No abstract

Objective:To analyse associations between the clinical status of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the gross domestic product (GDP) of their resident country.Methods:The Quantitative Standard Monitoring of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (QUEST–RA) cohort includes clinical and questionnaire data from 6004 patients who were seen in usual care at 70 rheumatology clinics in 25 countries as of April 2008, including 18 European countries. Demographic variables, clinical characteristics, RA disease activity measures, including the disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28), and treatment-related variables were analysed according to GDP per capita, including 14 “high GDP” countries with GDP per capita greater than US$24 000 and 11 “low GDP” countries with GDP per capita less than US$11 000.Results:Disease activity DAS28 ranged between 3.1 and 6.0 among the 25 countries and was significantly associated with GDP (r  =  −0.78, 95% CI −0.56 to −0.90, r2  =  61%). Disease activity levels differed substantially between “high GDP” and “low GDP” countries at much greater levels than according to whether patients were currently taking or not taking methotrexate, prednisone and/or biological agents.Conclusions:The clinical status of patients with RA was correlated significantly with GDP among 25 mostly European countries according to all disease measures, associated only modestly with the current use of antirheumatic medications. The burden of arthritis appears substantially greater in “low GDP” than in “high GDP” countries. These findings may alert healthcare professionals and designers of health policy towards improving the clinical status of patients with RA in all countries.

Background Little is known about patient reported outcomes (PRO) in lupus nephritis (LN), and no studies using a disease targeted PRO tool have been undertaken thus far. Objectives To describe quality of life (QOL) among patients with LN using a valid and reliable disease targeted PRO measure (LupusPRO). Methods Cross sectional data obtained from patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) during psychometric evaluation studies of LupusPRO from various countries were compared between those: 1) with and without LN and 2) with active and inactive-LN.” Data compared included demographics, disease characteristics, and LupusPRO constructs. Presence of LN was present if listed among the ACR classification criteria (ACR-LN), while presence of active LN was based on presence of urinary casts, hematuria, proteinuria or pyuria in the disease activity assessment (SELENA-SLEDAI) performed at the time of the study visit. LupusPRO has Health related QOL (HRQOL) and non-HRQOL constructs. HRQOL domains include lupus symptoms, cognition, medication, procreation, physical health, emotional health, pain-vitality and body image. Non-HRQOL domains include desires-goals, social support, coping and satisfaction with care. Non-parametric tests were used to make comparisons, and p values ≤0.05 were considered significant. Results There were 1,259 SLE patients; ninety-four percent were women and their mean (SD) age was 41.7 (13.5) yrs. Five-hundred and thirty-nine had ACR-LN. These patients were younger, had greater disease activity (PGA, Total SELENA-SLEDAI) and damage (SLICC/ACR) than those without LN. Summary HRQOL and non-HRQOL scores were similar in both groups; however, those with ACR-LN had significantly worse scores on medications and procreation domains, while those without ACR-LN had worse scores on Pain-Vitality domains. 129/540 ACR-LN patients had active LN. Patients with active LN were younger, had significantly greater disease activity (PGA, Total SELENA-SLEDAI), worse HRQOL and non-HRQOL than patients with inactive LN. Specific domains scores adversely affected among active LN patients were lupus symptoms, medications, procreation, emotional health, body image and desires-goals. Satisfaction with care was significantly higher among patients with active LN as compared to inactive LN patients. Conclusions LN adversely affects several specific QOL domains and physicians need to be aware of these concerns Disclosure of Interest None declared DOI 10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-eular.3775

Introducción: La utilización de agentes biológicos para el tratamiento de la Artritis Reumatoidea (AR) es habitualmente usada en aquellos pacientes con enfermedad activa que no hayan respondido al tratamiento con drogas modificadoras de la Artritis Reumatoidea convencionales (DMARD, por sus siglas en inglés) o que hayan presentado intolerancia a las mismas. Al estado actual de la evidencia, la terapia combinada de agentes biológicos más un DMARD convencional (principalmente metotrexato) constituye el estándar de tratamiento. Sin embargo existen algunos escenarios como la intolerancia, la falta de adherencia y la aparición de eventos adversos a las DMARDs convencionales donde la monoterapia biológica emerge como una opción terapéutica válida. Según los distintos registros a nivel internacional, la frecuencia de utilización de agentes biológicos en monoterapia oscila entre 12 a 39%. Debido a la ausencia de estos datos a nivel local decidimos realizar este estudio para conocer el porcentaje de pacientes que se encuentran en monoterapia biológica y analizar las causas que llevaron a este tipo de tratamiento. Materiales y métodos: Estudio de tipo corte transversal donde se invitó a participar a diferentes centros reumatológicos distribuidos a lo largo de Argentina. Cada centro revisó las historias clínicas de los últimos 30 a 50 pacientes consecutivos vistos con AR, mayores de 18 años, que habían presentado inadecuada respuesta al tratamiento con DMARDs y que estaban bajo tratamiento biológico. Se completaba una ficha por cada paciente incluido, registrando datos demográficos, de la enfermedad y tratamientos previos. Resultados: Se incluyeron 32 centros y se evaluaron 1148 historias clínicas de pacientes con AR durante el mes de octubre y noviembre del 2012. Un 21,4% (246) de los pacientes al momento del estudio se encontraba bajo tratamiento biológico en monoterapia. Las razones de la selección del tratamiento monoterapia fueron: 45% evento adverso, 35% decisión del médico por buena evolución del paciente, 13% decisión del paciente, 7% inadecuada respuesta a las DMARDs. Los eventos adversos que llevaron al uso de monoterapia fueron: 31,9% hepatotoxicidad, 21,6% intolerancia gástrica, 9,6% estomatitis, 7,4% cefalea, 5,3% caída del cabello, entre los más frecuentes. En relación al tratamiento en combinación, el MTX fue la DMARD más utilizada (69%). Los médicos referían en un 98% de los casos estar satisfechos de la respuesta terapéutica bajo el tratamiento biológico como monoterapia. Conclusión: Una proporción significativa de pacientes con AR están siendo tratados con agentes biológicos en monoterapia. Las principales causas de esta opción terapéutica fueron intolerancia a la DMARD y decisión de discontinuación del DMARD debido a buena evolución del paciente.