Objective Although the systematic measurement of disease activity facilitates clinical decision making in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), no recommendations currently exist on which measures should be applied in clinical practice in the US. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) convened a Working Group (WG) to comprehensively evaluate the validity, feasibility, and acceptability of available RA disease activity measures and derive recommendations for their use in clinical practice. Methods The Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Disease Activity Measures Working Group conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify RA disease activity measures. Using exclusion criteria, input from an Expert Advisory Panel (EAP), and psychometric analysis, a list of potential measures was created. A survey was administered to rheumatologists soliciting input. The WG used these survey results in conjunction with the psychometric analyses to derive final recommendations. Results Systematic review of the literature resulted in identification of 63 RA disease activity measures. Application of exclusion criteria and ratings by the EAP narrowed the list to 14 measures for further evaluation. Practicing rheumatologists rated 9 of these 14 measures as most useful and feasible. From these 9 measures, the WG selected 6 with the best psychometric properties for inclusion in the final set of ACR-recommended RA disease activity measures. Conclusion We recommend the Clinical Disease Activity Index, Disease Activity Score with 28-joint counts (erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein), Patient Activity Scale (PAS), PAS-II, Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data with 3 measures, and Simplified Disease Activity Index because they are accurate reflections of disease activity; are sensitive to change; discriminate well between low, moderate, and high disease activity states; have remission criteria; and are feasible to perform in clinical settings.

Compared with placebo, there was no significant difference in the rate of MACEs observed in patients receiving anti-IL-12/IL-23 antibodies or anti-TNF-α treatments. This study may have been underpowered to identify a significant difference.

Patients with various rheumatologic and inflammatory disease states commonly require drugs known to decrease the inflammatory or autoimmune response for adequate control of their condition. Such drugs include nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors, corticosteroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and biologic response modifiers. These drugs affect inflammation and local immune responses, which are necessary for proper wound healing in the perioperative setting, thereby potentially resulting in undesirable postoperative complications. Such complications include wound dehiscence, infection, and impaired collagen synthesis. The end result is delayed healing of soft tissue and bone wounds. The current literature provides insight into the effect of some of these drugs on wound healing. For certain drugs, such as methotrexate, trials have been conducted in humans and direct us on what to do during the perioperative period. Whereas with other drugs, we must rely on either small-animal studies or extrapolation of data from human studies that did not specifically look at wound healing. Unfortunately, no clear consensus exists on the need and optimum time for withholding therapy before surgery. Likewise, clinicians are often uncertain of the appropriate time to resume therapy after the procedure. For those drugs with limited or no data in this setting, the use of pharmacokinetic properties and biologic effects of each drug should be considered individually. In some cases, discontinuation of therapy may be required up to 4 weeks before surgery because of the long half-lives of the drugs. In doing so, patients may experience an exacerbation or worsening of disease. Clinicians must carefully evaluate individual patient risk factors, disease severity, and the pharmacokinetics of available therapies when weighing the risks and benefits of discontinuing therapy in the perioperative setting.

Objective To provide updated American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommendations on rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity measurements to facilitate a treat‐to‐target approach in routine clinical care. Methods A working group conducted a systematic literature review from the time of the prior ACR recommendations literature search. Properties of disease activity measures were abstracted, and study quality was assessed using the Consensus‐Based Standards for the selection of Health Measurement Instruments 4‐point scoring method, allowing for overall level of evidence assessment. Measures that fulfilled a minimum standard were identified, and through a modified Delphi process preferred measures were selected for regular use in most clinic settings. Results The search identified 5,199 articles, of which 110 were included in the review. This search identified 46 RA disease activity measures that contained patient, provider, laboratory, and/or imaging data. Descriptions of the measures, properties, study quality, level of evidence, and feasibility were abstracted and scored. Following a modified Delphi process, 11 measures fulfilled a minimum standard for regular use in most clinic settings, and 5 measures were recommended: the Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints with Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate or C‐Reactive Protein Level, Clinical Disease Activity Index, Simplified Disease Activity Index, Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3, and Patient Activity Scale‐II. Conclusion We have updated prior ACR recommendations for preferred RA disease activity measures, identifying 11 measures that met a minimum standard for regular use and 5 measures that were preferred for regular use in most clinic settings.

