Predictors of quality of life, functional status, depression and fatigue in early arthritis: comparison between clinically suspect arthralgia, unclassified arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is often preceded by symptomatic phases during which classification criteria are not fulfilled. The health burden of these "at-risk" stages is not well described. This study assessed health-related quality of life (HRQoL), function, fatigue and depression in newly presenting patients with clinically suspect arthralgia (CSA), unclassified arthritis (UA) or RA. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of baseline Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) was conducted in patients from the Birmingham Early Arthritis Cohort. HRQoL, function, depression and fatigue at presentation were assessed using EQ-5D, HAQ-DI, PHQ-9 and FACIT-F. PROMs were compared across CSA, UA and RA and with population averages from the HSE with descriptive statistics. Multivariate linear regression assessed associations between PROMs and clinical and sociodemographic variables. RESULTS: Of 838 patients included in the analysis, 484 had RA, 200 had CSA and 154 had UA. Patients with RA reported worse outcomes for all PROMs than those with CSA or UA. However, "mean EQ-5D utilities were 0.65 (95%CI: 0.61 to 0.69) in CSA, 0.61 (0.56 to 0.66) in UA and 0.47 (0.44 to 0.50) in RA, which was lower than in general and older (≥ 65 years) background populations." In patients with CSA or UA, HRQoL was comparable to chronic conditions such as heart failure, severe COPD or mild angina. Higher BMI and older age (≥ 60 years) predicted worse depression (PHQ-9: -2.47 (-3.85 to -1.09), P < 0.001) and fatigue (FACIT-F: 5.05 (2.37 to 7.73), P < 0.001). Women were more likely to report worse function (HAQ-DI: 0.13 (0.03 to 0.21), P = 0.01) and fatigue (FACIT-F: -3.64 (-5.59 to -1.70), P < 0.001), and residents of more deprived areas experienced decreased function (HAQ-DI: 0.23 (0.10 to 0.36), P = 0.001), greater depression (PHQ-9: 1.89 (0.59 to 3.18), P = 0.004) and fatigue (FACIT-F: -2.60 (-5.11 to 0.09), P = 0.04). After adjustments for confounding factors, diagnostic category was not associated with PROMs, but disease activity and polypharmacy were associated with poorer performance across all PROMs. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported outcomes were associated with disease activity and sociodemographic characteristics. Patients presenting with RA reported a higher health burden than those with CSA or UA, however HRQoL in the pre-RA groups was significantly lower than population averages.

Differences in management approaches for lupus nephritis within the UK.

Objectives: Outcomes of therapy for LN are often suboptimal. Guidelines offer varied options for treatment of LN and treatment strategies may differ between clinicians and regions. We aimed to assess variations in the usual practice of UK physicians who treat LN. Methods: We conducted an online survey of simulated LN cases for UK rheumatologists and nephrologists to identify treatment preferences for class IV and class V LN. Results: Of 77 respondents, 48 (62.3%) were rheumatologists and 29 (37.7%) were nephrologists. A total of 37 (48.0%) reported having a joint clinic between nephrologists and rheumatologists, 54 (70.0%) reported having a multidisciplinary team meeting for LN and 26 (33.7%) reported having a specialized lupus nurse. Of the respondents, 58 (75%) reported arranging a renal biopsy before starting the treatment. A total of 20 (69%) of the nephrologists, but only 13 (27%) rheumatologists, reported having a formal departmental protocol for treating patients with LN (P < 0.001). The first-choice treatment of class IV LN in pre-menopausal patients was MMF [41 (53.2%)], followed by CYC [15 (19.6%)], rituximab [RTX; 12 (12.5%)] or a combination of immunosuppressive drugs [9 (11.7%)] with differences between nephrologists' and rheumatologists' choices (P = 0.026). For class V LN, MMF was the preferred initial treatment, irrespective of whether proteinuria was in the nephrotic range or not. RTX was the preferred second-line therapy for non-responders. Conclusion: There was variation in the use of protocols, specialist clinic service provision, biopsies and primary and secondary treatment choices for LN reported by nephrologists and rheumatologists in the UK.