SAT0478 Early inflammatory arthritis detection using a self-administered tool versus general practitioner diagnosis in primary care

2013 ◽  
Vol 71 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. 634.2-634
Author(s):  
R. Tavares ◽  
P. Veinot ◽  
M.J. Bell
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practitioner ◽  
Inflammatory Arthritis ◽  
Early Inflammatory Arthritis

O37 Utility of RA classification criteria in early inflammatory arthritis referral prioritisation

Rheumatology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Syed M Imaduddin ◽  
Patrick O'Biern
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Inflammatory Arthritis ◽  
Positive Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Early Arthritis ◽  
Classification Criteria ◽  
Health Board ◽  
Duration Of Symptoms ◽  
Large Joint ◽  
Early Inflammatory Arthritis

Abstract Background Early arthritis clinics are increasingly utilised as a method of ensuring patients suspected of disease are assessed promptly to enable suitable treatment. Early recognition with treat to target has been demonstrated in systematic reviews to significantly improve mortality and morbidity outcomes. The United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommend potentially affected patients are referred from primary care within 3 days and seen in secondary care within 3 weeks. We hypothesised that utilising the ACR/EULAR 2010 rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria we could identify variables within the primary care referral which make an early arthritis more or less likely. Methods A retrospective study of all the patients seen in early inflammatory arthritis (EIA) Clinic from September 2017 to August 2018 in Aneurin Bevan University Health Board. EULAR scores of 145 patients were calculated based on the data provided in the primary care referral. These scores and their components were then compared to the eventual diagnosis. Results EULAR score of ≥ 5 had specificity of > 78% and sensitivity of < 30% in predicting EIA. EULAR score of 8 or more was 100% specific for EIA with positive likelihood ratio of infinity. Whereas EULAR score < 3 had a specificity of > 70% and sensitivity of < 45% for Non EIA with a positive likelihood ratio of 1.59. Considering individual EULAR components a high positive Rheumatoid Factor (RF) or Anti-citrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA) and involvement of greater than 10 joints had a positive likelihood ratio of ≥ 3.00 for EIA. A low positive RF or ACPA had a specificity of 66.67% and sensitivity of 27.59% for EIA with a positive likelihood ratio of 0.83. Surprisingly involvement of 4-10 small joints or 2-10 large joints or just 1 large joint had a specificity of ≥ 75% for EIA and a positive likelihood ratio of greater than 1.00. A positive ESR or CRP had a specificity of 36.84% and sensitivity of 67.92% with a positive likelihood ratio for EIA of 1.08. A negative ESR and CRP had a specificity of 67.92% and a sensitivity of 35.00% for Non EIA with a positive likelihood ratio of 1.09. The duration of symptoms of < 6 weeks had a specificity of 77.55% and sensitivity of 24.39% with positive likelihood ratio for Non EIA of 1.08, however duration of > 6 weeks had a positive likelihood ratio of 0.97 for EIA with a lower specificity of 22.45% . Conclusion The total EULAR score and individual components can be used to prioritize primary care referrals. A EULAR score of less than 3, duration of symptoms of < 6 weeks, a negative ESR and CRP, a low positive RF or ACPA makes EIA less likely. Disclosures S.M. Imaduddin None. P. O'Biern None.

FRI0512 INTEGRATED CARE NETWORK AS A BUILDING STONE FOR SUSTAINABLE AND COMPREHENSIVE CARE FOR PATIENTS WITH ARTHRALGIA

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 855.1-855
Author(s):  
E. Van Delft ◽  
K. H. Han ◽  
J. Hazes ◽  
D. Lopes Barreto ◽  
A. Weel
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Integrated Care ◽  
Usual Care Group ◽  
Inflammatory Arthritis ◽  
Care Setting ◽  
Primary Care Setting ◽  
Care Group ◽  
Care Network ◽  
The Right