No abstract

Background The Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) is a national electronic medical record (EMR)-enabled registry. RISE passively collects data from EMRs of participating practices, provides advanced quality measurement and data analytic capacities, and fulfills national quality reporting requirements. Here we report the registry’s architecture and initial data, and demonstrate how RISE is being used to improve the quality of care. Methods RISE is a certified Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Qualified Clinical Data Registry, allowing collection of data without individual patient informed consent. We analyzed data between October 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015 to characterize initial practices and patients captured in RISE. We also analyzed medication use among rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients and performance on several quality measures. Results Across 55 sites, 312 clinicians contributed data to RISE; 72% were in group practice, 21% in solo practice and 7% were part of a larger health system. Sites contributed data on 239,302 individuals. Among the subset with RA, 34.4% of patients were on a biologic or targeted synthetic DMARD at their last encounter, and 66.7% were receiving a non-biologic DMARD. Examples of quality measures include: 55.2% had a disease activity score recorded, 53.6% a functional status score, and 91.0% were taking a DMARD in the last year. Conclusion RISE provides critical infrastructure for improving the quality of care in rheumatology and is a unique data source to generate new knowledge. Data validation and mapping is ongoing and RISE is available to the research and clinical communities to advance rheumatology.

Objective: Review the use of physiological measurement in team settings and propose recommendations to improve the state of the science. Background: New sensor and analytical capabilities enable exploration of relationships between team members’ physiological dynamics. We conducted a review of physiological measures used in research on teams to understand (1) how these measures are theoretically and operationally related to team constructs and (2) what types of validity evidence exist for physiological measurement in team settings. Method: We identified 32 articles that investigated task-performing teams using physiological data. Articles were coded on several dimensions, including team characteristics. Study findings were categorized by relationships tested between team physiological dynamics (TPD) and team inputs, mediators/processes, outputs, or psychometric properties. Results: TPD researchers overwhelmingly measure single physiological systems. Although there is research linking TPD to inputs and outputs, the research on processes is underdeveloped. Conclusion: We recommend several theoretical, methodological, and statistical themes to expand the growth of the TPD field. Application: Physiological measures, once established as reliable indicators of team functioning, might be used to diagnose suboptimal team states and cue interventions to ameliorate these states.

Background More than 28 000 people were infected with Ebola virus during the 2014–2015 West African outbreak, resulting in more than 11 000 deaths. Better methods are needed to reduce the risk of self-contamination while doffing personal protective equipment (PPE) to prevent pathogen transmission. Methods A set of interventions based on previously identified failure modes was designed to mitigate the risk of self- contamination during PPE doffing. These interventions were tested in a randomized controlled trial of 48 participants with no prior experience doffing enhanced PPE. Contamination was simulated using a fluorescent tracer slurry and fluorescent polystyrene latex spheres (PLSs). Self-contamination of scrubs and skin was measured using ultraviolet light visualization and swabbing followed by microscopy, respectively. Doffing sessions were videotaped and reviewed to score standardized teamwork behaviors. Results Participants in the intervention group contaminated significantly fewer body sites than those in the control group (median [interquartile range], 6 [3–8] vs 11 [6–13], P = .002). The median contamination score was lower for the intervention group than the control group when measured by ultraviolet light visualization (23.15 vs 64.45, P = .004) and PLS swabbing (72.4 vs 144.8, P = .001). The mean teamwork score was greater in the intervention group (42.2 vs 27.5, P < .001). Conclusions An intervention package addressing the PPE doffing task, tools, environment, and teamwork skills significantly reduced the amount of self-contamination by study participants. These elements can be incorporated into PPE guidance and training to reduce the risk of pathogen transmission.