BackgroundRheumatoid arthritis (RA), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and psoriasis are immune-mediated inflammatory diseases with similarities in pathophysiology, and all can be treated with similar biological agents. Previous studies have shown that there are gender differences with regard to disease characteristics in RA and IBD, with women generally having worse scores on pain and quality of life measurements. The relationship is less clear for psoriasis. Because treatment differences between men and women could explain the dissimilarities, we investigated gender differences in the disease characteristics before treatment initiation and in the biologic treatment prescribed.MethodsData on patients with RA or IBD were collected from two registries in which patients treated with biologic medication were enrolled. Basic demographic data and disease activity parameters were collected from a time point just before the initiation of the biologic treatment. For patients with psoriasis, the data were taken from the 2010 annual report of the Swedish Psoriasis Register for systemic treatment, which included also non-biologic treatment. For all three diseases, the prescribed treatment and disease characteristics were compared between men and women.ResultsIn total, 4493 adult patients were included in the study (1912 with RA, 131 with IBD, and 2450 with psoriasis). Most of the treated patients with RA were women, whereas most of the patients with IBD or psoriasis were men. There were no significant differences between men and women in the choice of biologics. At treatment start, significant gender differences were seen in the subjective disease measurements for both RA and psoriasis, with women having higher (that is, worse) scores than men. No differences in objective measurements were found for RA, but for psoriasis men had higher (that is, worse) scores for objective disease activity measures. A similar trend to RA was seen in IBD.ConclusionsWomen with RA or psoriasis scored significantly higher on subjective, but not on objective, disease activity measures than men, and the same trend was seen in IBD. This indicates that at the same level of treatment, the disease has a greater effect in women. These findings might suggest that in all three diseases, subjective measures are discounted to some extent in the therapeutic decision-making process, which could indicate undertreatment in female patients.

No abstract

ObjectivesTo assess variation in and determinants of rheumatologist guideline adherence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), in daily practice.MethodsIn this retrospective observational study, guideline adherence in the first year of treatment was assessed for 7 predefined parameters on diagnostics, treatment and follow-up in all adult patients with RA with a first outpatient clinic visit at the study centre, from September 2009 to March 2011. Variation in guideline adherence was assessed on parameter and rheumatologist level. Determinants for guideline adherence were assessed in patients (demographic characteristics, rheumatoid factor (RF) and/or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (aCCP) positivity, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, erosive disease, comorbidity and the number of available disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment options) and rheumatologists (demographic and practice characteristics, guideline knowledge and agreement, outcome expectancy, cognitive bias, thinking style, numeracy and personality).ResultsA total of 994 visits in 137 patients with RA were reviewed. Variation in guideline adherence among parameters was present (adherence between 21% and 72%), with referral to the physician assistant as lowest scoring and referral to a specialised nurse as highest scoring parameter. Variation in guideline adherence among rheumatologists was also present (adherence between 22% and 100%). Patient sex, the number of DMARD options, presence of erosions, comorbidity, RF/aCCP positivity, type of patient and the rheumatologists' scientific education status were associated with adherence to 1 or more guideline parameters.ConclusionsGuideline adherence varied considerably among the guideline parameters and rheumatologists, showing that there is room for improvement. Guideline adherence in our sample was related to several patient and rheumatologist determinants.

Objective. To assess the effect of a simple intervention on antinuclear antibody (ANA) test overuse by rheumatologists. Methods. This was an explorative, pragmatic, before-and-after, controlled implementation study among rheumatologists working at 3 rheumatology departments in secondary and tertiary care centers in The Netherlands. The intervention was given in all study centers separately and combined education with feedback. Six outcome measures describe the intervention effects: the ANA/new patient ratio (APR), difference with the target APR, percentage of positive ANA tests, percentage of repeated ANA testing, percentage of ANA-associated diseases, and APR variation between rheumatologists. Outcomes were compared between the pre-and postintervention period (both 12 months) using (multilevel) logistic regression or F testing. Results are reported together for centers 1 and 2, and separately for center 3, because ANA tests could not be linked to an individual rheumatologist in center 3. Results. The APR decreased from 0.37 to 0.11 after the intervention in centers 1 and 2 (odds ratio [OR] 0.19, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.17-0.22, P < 0.001) and from 0.45 to 0.30 in center 3 (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.45-0.62, P < 0.001). The percentage of repeated ANA requests in all centers and the APR variation for centers 1 and 2 decreased significantly. Only in center 3 did the percentage of ANA-associated diseases increase significantly. Conclusion. A simple intervention resulted in a relevant and significant decrease in the numbers of ANA tests requested by rheumatologists, together with an improvement on 3 other outcome measures.