Background:Western countries experience an increasing demand for care, particularly for inflammatory arthritis (IA), while the healthcare budget decreases1. The innovative value-based primary care strategy2includes integrated care networks, where primary and secondary care bundle their expertise to improve patient value by providing the right care at the right place.General practitioners (GPs) have difficulties recognising IA, leading up to only 20% IA diagnoses of all newly referred arthralgia patients. However, since IA needs to be treated as early as possible to overcome progression, it is worthwhile to analyse whether integrated care networks have an impact on patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Triage by a rheumatologist in a primary care setting is one of the most promising integrated care networks for efficient referrals3.Objectives:To assess the effect of triage by a rheumatologist in a primary care setting in patients suspect for inflammatory arthritis.Methods:The present study follows a cluster randomized controlled trial design. The intervention, triage by a rheumatologist in a local primary care centre, will be compared to usual care. Usual care means that patients are referred to a rheumatology outpatient clinic based on the opinion of the general practitioner.The primary outcome is the frequency of IA diagnoses assessed by a rheumatologist. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs (EQ-5D)) and costs (work productivity (iPCQ) and healthcare utilization (iMCQ)) were determined at baseline, after three, six and twelve months. The target was to include 267 patients for each study group (power level 0.8). Since this study is still ongoing we can only show first results on the efficiency of referrals.Results:In the period between February 2017 and December 2019 a total of 543 participants were included; 275 in the usual care group and 268 in the triage group. Mean age (51.3 ± 14.6 years) and percentage of men (23.6%) were comparable between groups (page=0.139; psex=0.330).The preliminary data show that the number of referred patients in the triage group is n=28 (10.5%) (Fig. 1). 32 patients (11.9%) were not referred directly but advice was given for additional diagnostics. Since all patients in the usual care group were referred there is a decrease of at least 77.6% in referrals when rheumatologists are participating in the integrated practice units.Preliminary data on diagnosis are available for all referred patients in the triage group and for n=137 (49.8%) in the usual care group at this point. In the triage group n=18 (64.2%) of referred patients were diagnosed with IA (6.7% of the total study population). In the usual care group this was n=52 (38.0%) of the patients yet diagnosed.Conclusion:These preliminary results of an integrated care network are promising. Approximately three-quarters of all patients can be withheld from expensive outpatient care. PROMs data and cost-effectiveness analysis will give clear answers in order to provide evidence whether this integrated care network can be implemented as a standard of care.References:[1] Rijksoverheid. (2018). Bestuurlijk akkoord medisch-specialistische zorg 2019 t/m 2022.https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/.[2] Porter ME, Pabo EA, Lee TH. (2013). Redesigning Primary Care: a strategic vision to improve value by organizing around patients’ needs. Health affairs, 32(3);516-525[3] Akbari A, et al. (2008). Interventions to improve outpatient referrals from primary care to secondary care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 4,CD005471.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

scholarly journals POS0261 DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMANCE AND CLINICAL UTILITY OF TWO REFERRAL RULES FOR INFLAMMATORY ARTHRITIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 353.1-353
Author(s):  
E. Van Delft ◽  
D. Lopes Barreto ◽  
A. Van der Helm - van Mil ◽  
C. Alves ◽  
J. Hazes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Inflammatory Arthritis ◽  
Clinical Utility ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Youden Index ◽  
Care Model ◽  
Net Benefit ◽  
Independent Population ◽  
The Right

Background:The Rotterdam Early Arthritis Cohort (REACH) rule [1] and Clinical Arthritis RulE (CARE) [2] are both evidence-based and easy-to-use methods developed to identify the presence of inflammatory arthritis (IA) in patients suspected by their general practitioner (GP). However, the clinical utility of both models in daily clinical practice in an independent primary care setting has not yet been established. While developed for recognizing IA, we believe that it is also important that the broader spectrum of inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRDs) is correctly classified from primary care, to facilitate appropriate referral towards outpatient rheumatology clinics.Objectives:The primary objective was to determine the diagnostic performance and clinical utility of the REACH and CARE referral rules in identifying IA in an independent population of unselected suspected patients from primary care. Secondly we will assess the diagnostic performance and clinical utility of both models in identifying IRDs.Methods:This prospective observational diagnostic study consisted of adults newly suspected by their GP for the need of referral to the rheumatology outpatient clinic of the Maasstad Hospital in Rotterdam. Primary outcome was IA, consisting of rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis. Secondary outcome was IRD, defined as IA plus arthritis in systemic disorders such as systemic lupus erythematosus, systemic sclerosis and morbus sjögren. Rheumatologist diagnosis was used as gold standard. To evaluate the clinical performance of the REACH and CARE referral rules in this population, diagnostic accuracy measures were investigated using the Youden index (J) [3]. Moreover, a net benefit approach [4] was used to determine clinical utility of both rules when compared to usual care.Results:This study consisted of 250 patients (22.8% male) with a mean age of 50.8 years (SD 13.9 years). In total 42 (17%) patients were diagnosed with IA and 55 (22%) with an IRD. Figure 1 presents the diagnostic performance in IA (Figure 1A) and in IRD (Figure 1B). For the primary outcome, the REACH model shows an AUC of 0.72 (95% CI 0.64-0.80) and the optimal cut-off point is indicated (J). The CARE model shows an AUC of 0.82 (95% CI 0.75-0.88) and at J there is a somewhat higher sensitivity and specificity. When taking the broader spectrum of IRDs as outcome, the AUC was 0.66 (95% CI 0.58-0.74) for the REACH and 0.76 (95% CI 0.69-0.83) for the CARE model. The net benefit analysis with either IA or IRD as outcome showed that the CARE was of the highest clinical value when compared to usual care.Conclusion:Both the REACH and CARE model showed a good diagnostic performance for detecting IA in an independent population of unselected suspected patients from primary care. Although not specifically developed to recognize the entire spectrum of IRDs, the CARE shows a good performance in doing so. When evaluating clinical utility, we see that both rules have a net benefit in recognizing IA as well as IRDs compared to usual care, however the CARE shows superiority over the REACH. By using the CARE, over half of all suspected patients can be withheld from expensive outpatient rheumatology care, implied by the high specificity of 70%. These results support the idea that incorporating these easy-to-use methods into primary care could lead to providing patients the right care at the right place and improving value based health care.References:[1]ten Brinck RM, van Dijk BT, van Steenbergen HW, le Cessie S, Numans ME. Development and validation of a clinical rule for recognition of early inflammatory arthritis. BMJ Open; 2018: 8[2]Alves, C. Improving early referral of inflammatory arthritis. In Early detection of patients at risk for rheumatoid arthritis – a challenge for primary and secondary care; 2015: 27-38 Ridderkerk, the Netherlands.[3]Fluss R, Faraggi D, Reiser B. Estimation of the Youden Index and its associated cutoff point. Biom J; 2005: 47(4): 458-472[4]Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making; 2006: 26(6): 565-574Disclosure of Interests:None declared

