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
OBJECTIVE Recently, new classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been devised by methodology that used first a quantitative approach (data from databases), then a qualitative... Show moreOBJECTIVE Recently, new classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been devised by methodology that used first a quantitative approach (data from databases), then a qualitative approach (consensus; based on paper patients), and finally a common sense-based approach (evaluation of the former phases). Now the individual items that make up these criteria are being evaluated. This study was undertaken to analyze the item "autoantibodies," in particular rheumatoid factor (RF) level. METHODS Three separate cohorts comprising a total of 972 patients with undifferentiated arthritis were studied for RA development (according to the 1987 American College of Rheumatology criteria) and arthritis persistence. The positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and likelihood ratios (LRs) were compared between different levels of RF and the presence of anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA). A similar comparison was made in 686 RA patients for the rate of joint destruction and achievement of sustained disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-free remission during 7 years of followup. The variation in RF levels obtained by different measurement methods in the same RF-positive sera was explored. RESULTS Compared to high RF levels, presence of ACPA had a better balance between positive LR and negative LR and between PPV and NPV for RA development. The additive value of ACPA assessment after testing for RF level was higher than vice versa. The association between high RF level and RA severity was not as strong as that between ACPA antibodies and RA severity. The RF level obtained by different methods in the same patients' sera varied considerably. CONCLUSION Our findings indicate that determination of RF level is subject to large variation; high RF level has limited additive prognostic value compared to ACPA positivity. Thus, omitting RF level and using RF presence, ACPA presence, and ACPA level may improve the 2010 criteria for RA. Show less
Objective. Recently, new classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been devised by methodology that used first a quantitative approach (data from databases), then a qualitative... Show moreObjective. Recently, new classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been devised by methodology that used first a quantitative approach (data from databases), then a qualitative approach (consensus; based on paper patients), and finally a common sense-based approach (evaluation of the former phases). Now the individual items that make up these criteria are being evaluated. This study was undertaken to analyze the item "autoantibodies," in particular rheumatoid factor (RF) level. Methods. Three separate cohorts comprising a total of 972 patients with undifferentiated arthritis were studied for RA development (according to the 1987 American College of Rheumatology criteria) and arthritis persistence. The positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and likelihood ratios (LRs) were compared between different levels of RF and the presence of anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA). A similar comparison was made in 686 RA patients for the rate of joint destruction and achievement of sustained disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-free remission during 7 years of followup. The variation in RF levels obtained by different measurement methods in the same RF-positive sera was explored. Results. Compared to high RF levels, presence of ACPA had a better balance between positive LR and negative LR and between PPV and NPV for RA development. The additive value of ACPA assessment after testing for RF level was higher than vice versa. The association between high RF level and RA severity was not as strong as that between ACPA antibodies and RA severity. The RF level obtained by different methods in the same patients' sera varied considerably. Conclusion. Our findings indicate that determination of RF level is subject to large variation; high RF level has limited additive prognostic value compared to ACPA positivity. Thus, omitting RF level and using RF presence, ACPA presence, and ACPA level may improve the 2010 criteria for RA. Show less
OBJECTIVE:: Recently new classification criteria for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) have been devised by methodology that used first a quantitative approach (data from databases), then a qualitative... Show moreOBJECTIVE:: Recently new classification criteria for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) have been devised by methodology that used first a quantitative approach (data from databases), then a qualitative approach (consensus-based on paper patients) and finally a common sense based approach (evaluation of the former phases). Now these criteria are being evaluated to assess characteristics of the individual items. This study analyzed characteristics of the item autoantibodies, in particular RF-level. METHODS:: Three separate cohorts with a total of 972 undifferentiated arthritis patients were studied for RA-development (according to the 1987 ACR criteria) and arthritis persistency. Positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) and likelihood ratios (LR) were compared between different levels of RF and the presence of ACPA. A similar comparison was made in 686 RA-patients for the rate of joint destruction during 7 years of follow-up and achievement of sustained-DMARD-free-remission. The variation in RF-levels obtained by different measurement methods in the same RF-positive sera was explored. RESULTS:: Presence of ACPA had a better balance between LR+/LR- and PPV/NPV than high RF-levels for RA-development. The additive value of ACPA assessment after high level RF-testing was higher than vice versa. High level RF was less strongly associated with RA-severity than ACPA-antibodies. The RF-level obtained by different methods in the same patients' sera varied considerably. CONCLUSION:: Level determination of RF is subject to large variation; high level RF has limited additive prognostic value compared to ACPA-positivity. Thus, omitting RF level and using RF-presence, ACPA-presence and ACPA-level may improve the 2010 criteria for RA. Show less
