Assessment and comparison of the 2023 ACR/EULAR APS criteria with the revised Sapporo criteria.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze antiphospholipid antibody (aPL)-positive patients using the 2023 American College of Rheumatology/The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (ACR/EULAR) antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria and compare the revised Sapporo criteria and the 2023 ACR/EULAR criteria and evaluate whether the 2023 ACR/EULAR criteria provide added value over the revised Sapporo criteria. METHODS: In this descriptive study, 94 aPL-positive patients (with or without APS diagnosis) were identified from two hospital-based registries (Gazi and Hacettepe University). Patients were classified into four groups to compare both criteria sets. These four groups are as follows: (1) patients classified with only the revised Sapporo criteria; (2) patients classified with only the 2023 ACR/EULAR APS criteria; (3) patients classified with both two criteria sets; and (4) patients classified with neither two criteria set. RESULTS: Of the 94 patients, 11 were classified with only the revised Sapporo criteria; one with only the 2023 ACR/EULAR APS criteria; 52 with both criteria sets; and 30 with neither set of criteria. For these 94 patients, the operating characteristics of the 2023 ACR/EULAR APS criteria, using the revised Sapporo criteria as the gold standard, the 2023 ACR/EULAR APS entry criteria demonstrated 100% sensitivity, and the 2023 ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria demonstrated 98% specificity and 82.5% sensitivity. CONCLUSION: The study emphasizes the importance of recognizing differences in clinical manifestations, such as early pregnancy loss without severe preeclampsia (PEC) and/or severe placental insufficiency (PI) and calls for a nuanced discussion on anticardiolipin (aCL) and anti-beta 2-glycoprotein-I (anti-ß2GPI) immunoglobulin G (IgG) cutoff values.

Rheumatology: What You May Have Missed in 2023.

Many patients with rheumatologic conditions receive care from physicians other than rheumatologists. Here we note key findings from 6 studies in rheumatology published in 2023 that offer valuable insights for internal medicine specialists and subspecialists outside of rheumatology. The first study investigated the effect of low-dose glucocorticoids on patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) over 2 years and challenged existing perceptions about the risks of glucocorticoids in this setting. The second study focused on the updated guideline for preventing and treating glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. With the chronic and widespread use of glucocorticoids, the American College of Rheumatology emphasized the importance of assessing fracture risk and initiating pharmacologic therapy when appropriate. The third study explored the potential use of methotrexate in treating inflammatory hand osteoarthritis, suggesting a novel approach to managing this challenging and common condition. The results of the fourth article we highlight suggest that sarilumab has promise as an adjunct treatment of polymyalgia rheumatica relapse during glucocorticoid dosage tapering. The fifth study evaluated sublingual cyclobenzaprine for fibromyalgia treatment, noting both potential benefits and risks. Finally, the sixth article is a systematic review and meta-analysis that assessed the therapeutic equivalence of biosimilars and reference biologics in the treatment of patients with RA. Knowledge of this recent literature will be useful to clinicians regardless of specialty who care for patients with these commonly encountered conditions.

Defining domains: developing consensus-based definitions for foundational domains in OMERACT core outcome sets.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a set of detailed definitions for foundational domains commonly used in OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) core domain sets. METHODS: We identified candidate domain definitions from prior OMERACT publications and websites and publications of major organizations involved in outcomes research for six domains commonly used in OMERACT Core Domain Sets: pain intensity, pain interference, physical function, fatigue, patient global assessment, and health-related quality of life. We conducted a two-round survey of OMERACT working groups, patient research partners, and then the OMERACT Technical Advisory Group to establish their preferred domain definitions. Results were presented at the OMERACT 2023 Methodology Workshop, where participants discussed their relevant lived experience and identified potential sources of variability giving the needed detail in our domain definitions. RESULTS: One-hundred four people responded to both rounds of the survey, and a preferred definition was established for each of the domains except for patient global assessment for which no agreement was reached. Seventy-five participants at the OMERACT 2023 Methodology Workshop provided lived experience examples, which were used to contextualise domain definition reports for each of the five domains. CONCLUSION: Using a consensus-based approach, we have created a detailed definition for five of the foundational domains in OMERACT core domain sets; patient global assessment requires further research. These definitions, although not mandatory for working groups to use, may facilitate the initial domain-match assessment step of instrument selection, and reduce the time and resources required by future OMERACT groups when developing core outcome sets.

