RESUMO
Introduction: Our study aimed to evaluate the integration level of non-pharmacological management (NPM) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), analyze attitudes, practices, and perceived barriers towards NPM implementation, and identify factors contributing to the underutilization of non-pharmacological treatment in RA. Material and methods: A descriptive and analytical cross-sectional study was conducted among rheumatologists in Morocco. Rheumatologists received an online questionnaire gathering sociodemographic data, NPM integration level for RA, exploring their attitudes, practices and perceived barriers regarding the integration of NPM for RA, using a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. Univariate analyses were conducted to identify risk factors for under-integration of NPM for RA. Results: Out of 440 questionnaires sent, 132 rheumatologists responded to the survey (mean age of 44 ±12 years, 112 (84.8%) females, median professional experience of 15 years [4.7; 26.3]) with a response rate of 30%. All rheumatologists agreed on the importance of NPM integration into their practice with 130 (98.5%) supporting the necessity of tailored recommendations of NPM of RA for the Moroccan context. Sixty-nine (52.3%) reported a lack of NPM integration for RA. Only 36 (27.3%) consistently provided personalized NPM from RA diagnosis and 47 (35.6%) involved patients in decision-making. Comment perceived barriers included difficulties in organizing multidisciplinary care (122; 92.4%), difficulties with time management in consultation (119; 90.2%), and lack of multidisciplinary team members (116; 87.9%). In univariate analysis, lack of suitable training and lack of knowledge on NPM of RA were risk factors of under-integration of NPM of RA with respectively an odds ratio (OR) of 0.09, 95% CI: 0.01-0.86 and OR of 0.34, 95% CI: 0.15-0.76. Conclusions: Our study revealed significant insufficiencies in the integration of NPM of RA among Moroccan rheumatologists. Perceived barriers, including insufficient training, lack of knowledge, and infrastructural limitations, hinder effective implementation. Addressing these through tailored education and multidisciplinary collaboration is essential for improving RA management.
RESUMO
Background In general, rheumatologists often have limited knowledge regarding the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) among patients with rheumatic diseases. Understanding the prevalence, reasons for use, and perceived benefits of CAM can help improve patient care and guide clinical practices. This study aimed to assess the prevalence, reasons for use, and perceived benefits of cupping therapy, apitherapy, and traditional cautery treatments among patients with rheumatic diseases. Additionally, it aimed to explore adverse effects, location and pricing disparities in CAM practices, information sources, and the rate of reporting CAM use to treat rheumatologists and to identify factors associated with the use of these CAM approaches. Methodology This single-center, cross-sectional study was conducted in a Moroccan University Hospital and included patients receiving care for rheumatic diseases during hospitalization or outpatient visits from January 2024 to March 2024. The data were collected using a structured, validated, and pilot-tested questionnaire administered by attending rheumatologists. The questionnaire aimed to gather demographic information and to identify patients using CAM, collecting data related to their utilization. Results A total of 100 patients were enrolled (mean age: 52.3 ± 12.8 years, 75% female). Among them, 43% had chronic inflammatory rheumatism. Additionally, 46% reported using at least one of the three CAM methods studied, with 36% using cupping therapy (specifically the wet method), 9% using apitherapy, and 16% using traditional cautery. The main reason for using CAM was to alleviate their pain (55%). Perceptions of effectiveness were reported by 38% of patients using cupping therapy, 20% using apitherapy, and 5.9% using traditional cautery. The use of CAM was significantly lower in patients with a university education (odds ratio = 0.05, 95% confidence interval = 0.003-0.92). Conclusions Our study revealed a significant prevalence of CAM use among patients with rheumatic diseases in Morocco, with cupping therapy emerging as the most commonly utilized method. These findings underscore the importance of enhancing awareness and understanding of CAM practices among both patients and healthcare providers to promote more structured and informed CAM practices.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the vaccination coverage of patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic disease (CIRD) against influenza, pneumococcus, and COVID-19 and to determine, per the patients' point of view, the possible factors related to vaccination hesitation and/or refusal. METHODS: A cross-sectional study carried out by the vaccination working group of the Moroccan Society of Rheumatology, including patients with CIRD in Morocco. Information about vaccination coverage and reasons for non-vaccination against influenza, pneumococcal infection, and COVID-19 was collected. RESULTS: This survey included 230 patients (mean age of 46.9 +/-13.89 years; 68.7% females) affected by CIRD (rheumatoid arthritis 53%, spondyloarthritis 39.6%, psoriatic arthritis 7%). The study shows a significant lack of influenza and pneumococcal vaccination in CIRD patients, with vaccination coverage against influenza, pneumococcal infection, and COVID-19 at 2.2%, 0.4%, and 80.9%, respectively. The main reason for non-vaccination against influenza and pneumococcus was related to the absence of recommendations by their doctors (77%, 87%, p = 0.04). Additionally, the primary reason for non-vaccination against COVID-19 was the fear of the vaccine's side effects (51%, p = 0.0001), mainly a flare-up of CIRD (44%, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: This survey shows a lack of influenza, pneumococcal, and COVID-19 vaccination in CIRD patients. The principal actions to improve vaccination should aim to educate patients and encourage rheumatologists to vaccinate their patients.
RESUMO
Introduction Non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) is within the spectrum of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). The emergence of the nr-axSpA concept, defined by the absence of significant erosive damage to the sacroiliac joints, has prompted numerous initiatives aimed at enhancing the early detection and management of this condition. The aim of the study was to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to the diagnosis and management of nr-axSpA by rheumatologists in Morocco. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional online survey among the rheumatologist community in Morocco. Rheumatologists received via e-mail a structured Google Forms (Google Inc., Mountainview, CA) questionnaire divided into four sections: sociodemographic data of rheumatologists, knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to the diagnosis and treatment management of nr-axSpA. Results A total of 110 rheumatologists (mean age of 44±13 years, 77.3% females, median professional experience of 12 years (4, 75; 26.25 years)) participated in the survey (response rate of 25%). Most responders reported a diagnosis delay issue in spondyloarthritis (SpA) (93.6%); 70.9% of rheumatologists incorrectly regarded the 2009 Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) classification criteria for axSpA as diagnostic criteria. Rheumatologists' awareness of recommended magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences for detecting sacroiliac joint inflammation and structural changes in SpA varied significantly, from 69.1% to 14.5%. Their knowledge of additional subchondral edema cases in these joints, beyond SpA, ranged from 48.2% to 87.3%. Almost all rheumatologists believed that the use of sacroiliac MRI would contribute to the early diagnosis of axSpA (97.3%) but could also lead to false positive diagnoses, according to 47.3% of rheumatologists; 73.6% believed that incorrectly using the 2009 ASAS classification criteria as diagnostic criteria in nr-axSpA could also result in false-positive diagnoses. In their practice, 2009 ASAS classification criteria were used as diagnostic criteria in axSpA by 39.1% of rheumatologists. Of the total participants, 91.8% indicated that they approach nr-axSpA similarly to radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, with disparities in recommendations of biological therapies. Conclusion Our survey provides insight into the current status of nr-axSpA management among Moroccan rheumatologists. It also addresses concerns regarding the risk of false positive diagnoses when using the 2009 ASAS classification criteria for axSpA as diagnostic criteria by rheumatologists and the potential risk of misdiagnosis associated with excessive reliance on MRI, despite its utility for early diagnosis.