Inflammatory Arthritis Clinic Research Articles

Implementing Patient Health Questionnaire Depression Screening in Inflammatory Arthritis Clinic: Insights From a Quality Improvement Project at a Tertiary Rheumatology Center.

This quality improvement project evaluates the feasibility and sustainability of adopting the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) depression screening tool into routine clinical care at a rheumatology fellows' inflammatory arthritis (IA) clinic at a large tertiary center. The aim was to achieve 50% compliance in documentation of PHQ after five months. Providers received a 30-minute education on the importance of depression screening in patients with IA. A week after the education, two-step depression screening with the PHQ-2 followed by the PHQ-9 was implemented. Nurses performed PHQ-2 at each IA clinic visit verbally and documented the results while rooming patients using an electronic health record (EHR) dotphrase. Patients completed paper forms of the PHQ-9 only if the PHQ-2 score was positive for depression. Fellows then reviewed the PHQ-9 during the clinic visit and documented it using a separate EHR dotphrase. We tracked both PHQ-2 and PHQ-9 documentation rates as the key outcome measures. Before to the intervention, depression documentation rate was only 2%. After initial poor participation, nurses achieved the aim after repeated reminders and ongoing education by the senior nurse. Fellows failed to achieve the aim despite repeated reminders and education. Lack of time during clinic visit was found to be the biggest challenge. Sustained adoption of the PHQ was difficult to achieve. Additional support at the health systems level that prioritizes depression screening may need to take place. Additional research demonstrating improved IA outcomes in screened patients may also be helpful to gain more buy-in from providers.

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

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.

A comparative study of renal dysfunction in patients with inflammatory arthropathies: strong association with cardiovascular diseases and not with anti-rheumatic therapies, inflammatory markers or duration of arthritis

The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) among comparable patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and seronegative inflammatory arthritis, and to explore any predictive factors for renal impairment. Consecutive patients with peripheral joint disease (oligo and polyarthritis) were recruited from our inflammatory arthritis clinics. We divided patients in two groups: RA group and seronegative inflammatory arthritis group. The cohort consisted of 183 patients (RA = 107, seronegative arthritis = 76 [psoriatic arthritis = 69, undifferentiated oligoarthritis = 7]). Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was calculated using the established Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation. Demographic details, disease-specific characteristics, anti-rheumatic drugs and the presence of cardiovascular diseases were recorded. In total, 17.48% (n = 32) of the cohort had CKD. There was no statistically significant variation between the two groups as regards baseline demographics, disease characteristics, use of anti-rheumatic drugs and the presence of individual cardiovascular diseases. We found that eGFR and the presence of CKD were similar among these groups. Among patients with CKD, 72% had undiagnosed CKD. No association of statistical significance was noted between CKD and the use of corticosteroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and anti-tumor necrosis factor agents. The association of cardiovascular diseases with CKD remained significant after adjusting for confounders (age, gender, duration of arthritis, high C-reactive protein, use of anti-rheumatic drugs). Patients with inflammatory arthritis are more prone to have CKD. This could have serious implications, as the majority of rheumatology patients use non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and different immunosuppressives, such as methotrexate. No association of kidney dysfunction was noted with inflammatory disease-specific characteristics; rather it appears to have a positive independent association with cardiovascular diseases.

Efficacy and safety of combining intra-articular methylprednisolone and anti-TNF agent to achieve prolonged remission in patients with recurrent inflammatory monoarthritis

Objective To control local inflammation, the role of intra-articular corticosteroid is well established; similarly, with time there are more reports on the experience of intra-articular anti-TNF agent for localized joint inflammation. The aim of this study was to assess the safety, local tolerability and clinical response after combining intra-articular administration of corticosteroids and anti-TNF agents for recurrent inflammatory monoarthritis. Methods Patients with recurrent monoarthritis of the knee were recruited from our inflammatory arthritis clinics. These patients required intra-articular corticosteroids every 8–12 weeks, with good short-term results. Five such consecutive patients were invited to partake in this study. Patients were maintained on their baseline immunosuppressive therapy. After aspiration of knee joint, the involved joint was injected with 80 mg of methylprednisolone mixed with 5 ml of lignocaine 1%; this was followed by the injection of an anti-TNF agent. Results In majority of our patients (three out of five), combining anti-TNF agent and methylprednisolone led to prolonged anti-inflammatory response, and these patients remain in remission to date (mean follow-up of 12 months). These responders were noted to be naive to anti-TNF therapy. Conversely, the remaining two patients were found to be on baseline systemic anti-TNF therapy, and both of them failed to respond either partly or completely. Conclusion Combining intra-articular corticosteroid and anti-TNF agent has proved to be safe in our cohort of patients. We conclude that in particular subset of patients who suffer from recurrent inflammatory monoarthritis or oligoarthritis, combination therapy of intra-articular corticosteroids and anti-TNF agents appears attractive and promising.