Early referral of patients with suspected polymyalgia rheumatica - A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Prompt diagnosis and treatment of polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) is crucial to prevent long-term complications and improve patient outcomes. However, there is currently no standardized approach to referral of suspected PMR patients to rheumatologists, leading to inconsistent management practices. The objective of this systematic review was to clarify the existing evidence regarding the following aspects of early management strategies in patients with suspected PMR: diagnostic strategies, GCA screening, glucocorticoid initiation prior to referral, value of shared care and value of fast track clinic. METHODS: Two authors performed a systematic literature search, data extraction and risk of bias assessment independently. The literature search was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE (PubMed) and Cochrane. Studies were included if they contained cohorts of suspected PMR patients and evaluated the efficacy of different diagnostic strategies for PMR, screening for giant cell arteritis (GCA), starting glucocorticoids before referral to secondary care, shared care, or fast-track clinics. RESULTS: From 2,437 records excluding duplicates, 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. Among these, 10 studies investigated the diagnostic accuracy of various diagnostic strategies with the majority evaluating different clinical approaches, but none of them showed consistently high performance. However, 4 studies on shared care and fast-track clinics showed promising results, including reduced hospitalization rates, lower starting doses of glucocorticoids, and faster PMR diagnosis. CONCLUSION: This review emphasizes the sparse evidence of early management and referral strategies for patients with suspected PMR. Additionally, screening and diagnostic strategies for differentiating PMR from other diseases, including concurrent GCA, require clarification. Fast-track clinics may have potential to aid patients with PMR in the future, but studies will be needed to determine the appropriate pre-referral work-up.

A pragmatic randomized trial comparing tablet computer informed consent to traditional paper-based methods for an osteoporosis study.

OBJECTIVE: Methods to improve informed consent efficiency and effectiveness are needed for pragmatic clinical trials. We compared informed consent using a tablet computer to a paper approach to assess comprehension and satisfaction of patients and clinic staff for a future osteoporosis clinical trial. METHODS: Nine community-based practices identified and recruited patients to compare the informed consent processes (tablet vs. paper) in a mock osteoporosis clinical trial. The tablet informed consent included an animation summarizing the trial, complete informed consent document, and questions to assess and reinforce comprehension of the study. Participants were women age ≥55 years with ≥1 year of alendronate use. We surveyed participants to assess comprehension and satisfaction and office staff for satisfaction and perceived time demands. RESULTS: The nine practices enrolled 33 participants. There was not a significant difference in comprehension between the tablet vs. paper informed consent [mean (SD) tablet: 12.2 (1.0) vs. paper: 11.4 (1.7)]. Office staff preferred the tablet to the paper informed consent for identifying potential study participants (two-sided t-test p = 0.02) despite an increased perceived time spent to complete the tablet process [tablet: 28.3 min (SD 16.3) vs. paper: 19.0 min (SD 6.9); p = 0.08]. CONCLUSIONS: Although, there were no significant differences in participant satisfaction and comprehension with the tablet informed consent compared to a paper informed consent, patients and office staff trended towards greater satisfaction with the tablet informed consent. Larger studies are needed to further evaluate the utility of electronic informed consent in pragmatic clinical trials.