Interobserver reliability of Masei index validation by a multicenter collaborative group of rheumatologists.

MASEI is the main validated ultrasound score for the evaluation of enthesis. The lack of studies facing the agreement to achieve for the interpretation of the MAdrid Sonographic Enthesis Index (MASEI) among researchers from different centers in multicenter studies is of concern. The aim of this multicenter was to evaluate the interobserver reliability of MASEI. An experienced ultrasonographer-rheumatologist performed ultrasound scans of the areas included in MASEI index in three patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis and Psoriatic Arthritis. Videos were captured. The videos were then evaluated by 24 rheumatologists of the ultrasound working group of the Catalan Society of Rheumatology (EcoCAT). A face-to-face training meeting was held. Ten days after the workshop, the study participants evaluated the videos. A reliability assessment was performed. The ICC for the MASEI scores after the workshop was of 0.97 (95% CI 89-99). Reliability did not vary statistically with examiner experience. Globally, no problems of reliability by structures were seen, and all the ICCs were above 0.90 and improved slightly after the educational program. However, the correlation observed between examiners at plantar aponeursis and triceps tendon was weak. The small variability observed in the results of the index validation in our study, suggests that the MASEI index is reproducible by different observers when those are well trained and show awesome results of the enthesis when examined by ultrasound.

Measuring inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis with a new clinical and ultrasound index: development and initial validation.

With the aim to develop and validate a clinical + ultrasound (US) inflammation score in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for use in clinical practice, a mixed-method study was conducted. The theoretical development of the index was achieved with qualitative methodology (discussion group and Delphi survey). Subsequently, a cross-sectional study was carried out to analyse issues related to scoring and validation of the new index. RA patients underwent clinical [28 swollen and tender joints count, patient and physician global assessment (PhGA), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP)], and US assessments [synovitis or tenosynovitis by grey-scale (GS) and power Doppler (PD) of 42 structures]. An index was created based on statistical models and expert interaction. Construct validity was tested by correlation with DAS28, SDAI, CDAI, and PhGA. Reliability was evaluated in a subgroup of patients with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). US assessment, CRP, and swollen joints were the items that passed the prioritization phase (Delphi study). For the cross-sectional study, 281 patients were randomly divided into design (n = 141) and validation samples (n = 140). The combination of US sites chosen (7 bilaterally) detected the maximum proportion of synovitis and PD present. Three scoring methods were tested: semiquantitative (0-3 GS + 0-3 PD), dichotomous (0/1 GS + 0/1 PD), and qualitative (0/1 based on algorithm). All showed strong correlation with activity measures (ρ ≥ 0.60), and reliability (ICC 0.89-0.93). The index with best parameters of validity, feasibility, and reliability was the qualitative. The final index chosen was the sum of swollen joint count, US qualitative score, and CRP. The UltraSound Activity score is a valid and reliable measure of inflammation in RA equal to the sum of 28 SJC, a simplified (0/1) US assessment of 11 structures and CRP. It is necessary further investigation to demonstrate additional value over existing indices.

Current status of multidisciplinary care in psoriatic arthritis in Spain: NEXUS 2.0 project. / Estado actual de la atención multidisciplinar para pacientes con artritis psoriásica en España: proyecto NEXUS 2.0.

OBJECTIVE: 1) To analyze the implementation of multidisciplinary care models in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients, 2) To define minimum and excellent standards of care. METHODS: A survey was sent to clinicians who already performed multidisciplinary care or were in the process of undertaking it, asking: 1) Type of multidisciplinary care model implemented; 2) Degree, priority and feasibility of the implementation of quality standards in the structure, process and result for care. In 6 regional meetings the results of the survey were presented and discussed, and the ultimate priority of quality standards for care was defined. At a nominal meeting group, 11 experts (rheumatologists and dermatologists) analyzed the results of the survey and the regional meetings. With this information, they defined which standards of care are currently considered as minimum and which are excellent. RESULTS: The simultaneous and parallel models of multidisciplinary care are those most widely implemented, but the implementation of quality standards is highly variable. In terms of structure it ranges from 22% to 74%, in those related to process from 17% to 54% and in the results from 2% to 28%. Of the 25 original quality standards for care, 9 were considered only minimum, 4 were excellent and 12 defined criteria for minimum level and others for excellence. CONCLUSIONS: The definition of minimum and excellent quality standards for care will help achieve the goal of multidisciplinary care for patients with PAs, which is the best healthcare possible.

Multidisciplinary Care Models for Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis. / Modelos de atención multidisciplinar en pacientes con artritis psoriásica en España.

OBJETIVE: To describe (structure, processes) of the multidisciplinary care models in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in Spain, as well as barriers and facilitators of their implementation. METHODS: A qualitative study was performed following structured interviews with 24 professionals (12 rheumatologists, 12 dermatologists who provide multidisciplinary care for patients with PsA). We collected data related to the hospital, department, population and multidisciplinary care model (type, physical and human resources, professional requirements, objectives, referral criteria, agendas, protocols, responsibilities, decision- making, research and education, clinical sessions, development and planning of the model, advantages and disadvantages of the model, barriers and facilitators in the implementation of the model. The models characteristics are described. RESULTS: We analyzed 12 multidisciplinary care models in PsA, with at least 1-2 years of experience, and 3 subtypes of models, face-to-face, parallel, and preferential circuit. All are adapted to the hospital and professionals characteristics. A proper implementation planning is essential. The involvement and empathy between professionals and an access and well-defined referral criteria are important facilitators in the implementation of a model. The management of agendas and data collection to measure the multidisciplinary care models health outcomes are the main barriers. CONCLUSIONS: There are different multidisciplinary care models in PsA that can improve patient outcomes, system efficiency and collaboration between specialists.