scholarly journals POS0959 DIAGNOSTIC DELAY IN AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: RESULTS FROM THE NATIONAL EARLY INFLAMMATORY ARTHRITIS AUDIT

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 744.1-744
Author(s):  
M. Russell ◽  
F. Coath ◽  
M. Yates ◽  
K. Bechman ◽  
S. Norton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Inflammatory Arthritis ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Axial Spondyloarthritis ◽  
Diagnostic Delay ◽  
British Society ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Symptom Duration ◽  
Research Support ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Early Inflammatory Arthritis

Background:Diagnostic delay is a significant problem in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), and there is a growing body of evidence showing that delayed axSpA diagnosis is associated with worse clinical, humanistic and economic outcomes.1 International guidelines have been published to inform referral pathways and improve standards of care for patients with axSpA.2,3Objectives:To describe the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of newly-referred patients with axSpA in England and Wales in the National Early Inflammatory Arthritis Audit (NEIAA), with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and mechanical back pain (MBP) as comparators.Methods:The NEIAA captures data on all new patients over the age of 16 referred with suspected inflammatory arthritis to rheumatology departments in England and Wales.4 We describe baseline sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of axSpA patients (n=784) recruited to the NEIAA between May 2018 and March 2020, compared with RA (n=9,270) and MBP (n=370) during the same period.Results:Symptom duration prior to initial rheumatology assessment was significantly longer in axSpA than RA patients (p<0.001), and non-significantly longer in axSpA than MBP patients (p=0.062): 79.7% of axSpA patients had symptom durations of >6 months, compared to 33.7% of RA patients and 76.0% of MBP patients; 32.6% of axSpA patients had symptom durations of >5 years, compared to 3.5% of RA patients and 24.6% of MBP patients (Figure 1A). Following referral, median time to initial rheumatology assessment was longer for axSpA than RA patients (36 vs. 24 days; p<0.001), and similar to MBP patients (39 days; p=0.30). The proportion of axSpA patients assessed within 3 weeks of referral increased from 26.7% in May 2018 to 34.7% in March 2020; compared to an increase from 38.2% to 54.5% for RA patients (Figure 1B). A large majority of axSpA referrals originated from primary care (72.4%) or musculoskeletal triage services (14.1%), with relatively few referrals from gastroenterology (1.9%), ophthalmology (1.4%) or dermatology (0.4%).Of the subset of patients with peripheral arthritis requiring EIA pathway follow-up, fewer axSpA than RA patients had disease education provided (77.5% vs. 97.8%; p<0.001), and RA patients reported a better understanding of their condition (p<0.001). HAQ-DI scores were lower at baseline in axSpA EIA patients than RA EIA patients (0.8 vs 1.1, respectively; p=0.004), whereas baseline Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ) scores were similar (25 vs. 24, respectively; p=0.49). The burden of disease was substantial across the 14 domains comprising MSK-HQ in both axSpA and RA (Figure 1C).Conclusion:We have shown that diagnostic delay remains a major challenge in axSpA, despite improved disease understanding and updated referral guidelines. Patient education is an unmet need in axSpA, highlighting the need for specialist clinics. MSK-HQ scores demonstrated that the functional impact of axSpA is no less than for RA, whereas HAQ-DI may underrepresent disability in axSpA.References:[1]Yi E, Ahuja A, Rajput T, George AT, Park Y. Clinical, economic, and humanistic burden associated with delayed diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis: a systematic review. Rheumatol Ther. 2020;7:65-87.[2]NICE. Spondyloarthritis in over 16s: diagnosis and management. 2017.[3]van der Heijde D, Ramiro S, Landewe R, et al. 2016 update of the ASAS-EULAR management recommendations for axial spondyloarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(6):978-91.[4]British Society for Rheumatology. National Early Inflammatory Arthritis Audit (NEIAA) Second Annual Report. 2021.Acknowledgements:The National Early Inflammatory Arthritis Audit is commissioned by the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership, funded by NHS England and Improvement, and the Welsh Government, and carried out by the British Society for Rheumatology, King’s College London and Net Solving.Disclosure of Interests:Mark Russell Grant/research support from: UCB, Pfizer, Fiona Coath: None declared, Mark Yates Grant/research support from: UCB, Abbvie, Katie Bechman: None declared, Sam Norton: None declared, James Galloway Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Celgene, Chugai, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Jo Ledingham: None declared, Raj Sengupta Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Biogen, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Karl Gaffney Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Biogen, Cellgene, Celltrion, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document