Background:In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), global disease activity is commonly assessed, from the patient’s and the physician’s perspective, through a 100mm VAS. Previous studies have commonly shown a considerable discrepancy between the patient’s and physician’s assessment.Objectives:This study aimed evaluating patient-physician discordance in the assessment of disease activity and to explore its determinants.Methods:Cross sectional study including RA patients (ACR/EULAR 2010 classification criteria), aged ≥ 18 years, followed in a single tertiary centre. Data were collected from the most recent evaluation including sociodemographic features, disease duration (years), disease activity (DAS 28 3V-PCR), tender and swollen joint count 0-28 (TJC and SJC), VAS-pain-patient, patient and physician global assessment (PGA and PhGA respectively), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CPR), Health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) and EuroQol five-dimension scale (EQ5D). The discrepancy between patients and physicians (ΔPPhGA) was defined as PGA minus PhGA, and a difference > |20mm| was considered as “discordant”. A descriptive analysis was performed and variables described as proportions or means (+/- SD), as adequate. Correlation between ΔPPhGA and other variables was assessed through Pearson’s correlation and comparison between groups through t-test. Variables with p<0.05 or otherwise considered clinically relevant were included in multiple linear regression analysis to identify predictors for ΔPPhGA. A p≤0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results:In total, 467 patients with RA were included (81.2% female; mean age 63.9% ± 12.2 years). PGA and PhGA were discordant in 61.7% of the cases, the patient scoring higher than the physician in 95% of these cases. The proportion of concordance increased (p< 0.01) when considering only patients in remission (DAS 28 3V <2.6), (Graph 1). ΔPPhGA was moderately correlated with VAS-pain-patient (r = 0.59) and weakly correlated with SJC (r = -0.12), HAQ (r= 0.27), EQ5D (r = -0.28) and age (r = 0.21); all p<0.01. In multivariate analysis, VAS-pain-patient (β 0.74, 95% CI 0.62-0.88, p=0.00) and TJC (β 0.16, 95% CI 0.45-0.48, p=0.02) remained associated with a higher ΔPPhGA.Conclusion:Our study confirmed that a significant discrepancy between patients and physicians in the assessment of global disease activity is frequent in clinical practice, probably due to valorization of different parameters. This was much less pronounced among patients in remission. Higher VAS-pain-patient and TJC were independent predictors of greater discrepancy between patients and physician’s assessment.Disclosure of Interests:Luisa Brites: None declared, Flavio Costa: None declared, João Dinis de Freitas: None declared, Mariana Luis: None declared, Ana Rita Prata: None declared, Helena Assunção: None declared, LILIANA SARAIVA: None declared, Marlene Sousa: None declared, Ana Rita Cunha: None declared, José Antonio P. da Silva Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Abbvie, Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Catia Duarte: None declared

Background:The Glucocorticoid Low-dose Outcome in Rheumatoid Arthritis Study (GLORIA) is an international investigator-initiated pragmatic randomized trial designed to study the effects of low-dose glucocorticoids (GCs) in elderly patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA).The research team is also committed to promote a better understanding of the risks and benefits of these drugs among health professionals and patients. In order to achieve these goals, it is important to assess the current ideas and concerns of patients regarding GCs.Objectives:To evaluate the current patient perspective on the efficacy and risks of GCs in RA patients who are or have been treated with GCs.Methods:Patients with RA completed an online survey (with 5 closed questions regarding efficacy and safety) presented in their native language. RA patients were recruited through a variety of patient organizations representing three continents. Patients were invited to participate through national patient organizations. In the USA, patients were also invited to participate through MediGuard.org. Participants were asked for their level of agreement on a 5-point Likert scale.Results:1344 RA patients with exposure to GCs, from Brazil, USA, UK, Portugal, Netherlands, Germany and 24 other countries** participated: 89% female, mean age (SD) 52 (14) years and mean disease duration 13 (11) years. The majority of participants (84%) had ≥10 years of education. The duration of GCs exposure was 1.6 (4.2) years. The majority of participants had read articles or pamphlets on the benefits or harms of GC therapy.Regarding GCs efficacy (table 1), high levels of endorsement were found: about 2/3 of patients considered that GCs as very useful in their case, more than half considered that GCs were effective even at low doses, and agreed that GC improved RA symptoms within days.Regarding safety (table 1), 1/3 of the participants reported having suffered some form of serious adverse events (AEs) due to GCs, and 9% perceived this as “life-threatening. Adverse events had a serious impact on quality of life, according to about 1/3 of the respondents.Conclusion:Patients with RA exposed to GC report a strong conviction that GCs are very useful and effective for the treatment of their RA, even at low doses. This is accompanied by an important prevalence of serious AEs. Understanding the patient perspective can improve shared decision-making between patient and rheumatologist.Funding