Development and evaluation of shared decision-making tools in rheumatology: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Shared decision-making (SDM) tools are facilitators of decision-making through a collaborative process between patients/caregivers and clinicians. These tools help clinicians understand patient's perspectives and help patients in making informed decisions based on their preferences. Despite their usefulness for both patients and clinicians, SDM tools are not widely implemented in everyday practice. One barrier is the lack of clarity on the development and evaluation processes of these tools. Such processes have not been previously described in the field of rheumatology. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and evaluation processes of shared decision-making (SDM) tools used in rheumatology. METHODS: Bibliographic databases (e.g., EMBASE and CINAHL) were searched for relevant articles. Guidelines for the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews were followed. Studies included were: addressing SDM among adults in rheumatology, focusing on development and/or evaluation of SDM tool, full texts, empirical research, and in the English language. RESULTS: Of the 2030 records screened, forty-six reports addressing 36 SDM tools were included. Development basis and evaluation measures varied across the studies. The most commonly reported development basis was the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) criteria (19/36, 53 %). Other developmental foundations reported were: The Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) (6/36, 16 %), Informed Medical Decision Foundation elements (3/36, 8 %), edutainment principles (2/36, 5.5 %), and others (e.g. DISCERN and MARKOV Model) (9/31,29 %). The most commonly used evaluation measures were the Decisional Conflict Scale (18/46, 39 %), acceptability and knowledge (7/46, 15 %), and the preparation for decision-making scale (5/46,11 %). CONCLUSION: For better quality and wider implementation of such tools, there is a need for detailed, transparent, systematic, and consistent reporting of development methods and evaluation measures. Using established checklists for reporting development and evaluation is encouraged.

The management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease-associated spondyloarthritis: Italian Group for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IG-IBD) and Italian Society of Rheumatology (SIR) recommendations based on a pseudo-Delphi consensus.

Spondyloarthritis (SpA) is the most frequent extraintestinal manifestation in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). When IBD and spondyloarthritis coexist, musculoskeletal and intestinal disease features should be considered when planning a therapeutic strategy. Treatment options for IBD and SpA have expanded enormously over the last few years, but randomized controlled trials with specific endpoints focused on SpA are not available in the IBD setting. To address this important clinical topic, the Italian Group for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IG-IBD) and the Italian Society of Rheumatology (SIR) jointly planned to draw updated therapeutic recommendations for IBD-associated SpA using a pseudo-Delphi method. This document presents the official recommendations of IG-IBD and SIR on the management of IBD-associated SpA in the form of 34 statements and 4 therapeutic algorithms. It is intended to be a reference guide for gastroenterologists and rheumatologists dealing with IBD-associated SpA.

Ethical considerations and decision making in opioid prescribing for chronic pain: A case study in rheumatology practice.

ABSTRACT: Dilemmas regarding opioid prescribing for chronic pain frequently occur within health care settings. The ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice, as well as the principles of care ethics, can assist in addressing these opioid-related dilemmas. The purpose of this clinical case study is to provide a case study highlighting an opioid prescribing dilemma and then identify opioid-related transition considerations; address ethical questions that nurse practitioners (NPs) may encounter in clinical practice when providing care for individuals living with chronic pain who may need or use a prescribed opioid medication; and draw on the ethical principles and care ethics to provide guidance for NPs who face these challenging issues.

[First classification criteria for diseases caused by calcium pyrophosphate deposition (CPPD)-Translation, explanation and assessment]. / Erste Klassifikationskriterien für durch Kalziumpyrophosphatablagerungen verursachte Erkrankungen ­ Übersetzung, Erläuterung und Bewertung.

