No abstract

IntroductionThe European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the treat-to-target (T2T) principles have been developed in order to improve the treatment outcome of patients with RA, and have received broad attention. It is not clear, though, whether these recommendations are indeed followed up in clinical practice.ObjectiveTo investigate if rheumatologists that report to agree with existing guidelines indeed follow them up in clinical practice.MethodsThe International Recommendation Implementation Study (IRIS) included 132 participating rheumatologists from 14 countries. Participating rheumatologists received a questionnaire measuring their awareness/commitment with the EULAR/T2T recommendations and followed a dedicated educational programme. Subsequently, they were asked to enrol 5–10 patients with new-onset RA in the online IRIS database and monitor disease activity and treatment for a period of 1–2 years. Four recommendations (3 from the EULAR recommendations and one from the T2T recommendations) were selected on the basis of testability, and analysed with regard to compliance by participating rheumatologists.ResultsIn total, 72 of the 132 participating rheumatologists contributed 378 patients to the database. Of these participants, 70 (98%) agreed upfront with the recommendation that disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy should be started as soon as possible after diagnosis in every patient; 69 (96%) of the rheumatologists agreed with the recommendation that methotrexate (MTX) should be part of the first treatment strategy. When measuring the actual performance, it was found that the recommendation on early DMARD start was met in 253 (67%) of the recorded patients, and the recommendation on MTX in 225 (60%) of the recorded patients. Of the participants, 60 (83%) agreed that composite measures should be recorded regularly, but only in 134(54%) of the patients were composite scores actually recorded in ≥50% of patient visits.ConclusionReporting to be compliant with EULAR recommendations and T2T principles, even after dedicated education does not mean they actually comply with it in clinical practice.

BackgroundGastroenteritis caused by rotavirus accounts for considerable morbidity in young children. We aimed to assess the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the oral rotavirus vaccine Rotarix, as measured by laboratory-confirmed rotavirus infection after referral to hospital and/or emergency departments in children aged <5 years with gastroenteritis.MethodsWe performed a systematic search for peer-reviewed studies conducted in real-life settings published between 2006 and 2016 and a meta-analysis to calculate the overall Rotarix VE, which was further discriminated through stratified analyses.ResultsThe overall VE estimate was 69% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62% to 75%); stratified analyses revealed a non-negligible impact of factors such as study design and socioeconomic status. Depending on the control group, VE ranged from 63% (95% CI, 52% to 72%) to 81% (95% CI, 69% to 88%) for unmatched and matched rotavirus test–negative controls. VE varied with socioeconomic status: 81% (95% CI, 74% to 86%) in high-income countries, 54% (95% CI, 39% to 65%) in upper-middle-income countries, and 63% (95% CI, 50% to 72%) in lower-middle-income countries. Age, rotavirus strain, and disease severity were also shown to impact VE, but to a lesser extent.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis of real-world studies showed that Rotarix is effective in helping to prevent hospitalizations and/or emergency department visits due to rotavirus infection.

No abstract

ObjectivesThe classification of disease activity states in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can be achieved through disease activity indices, such as the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR), the Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), and the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI). Subjective measurements, such as patient reported outcomes have been incorporated into several of these indices alongside more objective assessments, such as increases in the ESR and C-reactive protein. Moreover, while they use similar criteria, different indices weight these criteria to different extents. Therefore, the classifications based on each evaluation may not always be the same. We aim to compare the performance of the three indices and their individual components in two different populations.MethodsData from Dutch and Portuguese adherent centers were extracted from the METEOR database, a multinational collaboration on RA. We included a total of 24,605 visits from Dutch centers (from 5,870 patients) and 20,120 visits from Portuguese centers (from 3,185 patients). We compared the disease activity states as evaluated by the DAS28-ESR, CDAI, and SDAI across the two populations. In addition, we analyzed the individual components of each evaluation, including their respective contributions to the outcome, in each population.ResultsWe found significant differences in the disease activity states classified with the DAS28-ESR between the two populations. SDAI and CDAI had more congruous results. While the proportion of visits to Dutch and Portuguese centers that were classified as “in remission” was very similar between the CDAI and SDAI, the DAS28-ESR gave discordant results. Dutch patients had lower ESRs, which is more heavily weighted in the DAS28-ESR. In addition, even though the mean physicians’ global assessment values did not vary significantly for Dutch vs Portuguese physicians, we found that doctors at Portuguese centers overall scored the physician’s global assessment lower than Dutch physicians for patient visits classified by disease activity state.ConclusionWhile the CDAI and SDAI assigned disease activity states that were largely similar, the DAS28-ESR was often discordant across the two populations. Moreover, we found that physicians, more than patients, evaluated disease activity differently among the Portuguese and Dutch populations.