OBJECTIVE: To compare rheumatologists' prescription for first disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in real-life settings with 2 clinical practice guidelines (CPG), the French Society of Rheumatology/STPR 2004 and EULAR/ESCISIT 2007, and thus assess the gap between practices and guidelines. Method. ESPOIR was a French multicenter cohort study of 813 patients with early arthritis between 2002 and 2005. "Definite" and "probable" RA were defined according to ACR criteria and the level of diagnostic certainty. The objectives were to assess conformity between the observed first-line DMARD prescribed for those patients and the DMARD recommended in the guidelines; and to conduct a mail survey of patients' usual rheumatologists to investigate the reasons for their nonconformity with guidelines. RESULTS: In total 627 patients with definite or probable RA were identified. Conformity rates were 58% for STPR guidelines and 54% for EULAR guidelines. At 6 months, 83 (34%) patients with early RA did not receive any DMARD. Main determinants associated with conformity to guidelines were disease activity and presence of severity-predictive factors. The main reason leading to a discrepancy between guidelines and daily practice appeared to be diagnostic uncertainty, i.e., the difficulty to reliably assess RA diagnosis as early as the first visits to the rheumatologist. CONCLUSION: There is a substantial gap between CPG and rheumatologists' daily practice concerning the first DMARD to prescribe in early RA. This is explained mainly by diagnostic uncertainty. More attention should be paid in future guidelines to the diagnostic difficulties of early RA.
OBJECTIVE: To compare rheumatologists' prescription for first disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in real-life settings with 2 clinical practice guidelines (CPG), the French Society of Rheumatology/STPR 2004 and EULAR/ESCISIT 2007, and thus assess the gap between practices and guidelines. Method. ESPOIR was a French multicenter cohort study of 813 patients with early arthritis between 2002 and 2005. "Definite" and "probable" RA were defined according to ACR criteria and the level of diagnostic certainty. The objectives were to assess conformity between the observed first-line DMARD prescribed for those patients and the DMARD recommended in the guidelines; and to conduct a mail survey of patients' usual rheumatologists to investigate the reasons for their nonconformity with guidelines. RESULTS: In total 627 patients with definite or probable RA were identified. Conformity rates were 58% for STPR guidelines and 54% for EULAR guidelines. At 6 months, 83 (34%) patients with early RA did not receive any DMARD. Main determinants associated with conformity to guidelines were disease activity and presence of severity-predictive factors. The main reason leading to a discrepancy between guidelines and daily practice appeared to be diagnostic uncertainty, i.e., the difficulty to reliably assess RA diagnosis as early as the first visits to the rheumatologist. CONCLUSION: There is a substantial gap between CPG and rheumatologists' daily practice concerning the first DMARD to prescribe in early RA. This is explained mainly by diagnostic uncertainty. More attention should be paid in future guidelines to the diagnostic difficulties of early RA.
Authors: S Vikman; K E J Airaksinen; I Tierala; K Peuhkurinen; K Majamaa-Voltti; M Niemelä; H Tuunanen; M S Nieminen; K Niemelä Journal: J Intern Med Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: B Combe; R Landewe; C Lukas; H D Bolosiu; F Breedveld; M Dougados; P Emery; G Ferraccioli; J M W Hazes; L Klareskog; K Machold; E Martin-Mola; H Nielsen; A Silman; J Smolen; H Yazici Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2006-01-05 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Adam M Rogers; Vijay S Ramanath; Mary Grzybowski; Arthur L Riba; Sandeep M Jani; Rajendra Mehta; Anthony C De Franco; Robert Parrish; Stephen Skorcz; Patricia L Baker; Jessica Faul; Benrong Chen; Canopy Roychoudhury; Mary Anne C Elma; Kristi R Mitchell; James B Froehlich; Cecelia Montoye; Kim A Eagle Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Henrike van Dongen; Jill van Aken; Leroy R Lard; Karen Visser; H Karel Ronday; Harry M J Hulsmans; Irene Speyer; Marie-Louise Westedt; André J Peeters; Cornelia F Allaart; René E M Toes; Ferdinand C Breedveld; Tom W J Huizinga Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2007-05
Authors: Robby Nieuwlaat; S Bertil Olsson; Gregory Y H Lip; A John Camm; Günter Breithardt; Alessandro Capucci; Joan G Meeder; Martin H Prins; Samuel Lévy; Harry J G M Crijns Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Leslie R Harrold; J Timothy Harrington; Jeffrey R Curtis; Daniel E Furst; Mary Jane Bentley; Ying Shan; George Reed; Joel Kremer; Jeffrey D Greenberg Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2012-03
Authors: L T C van Hulst; W Kievit; R van Bommel; P L C M van Riel; L Fraenkel Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Sabrina Meyfroidt; Marlies Hulscher; Diederik De Cock; Kristien Van der Elst; Johan Joly; René Westhovens; Patrick Verschueren Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 2.980