AIM: For diseases caused by calcium pyrophosphate deposition (CPPD), validated classification criteria were previously lacking. In this article the recently developed and validated classification criteria are translated, explained, and assessed. METHODS: In recent years a multinational research group developed classification criteria for CPPD disease with the support by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), following an established method. The developed criteria were finally validated in an independent cohort. The translation and annotation of the new first classification criteria were carried out in an iterative procedure in consensus with the authors. RESULTS: The presence of a crowned dens syndrome or calcium pyrophosphate crystals in the synovial fluid in patients with pain, swelling or sensitivity of the joints (entry criterion) is sufficient for the classification as CPPD disease, where the symptoms cannot be completely explained by another rheumatic disease (exclusion criterion). If these symptoms are not present, a count of more than 56 points based on weighted criteria comprised of clinical features and the results of laboratory and imaging investigations can be included for classification as a CPPD disease. These criteria had a sensitivity of 92.2% and a specificity of 87.9% in the derivation cohorts (190 CPPD cases and 148 mimics), whereas the sensitivity was 99.2% and the specificity 92.5% in the validation cohorts (251 CPPD cases and 162 mimics). CONCLUSION: The ACR/EULAR classification criteria 2023 of a CPPD disease will facilitate clinical research in this field. The use in the clinical routine will show how practical the criteria are.

Axial Spondyloarthritis Treatment Recommendations and Disease Activity Monitoring in Clinical Practice: Results of an Online Survey.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical practice guidelines are not always followed consistently. To better understand potential barriers to the implementation of treatment recommendations in axial spondyloarthritis and ankylosing spondylitis (axSpA/AS), an online survey was conducted. METHODS: Email invitations were sent to US rheumatology care providers in January 2023. The questionnaire included 20 questions, with an estimated completion time of 5-7 minutes. RESULTS: One hundred four of 441 (24%) invitees participated, including 80/104 (77%) board-certified rheumatologists and 20/104 (19%) fellows. Survey participants identified UpToDate (85%), treatment guidelines (74%), and colleagues (54%) as relevant sources of knowledge for managing axSpA/AS. Of the participants, 64% and 53% considered themselves to be at least moderately familiar with the American College of Rheumatology/Spondylitis Association of America/Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (ACR/SAA/SPARTAN) and Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (ASAS/EULAR) treatment recommendations for axSpA/AS, respectively. Whereas 69% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that disease activity scores are useful for making treatment decisions in axSpA/AS, only 37% measure patient-reported outcomes (PROs) frequently (≥ 50% of clinic visits) while 82% do so for C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). PROs are typically recorded during clinic encounters (65%) and CRP/ESR are obtained after the visit (86%). Of the participants, 57% and 47% considered the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index and Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score to be at least moderately useful for measuring disease activity in axSpA/AS, respectively; 41% and 37% thought the same about the ASAS 20% improvement criteria and Clinical Disease Activity Index, respectively. CONCLUSION: Treatment guidelines are an important resource for rheumatologists who manage patients with axSpA/AS. Although there is general agreement that disease activity monitoring is important, the implementation of the respective recommendations is lacking. Reasons may include lack of familiarity and an underdeveloped infrastructure to efficiently collect PROs.

Assessing Pediatric Rheumatology Fellow Competence in the Milestone Era: Past, Present, and Future.

Starting in 2015, pediatric rheumatology fellowship training programs were required by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education to assess fellows' academic performance within 21 subcompetencies falling under six competency domains. Each subcompetency had four or five milestone levels describing developmental progression of knowledge and skill acquisition. Milestones were standardized across all pediatric subspecialties. As part of the Milestones 2.0 revision project, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education convened a workgroup in 2022 to write pediatric rheumatology-specific milestones. Using adult rheumatology's Milestones 2.0 as a starting point, the workgroup revised the patient care and medical knowledge subcompetencies and milestones to reflect requirements and nuances of pediatric rheumatology care. Milestones within four remaining competency domains (professionalism, interpersonal and communication skills, practice-based learning and improvement, and systems-based practice) were standardized across all pediatric subspecialties, and therefore not revised. The workgroup created a supplemental guide with explanations of the intent of each subcompetency, 25 in total, and examples for each milestone level. The new milestones are an important step forward for competency-based medical education in pediatric rheumatology. However, challenges remain. Milestone level assignment is meant to be informed by results of multiple assessment methods. The lack of pediatric rheumatology-specific assessment tools typically result in clinical competency committees determining trainee milestone levels without such collated results as the foundation of their assessments. Although further advances in pediatric rheumatology fellowship competency-based medical education are needed, Milestones 2.0 importantly establishes the first pediatric-specific rheumatology Milestones to assess fellow performance during training and help measure readiness for independent practice.

