Suboptimal cardiovascular risk management in rheumatoid arthritis patients despite an explicit cardiovascular risk screening programme.

Objective: In 2011, we started to offer cardiovascular (CV) risk screening to rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with a high CV risk. After 1 year, we assessed whether patients labelled as high CV risk had started preventive treatment when indicated, and whether the CV risk score had changed. Methods: CV risk screening was performed in both a large outpatient rheumatology clinic and a general hospital in the Netherlands, and the general practitioner or the internist was informed about the results of the CV screening, including specific advice on the initiation or adjustment of cardiopreventive drugs. National guidelines were used to assess how many patients were eligible for preventive treatment. After 1 year, CV risk, lifestyle, and treatment were re-evaluated. Patients with a history of CV disease at baseline or who experienced a CV event during follow-up were excluded from the analyses. Results: A high 10 year CV risk (> 20%) was present in 58%, and 55% had an indication for anti-hypertensives, statins, or both. At follow-up, cardiopreventive drug treatment had been started or adjusted in only one-third of patients with an indication for treatment. After screening, 42% of patients reported having changed their lifestyle, through more exercise (24%), diet adaption (20%), and weight loss (11%). Conclusion: Despite clear guidelines to improve CV risk, the results of a programme comprising active screening, targeted advice, and referral to the general practitioner or internist prove that primary prevention remains a major challenge in high-risk RA patients.

Screening instruments for identification of vulnerable older adults at the emergency department: a critical appraisal.

BACKGROUND: Early detection of vulnerable older adults at the emergency department (ED) and implementation of targeted interventions to prevent functional decline may lead to better patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To assess the level of agreement between four frequently used screening instruments: ISAR-HP, VMS, InterRAI ED Screener and APOP. METHODS: Observational prospective cohort study in patients ≥ 70 years attending Dutch ED. RESULTS: The prevalence of vulnerability ranged from 19% (APOP) to 45% (ISAR-HP). Overall there was a moderate agreement between the screening instruments (Fleiss Kappa of 0.42 (p<0.001)). CONCLUSION: Depending on the screening instrument used, either only a small percentage or almost as many as half of the presenting patients will be eligible for targeted interventions, leading to large dissimilarities in working processes, resources and costs.