Determinants of discordance in patients' and physicians' rating of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity

OBJECTIVE

To assess the determinants of patients' (PTGL) and physicians' (MDGL) global assessment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) activity and factors associated with discordance among them.

METHODS

A total of 7,028 patients in the Quantitative Standard Monitoring of Patients with RA study had PTGL and MDGL assessed at the same clinic visit on a 0-10-cm visual analog scale (VAS). Three patient groups were defined: concordant rating group (PTGL and MDGL within ±2 cm), higher patient rating group (PTGL exceeding MDGL by >2 cm), and lower patient rating group (PTGL less than MDGL by >2 cm). Multivariable regression analysis was used to identify determinants of PTGL and MDGL and their discordance.

RESULTS

The mean ± SD VAS scores for PTGL and MDGL were 4.01 ± 2.70 and 2.91 ± 2.37, respectively. Pain was overwhelmingly the single most important determinant of PTGL, followed by fatigue. In contrast, MDGL was most influenced by swollen joint count (SJC), followed by erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and tender joint count (TJC). A total of 4,454 (63.4%), 2,106 (30%), and 468 (6.6%) patients were in the concordant, higher, and lower patient rating groups, respectively. Odds of higher patient rating increased with higher pain, fatigue, psychological distress, age, and morning stiffness, and decreased with higher SJC, TJC, and ESR. Lower patient rating odds increased with higher SJC, TJC, and ESR, and decreased with lower fatigue levels.

CONCLUSION

Nearly 36% of patients had discordance in RA activity assessment from their physicians. Sensitivity to the "disease experience" of patients, particularly pain and fatigue, is warranted for effective care of RA.

Self-directed learning of basic musculoskeletal ultrasound among rheumatologists in the United States

OBJECTIVE

Because musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) is highly user dependent, we aimed to establish whether non-mentored learning of MSUS is sufficient to achieve the same level of diagnostic accuracy and scanning reliability as has been achieved by rheumatologists recognized as international experts in MSUS.

METHODS

A group of 8 rheumatologists with more experience in MSUS and 8 rheumatologists with less experience in MSUS participated in an MSUS exercise to assess patients with musculoskeletal abnormalities commonly seen in a rheumatology practice. Patients' established diagnoses were obtained from chart review (gout, osteoarthritis, rotator cuff syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, and seronegative arthritis). Two examining groups were formed, each composed of 4 less experienced and 4 more experienced examiners. Each group scanned 1 predefined body region (hand, wrist, elbow, shoulder, knee, or ankle) in each of 8 patients, blinded to medical history and physical examination. Structural abnormalities were noted with dichotomous answers, and an open-ended answer was used for the final diagnosis.

RESULTS

Less experienced and more experienced examiners achieved the same diagnostic accuracy (US-established diagnosis versus chart review diagnosis). The interrater reliability for tissue pathology was slightly higher for more experienced versus less experienced examiners (kappa = 0.43 versus kappa = 0.34; P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Non-mentored training in MSUS can lead to the achievement of diagnostic accuracy in MSUS comparable to that achieved by highly experienced international experts. Reliability may increase slightly with additional experience. Further study is needed to determine the minimal training requirement to achieve proficiency in MSUS.