variation in prescribing choices, even between departments close to one another, with evidence of substantial deviation from guidelines. Over 75% of patients received glucocorticoids, fewer than half received combination conventional DMARDs. Early glucocorticoid therapy associated with achieving a good treatment response [odds ratio 1.93 (95% CI 1.31, 2.84), P-value = 0.001]. The association was maintained following propensity modelling and imputation. CONCLUSION: Guideline adherence varies between departments and cannot be explained by case-mix alone. Departments that prescribe early adjunctive steroid achieve better short-term outcomes. Further research should work to ensure that the early arthritis evidence base translates into better outcomes for patients.