Validation of the 2011 and 2016 American college of rheumatology diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia in a Chinese population.

PURPOSE: To provide a foundation for clinical diagnosis, epidemiological investigation and intervention trials, we examined the reliability and validity of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2011 and 2016 survey diagnostic criteria among Chinese patients based on the fibromyalgia severity (FS) scale. METHODS: In this study, 200 fibromyalgia patients diagnosed according to the 1990 criteria (1990c) were matched with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients based on age and gender. The FS scale score and its subscales were examined to determine their correlations with the revised fibromyalgia impact questionnaire (FIQR). Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed, and test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity were examined. RESULTS: The area under the curve (AUC) for the ACR 2011c and 2016c was 0.870 and 0.845, respectively, and the sensitivity and specificity were 78.0% and 96.0% for the 2011c and 70.5% and 98.5% for the 2016c, respectively. The FS scale and its subscales were confirmed to exhibit good internal consistency, and they were significantly correlated with the FIQR, thereby indicating adequate construct validity. Using a lower cutoff value 11 points for the FS scale score based on the generalized pain requirement might be a more effective approach in the Chinese population; this approach yielded an AUC of 0.923 and a sensitivity of 87.0% and specificity of 97.5%. CONCLUSION: The 2011c and 2016c are reliable instruments for diagnosing fibromyalgia patients in China. The FS scale could be a valid tool to assist in fibromyalgia diagnosis, and a cutoff value 11 points is more suitable in Chinese patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03381131.

The Chinese version of the ACR 2011c and 2016c are valid tools for fibromyalgia diagnosis; and a cutoff value 11 points for FS might be more suitable to assist in fibromyalgia diagnosis in Chinese population. The Chinese 2011c and 2016c for fibromyalgia diagnosis can be found as an appendix to this article.

2022 American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology classification criteria for microscopic polyangiitis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate classification criteria for microscopic polyangiitis (MPA). METHODS: Patients with vasculitis or comparator diseases were recruited into an international cohort. The study proceeded in five phases: (1) identification of candidate items using consensus methodology, (2) prospective collection of candidate items present at the time of diagnosis, (3) data-driven reduction of the number of candidate items, (4) expert panel review of cases to define the reference diagnosis and (5) derivation of a points-based risk score for disease classification in a development set using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression, with subsequent validation of performance characteristics in an independent set of cases and comparators. RESULTS: The development set for MPA consisted of 149 cases of MPA and 408 comparators. The validation set consisted of an additional 142 cases of MPA and 414 comparators. From 91 candidate items, regression analysis identified 10 items for MPA, 6 of which were retained. The final criteria and their weights were as follows: perinuclear antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) or anti-myeloperoxidase-ANCA positivity (+6), pauci-immune glomerulonephritis (+3), lung fibrosis or interstitial lung disease (+3), sino-nasal symptoms or signs (-3), cytoplasmic ANCA or anti-proteinase 3 ANCA positivity (-1) and eosinophil count ≥1×109/L (-4). After excluding mimics of vasculitis, a patient with a diagnosis of small- or medium-vessel vasculitis could be classified as having MPA with a cumulative score of ≥5 points. When these criteria were tested in the validation data set, the sensitivity was 91% (95% CI 85% to 95%) and the specificity was 94% (95% CI 92% to 96%). CONCLUSION: The 2022 American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology classification criteria for MPA are now validated for use in clinical research.