statement:This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 634886.Disclosure of Interests:Tânia Santiago: None declared, Marieke Voshaar Grant/research support from: part of phd research, Speakers bureau: conducting a workshop (Pfizer), Maarten de Wit Grant/research support from: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Consultant of: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Speakers bureau: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Pedro Carvalho: None declared, Maarten Boers: None declared, Maurizio Cutolo Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Actelion, Celgene, Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Speakers bureau: Sigma-Alpha, Frank Buttgereit Grant/research support from: Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Generic Assays, GSK, Hexal, Horizon, Lilly, medac, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi., José Antonio P. da Silva Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Abbvie, Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, Lilly, Novartis

Background:Based on the American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) Boolean-based remission definition for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the main reason for near-misses (failing Boolean remission solely due to one criterion >1) is a patient global assessment (PGA) >1/10.1-3The frequency of this PGA-near-remission status has not been well established.Objectives:To synthesize the overall prevalence of ACR/EULAR Boolean-based remission and PGA-near-remission cross-sectionally in published studies, and to explore association with disease duration.Methods:We systematically searched PubMed database (from 1/jan/2011 till 15/jan/2020) for “Rheumatoid arthritis” AND Boolean [OR synonyms] AND PGA [OR synonyms], and carried out a hand search of the references of the included studies. Two reviewers independently assessed the study inclusion and extracted the data (n (%) of patients in each remission status, mean (SD) disease duration, and country/city). Studies were excluded if any of the four Boolean criterion was not considered (e.g. C-Reactive Protein not assessed), or if only patients with low disease activity or remission were selected. If different time assessments were provided, we selected the 1y follow-up, as the most common. Random effects meta-analyses of proportions with double arcsine transformation were performed (also by disease duration subgroups) using MEDCALC®. Heterogeneity was assessed byI2.Results:From 41 studies identified, 8 studies concerning 12 subsamples were analysed (n=23,297 patients; of which 22% had ≤2 years mean disease duration). The overall prevalence of Boolean remission was 12% (95%CI: 10-15%, p<0.005) compared to 19% of PGA-near-remission (15-23%, p<0.005) (Figure 1). In patients with shorter disease duration, PGA-near-remission was more prevalent (14% vs 18%), but even more so in longer disease duration (11% vs 19%).Conclusion:The overall prevalence of PGA-near-remission in patients with RA followed in clinical practice was 1/3 more prevalent than Boolean remission, a difference more pronounced in patients with established disease. Overall, over 61% of all RA patients otherwise in remission failed to satisfy the Boolean definition of remission solely due to a PGA>1. The use of PGA in the definition of treatment target exposes a substantial proportion of patients to the risk of overtreatment with immunosuppressive agents, while being deprived of the adjunctive therapy they probably need.References:[1]Studenic P. et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71:1702-5. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-201519.[2]Veermer M. et al. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2012;51:1076-80. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/ker425.[3]Ferreira RJO et al. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2019;71:1317-25. doi: 10.1002/acr.23866.Disclosure of Interests:Ricardo J. O. Ferreira Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Consultant of: Sanofi Genzyme, Amgen, MSD, Paid instructor for: UCB, Eduardo Santos: None declared, Laure Gossec Grant/research support from: Lilly, Mylan, Pfizer, Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, José Antonio P. da Silva Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Abbvie, Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, Lilly, Novartis

Background:Physician’s global assessment of disease activity (PhGA) is included in some scores of disease activity and, demonstrably, plays a major role upon treatment decisions in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) [1, 2, 3]. Therefore, understanding the reasons underlying the physician´s assessment is crucial.Objectives:To understand the reasons underlying the physician´s assessment.Methods:Cross-sectional study, including consecutive RA patients followed in a Tertiary Rheumatology Department. Socio-demographic (age and gender) and clinical data were collected through a standardized protocol, including 28 tender (TJ28) and swollen (SJC28) joints count, C-Reactive Protein (CRP), Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR), Disease activity Score (DAS28-4v-CRP and DAS28-4v-ESR), PhGA and Patient Global Assessment of disease Activity (PGA) through a Visual Analogic Scale (VAS) 0-100mm, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Correlation between PhGA and other continuous variables was evaluated through Pearson´s Correlation Coefficient and variables with p<0.05 in univariate analysis were included in multivariable linear regression (stepwise model).Results:392 RA patients (80.6% female, 65.3±12.6 years) were included. PhGA was weakly correlated with CRP (r=0.23), TJC28 (r=0.35), PGA (r=0.26), HAQ (r=0.31) and EQ5D (r=-0.21). Moderate correlations were observed with SJC28 (r=0.45) and DAS-4V-CRP (r=0.48). In multivariable analysis, SJC28 (β=4.14, 95%CI:3.16-5.12), CRP (β=0.22; 95%CI: 0.02-0.03), HAQ (β=4.46, 95%CI:1.50-7.42) and PGA (β=0.08; 95%CI:0.00-0.16) remained as independent correlates of PhGA (R2=0.27, p<0,05).Conclusion:In this study, PhGA was associated with SJC28, CRP, HAQ and PGA, suggesting that physicians adopt a comprehensive reading of the disease into account. However, a large proportion of the variance of PhGA remains unexplained. Given its driving role in treatment decisions, the need to standardize and better understand PhGA seems to deserve a closer attention.References:[1]Ward MM, et al. Art Car Res. 2017;69(8):1260-5.[2]Desthieux C, et al. Art Car Res (Hoboken). 2016;68(12):1767-73.[3]Kaneko Y, et al. Mod Rheumatol. 2018;28(6):960-7.Disclosure of Interests:LILIANA SARAIVA: None declared, Luisa Brites: None declared, Ana Rita Cunha: None declared, Helena Assunção: None declared, Ana Rita Prata: None declared, Mariana Luis: None declared, Flavio Costa: None declared, Pedro Freitas: None declared, Marlene Sousa: None declared, José Antonio P. da Silva Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Abbvie, Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Catia Duarte: None declared

Background:In clinical training, a portfolio is expected to stimulate learning and encourage critical reflection. Some, but not all, European countries use a portfolio in rheumatology training, and their scope varies widely. A EULAR portfolio for Rheumatology trainees could contribute to improve overall training, raise educational standards, foster the setting of common goals and harmonize rheumatology training across countries.Objectives:Develop key components that should be included in a EULAR portfolio of Rheumatology.Methods:A working group (WG) composed of 9 rheumatologists and 1 educationalist was established. A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in November 2018, according to the PIM structure: Population: trainees; Instrument of interest: portfolio; Measurement of properties of interest: content portfolio. A survey was disseminated among the WG group and WG members of the EMerging EUlar NETwork (EMEUNET), inquiring about the content and structure of existing national portfolios. Portfolio materials of selected countries were reviewed. Last, the WG elected the key components of the portfolio.Results:13/2,034 articles were included in the SLR (12 high/1 moderate risk of bias). Information on direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) (9/13), personal reflections (8/13), learning goals (5/13) and multisource feedback (5/13) were most often included in the portfolio. Twenty-five respondents filled out the survey (response rate ≈ 50%). Reflective writing (n=7), learning goals (n=4) and feedback (n=4) were considered the most useful components of a portfolio. About half indicated that a portfolio was a bureaucratic burden; 4 respondents mentioned lack of feedback by supervisors as a barrier. Portfolio materials of 7 European countries were reviewed. Several portfolios (Germany, Italy, Greece and Spain) were logbooks, i.e. a record of clinical activities. Other portfolios (UK, Denmark, The Netherlands) also included information on workplace-based assessments, learning goals, and personal reflections. The proposed key components of the portfolio are included in Table 1.Table 1.Key components of the EULAR portfolio of Rheumatology.Key componentContentCurriculum vitaePersonal record of achievements, experiences, knowledge and skillsPersonal Development PlanLearning goals and action planClinical workInformation on managing patients (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis)Skills (e.g. joint aspiration)Assessments (summative and formative)Personal reflectionsProfessional behaviourMultisource feedbackPersonal reflectionsEducationContinuing professional development, list of formal and non-formal learning activitiesAssessments (e.g. teaching assessment, evidence based medicine assignment)Personal reflectionsResearchList of abstracts, published articlesInformation on research funding, scholarships, bursaries, academic postsConclusion:This initiative resulted in the establishment of a list of key components to be included in a EULAR portfolio of Rheumatology. Assessment forms for each key portfolio component are currently being developed. Portfolio implementation, particularly in countries that do not use it yet, may contribute significantly to promote a higher standard of patient care across Europe.Disclosure of Interests:Marloes van Onna: None declared, Sofia Ramiro Grant/research support from: MSD, Consultant of: Abbvie, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, Speakers bureau: Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Catherine Haines: None declared, M. Holland-Fischer: None declared, José Antonio P. da Silva Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Abbvie, Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Jean Dudler: None declared, Christopher Edwards Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Biogen, Roche, Consultant of: Abbvie, Samsung, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Biogen, Celgene, Fresenius, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Mundipharma, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB,Alessia Alunno: None declared, Elena Nikiphorou: None declared, L. Falzon: None declared, Francisca Sivera: None declared