Objective As part of European League against Rheumatism (EULAR)/European Musculoskeletal Conditions Surveillance and Information Network, 20 user-focused standards of care (SoCs) for rheumatoid... Show moreObjective As part of European League against Rheumatism (EULAR)/European Musculoskeletal Conditions Surveillance and Information Network, 20 user-focused standards of care (SoCs) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) addressing 16 domains of care were developed. This study aimed to explore gaps in implementation of these SoCs across Europe.Methods Two cross-sectional surveys on the importance, level of and barriers (patients only) to implementation of each SoC (0-10, 10 highest) were designed to be conducted among patients and rheumatologists in 50 European countries. Care gaps were calculated as the difference between the actual and maximum possible score for implementation (ie, 10) multiplied by the care importance score, resulting in care gaps (0-100, maximal gap). Factors associated with the problematic care gaps (ie, gap >= 30 and importance >= 6 and implementation<6) and strong barriers (>= 6) were further analysed in multilevel logistic regression models.Results Overall, 26 and 31 countries provided data from 1873 patients and 1131 rheumatologists, respectively. 19 out of 20 SoCs were problematic from the perspectives of more than 20% of patients, while this was true for only 10 SoCs for rheumatologists. Rheumatologists in countries with lower gross domestic product and non-European Union countries were more likely to report problematic gaps in 15 of 20 SoCs, while virtually no differences were observed among patients. Lack of relevance of some SoCs (71%) and limited time of professionals (66%) were the most frequent implementation barriers identified by patients.Conclusions Many problematic gaps were reported across several essential aspects of RA care. More efforts need to be devoted to implementation of EULAR SoCs. Show less
Objectives: To assess the discontinuation of first-line biological treatment and to evaluate the reasons and predictors thereof in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from daily clinical... Show moreObjectives: To assess the discontinuation of first-line biological treatment and to evaluate the reasons and predictors thereof in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from daily clinical practice.Methods: RA patients registered in the Rheumatic Diseases Portuguese Register (Reuma.pt) starting treatment with biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) were included in this prospective observational study. The main outcome was the time to discontinuation (in years) due to any cause. Discontinuation was defined as a 90-day discontinuation of treatment or the occurrence of any switch to another bDMARD during follow-up. Baseline and time-varying sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were tested as possible predictors of discontinuation using multivariable Cox models.Results: Of the 1,851 RA patients included in the study, 871 (47%) discontinued their first bDMARD. The median overall persistence of the first bDMARD was 5.5 years and the leading cause of discontinuation was inefficacy [N=476 (55%)], followed by adverse events [N=262 (30%)], other causes [N=69, (8%)] and unknown causes [N=64 (7%)]. Patients with a higher HAQ score (more disability) at baseline were more likely to discontinue their first bDMARD [hazard ratio (HR):1.39 (95% CI: 1.17-1.64)], as were patients with a higher number of comorbidities [HR: 1.17 (1.05-1.29)] and patients starting treatment from 2007 onwards [HR:1.89 (1.5-2.38)]. On the contrary, receiving TNFi bDMARD [HR:0.74 (0.57-0.94)] as opposed to non-TNFi was associated with less discontinuation. Expectedly, the higher the DAS28 during follow-up the higher the likelihood to discontinue bDMARD [HR:1.08 (1.06-1.1)]. No other time-varying predictor was found.Conclusion: In the Portuguese RA population, maintenance of first-line bDMARD was shown to be relatively high. Inefficacy was the leading cause of discontinuation. Features found to predict drug discontinuation (e.g. baseline disability) may contribute to inform clinician's decisions in clinical practice. Show less