2022 American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology classification criteria for granulomatosis with polyangiitis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate revised classification criteria for granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA). METHODS: Patients with vasculitis or comparator diseases were recruited into an international cohort. The study proceeded in five phases: (1) identification of candidate criteria items using consensus methodology, (2) prospective collection of candidate items present at the time of diagnosis, (3) data-driven reduction of the number of candidate items, (4) expert panel review of cases to define the reference diagnosis and (5) derivation of a points-based risk score for disease classification in a development set using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression, with subsequent validation of performance characteristics in an independent set of cases and comparators. RESULTS: The development set for GPA consisted of 578 cases of GPA and 652 comparators. The validation set consisted of an additional 146 cases of GPA and 161 comparators. From 91 candidate items, regression analysis identified 26 items for GPA, 10 of which were retained. The final criteria and their weights were as follows: bloody nasal discharge, nasal crusting or sino-nasal congestion (+3); cartilaginous involvement (+2); conductive or sensorineural hearing loss (+1); cytoplasmic antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) or anti-proteinase 3 ANCA positivity (+5); pulmonary nodules, mass or cavitation on chest imaging (+2); granuloma or giant cells on biopsy (+2); inflammation or consolidation of the nasal/paranasal sinuses on imaging (+1); pauci-immune glomerulonephritis (+1); perinuclear ANCA or antimyeloperoxidase ANCA positivity (-1); and eosinophil count ≥1×109 /L (-4). After excluding mimics of vasculitis, a patient with a diagnosis of small- or medium-vessel vasculitis could be classified as having GPA if the cumulative score was ≥5 points. When these criteria were tested in the validation data set, the sensitivity was 93% (95% CI 87% to 96%) and the specificity was 94% (95% CI 89% to 97%). CONCLUSION: The 2022 American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology classification criteria for GPA demonstrate strong performance characteristics and are validated for use in research.

2022 American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology Classification Criteria for Eosinophilic Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate revised classification criteria for eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA). METHODS: Patients with vasculitis or comparator diseases were recruited into an international cohort. The study proceeded in five phases: (1) identification of candidate criteria items using consensus methodology, (2) prospective collection of candidate items present at the time of diagnosis, (3) data-driven reduction of the number of candidate items, (4) expert panel review of cases to define the reference diagnosis and (5) derivation of a points-based risk score for disease classification in a development set using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression, with subsequent validation of performance characteristics in an independent set of cases and comparators. RESULTS: The development set for EGPA consisted of 107 cases of EGPA and 450 comparators. The validation set consisted of an additional 119 cases of EGPA and 437 comparators. From 91 candidate items, regression analysis identified 11 items for EPGA, 7 of which were retained. The final criteria and their weights were as follows: maximum eosinophil count ≥1×109/L (+5), obstructive airway disease (+3), nasal polyps (+3), cytoplasmic antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) or anti-proteinase 3-ANCA positivity (-3), extravascular eosinophilic predominant inflammation (+2), mononeuritis multiplex/motor neuropathy not due to radiculopathy (+1) and haematuria (-1). After excluding mimics of vasculitis, a patient with a diagnosis of small- or medium-vessel vasculitis could be classified as having EGPA if the cumulative score was ≥6 points. When these criteria were tested in the validation data set, the sensitivity was 85% (95% CI 77% to 91%) and the specificity was 99% (95% CI 98% to 100%). CONCLUSION: The 2022 American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology Classification Criteria for Eosinophilic Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis demonstrate strong performance characteristics and are validated for use in research.

APLAR recommendations on the practice of telemedicine in rheumatology.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic led to rapid and widespread adoption of telemedicine in rheumatology care. The Asia Pacific League of Associations for Rheumatology (APLAR) working group was tasked with developing evidence-based recommendations for rheumatology practice to guide maintenance of the highest possible standards of clinical care and to enable broad patient reach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of English-language articles related to telehealth in rheumatology was conducted on MEDLINE/PubMed, Web Of Science and Scopus. The strength of the evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach as well as the Oxford Levels of Evidence. The recommendations were developed using a modified Delphi technique to establish consensus. RESULTS: Three overarching principles and 13 recommendations were developed based on identified literature and consensus agreement. The overarching principles address telemedicine frameworks, decision-making, and modality. Recommendations 1-4 address patient suitability, triage, and when telemedicine should be offered to patients. Recommendations 5-10 cover the procedure, including the means, data safety, fail-safe mechanisms, and treat-to-target approach. Recommendations 11-13 focus on training and education related to telerheumatology. CONCLUSION: These recommendations provide guidance for the approach and use of telemedicine in rheumatology care to guide highest possible standards of clinical care and to enable equitable patient reach. However, since evidence in telemedicine care in rheumatology is limited and emerging, most recommendations will need further consideration when more data are available.

Outcomes and Quality of Care in Rheumatoid Arthritis With or Without Video Telemedicine Follow-Up Visits.

OBJECTIVE: Telemedicine has been proposed to improve access to care in rheumatology, but few studies of telerheumatology have been published. The objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes and quality of care for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients seen by video telemedicine follow-up compared to in-person only. METHODS: Individuals in the Alaska Tribal Health System with a diagnosis of RA were recruited when seeing a rheumatologist either in-person or by video telemedicine, both of which were offered as part of usual follow-up care. At baseline, participants completed the Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) questionnaire and a telemedicine perception survey and agreed to medical record review. Participants repeated surveys by telephone at 6 and 12 months, and medical record abstraction was performed at 12 months for quality measures. RESULTS: At the 12-month outcome assessment, 63 of 122 RA patients (52%) had ever used telemedicine for RA. In univariate analysis, functional status improved over 12 months in the telemedicine group. In multivariate analysis, RAPID3 score and functional status were associated with telemedicine group (higher), with no statistically significant change over the 12-month period. The only quality measure that differed between groups at 12 months in univariate analysis was the proportion of visits in which disease activity was documented (higher in the in-person group, 40% versus 25%; P = 0.02), but this was not significant after multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: In short-term follow-up, there was no significant difference in most outcome and quality measures in patients with RA who incorporated telemedicine follow-up in their care compared to in-person only.

2015 American College of Rheumatology Workforce Study and Demand Projections of Pediatric Rheumatology Workforce, 2015-2030.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the character and composition of the 2015 pediatric rheumatology workforce in the US, evaluate current workforce trends, and project future supply and demand of the pediatric rheumatology workforce through 2030. METHODS: The American College of Rheumatology created the workforce study group to study the rheumatology workforce. The workforce study group used primary and secondary data to create a representative workforce model. Pediatric rheumatology supply and demand was projected through 2030 using an integrated data-driven framework to capture a more realistic clinical full-time equivalent (FTE) and produce a better picture of access to care issues in pediatric rheumatology. RESULTS: The 2015 pediatric rheumatology workforce was estimated at 287 FTEs (300 providers), while the estimated excess demand was 95 (33%). The projected demand will continue to increase to almost 100% (n = 230) by 2030 if no changes occur in succession planning, new graduate entrants into the profession, and other factors associated with the workforce. CONCLUSION: This study projects that the pediatric rheumatology workforce gap will continue to worsen significantly from the 2015 baseline, and by 2030 the demand for pediatric rheumatologists will be twice the supply. Innovative strategies are needed to increase the workforce supply and to improve access to care.

Quality of Care for Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Data From the American College of Rheumatology RISE Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Although multiple national quality measures focus on the management and safety of rheumatoid arthritis, few measures address the care of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Our objective was to apply a group of quality measures relevant to the care of patients with SLE, and we used the American College of Rheumatology's Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) registry to assess nationwide variations in care. METHODS: The data derived from RISE and included patients who had ≥2 visits with SLE codes ≥30 days apart in 2017-2018. We calculated performance on 5 quality measures: renal disease screening, blood pressure assessment and management, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) prescribing, safe dosing for HCQ, and prolonged glucocorticoid use at doses of >7.5 mg/day. We reported performance on these measures at the practice level. We used logistic regression to assess independent predictors of performance after adjusting for sociodemographic and utilization factors. RESULTS: We included 27,567 unique patients from 186 practices; 91.7% were female and 48% White, with a mean age of 53.5 ± 15.2 years. Few patients had adequate screening for the development of renal manifestations (39.5%). Although blood pressure assessment was common (94.4%), a meaningful fraction of patients had untreated hypertension (17.7%). Many received HCQ (71.5%), but only 62% at doses of ≤5.0 mg/kg/day. Some received at least moderate-dose steroids for ≥90 days (18.5%). We observed significant practice variation on every measure. CONCLUSION: We found potential gaps in care for patients with SLE across the US. Although some performance variation may be explained by differences in disease severity, dramatic differences suggest that developing quality measures to address important health care processes in SLE may improve care.