Dejaco, Christian

Objective To summarise the available information on physician workforce modelling, to develop a rheumatology workforce prediction risk of bias tool and to apply it to existing studies in rheumatology. Methods A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed in key electronic databases (1946–2017) comprising an update of an SLR in rheumatology and a hierarchical SLR in other medical fields. Data on the type of workforce prediction models and the factors considered in the models were extracted. Key general as well as specific need/demand and supply factors for workforce calculation in rheumatology were identified. The workforce prediction risk of bias tool was developed and applied to existing workforce studies in rheumatology. Results In total, 14 studies in rheumatology and 10 studies in other medical fields were included. Studies used a variety of prediction models based on a heterogeneous set of need/demand and/or supply factors. Only two studies attempted empirical validation of the prediction quality of the model. Based on evidence and consensus, the newly developed risk of bias tool includes 21 factors (general, need/demand and supply). The majority of studies revealed high or moderate risk of bias for most of the factors. Conclusions The existing evidence on workforce prediction in rheumatology is scarce, heterogeneous and at moderate or high risk of bias. The new risk of bias tool should enable future evaluation of workforce prediction studies. This review informs the European League Against Rheumatism points to consider for the conduction of workforce requirement studies in rheumatology.

Objective Current methods used for forecasting workforce requirements in rheumatology are disparate, as are the parameters incorporated into workforce projection studies. The objective of these European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR points to consider (PTC) is to guide future workforce studies in adult rheumatology in order to produce valid and reliable manpower estimates. Methods The EULAR Standardised Operating Procedures were followed. A multidisciplinary task force with experts including patients with rheumatic diseases from 11 EULAR countries and the USA was assembled. A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to retrieve workforce models in rheumatology and other medical fields. PTC were based on expert opinion informed by the SLR, followed by group discussions with consensus obtained through informal voting. The level of agreement with the PTC was voted anonymously. Results A total of 10 PTC were formulated. The task force recommends models integrating supply (=workforce available in rheumatology), demand (=health services requested by the population) and need (=health services that are considered appropriate to serve the population). In general, projections of workforce requirements should consider all factors relevant for current and future workload in rheumatology inside and outside of direct patient care. Forecasts of workforce supply should consider demography and attrition of rheumatologists, as well as the effects of new developments in healthcare. Predictions of future need/demand should take demographic, sociocultural and epidemiological development of the population into account. Conclusion These EULAR-endorsed PTC will provide guidance on the methodology and the parameters to be applied in future national and international workforce requirement studies in rheumatology.

Objectives To define the elementary ultrasound (US) lesions in giant cell arteritis (GCA) and to evaluate the reliability of the assessment of US lesions according to these definitions in a web-based reliability exercise. Methods Potential definitions of normal and abnormal US findings of temporal and extracranial large arteries were retrieved by a systematic literature review. As a subsequent step, a structured Delphi exercise was conducted involving an expert panel of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) US Large Vessel Vasculitis Group to agree definitions of normal US appearance and key elementary US lesions of vasculitis of temporal and extracranial large arteries. The reliability of these definitions on normal and abnormal blood vessels was tested on 150 still images and videos in a web-based reliability exercise. Results Twenty-four experts participated in both Delphi rounds. From originally 25 statements, nine definitions were obtained for normal appearance, vasculitis and arteriosclerosis of cranial and extracranial vessels. The ‘halo’ and ‘compression’ signs were the key US lesions in GCA. The reliability of the definitions for normal temporal and axillary arteries, the ‘halo’ sign and the ‘compression’ sign was excellent with inter-rater agreements of 91–99% and mean kappa values of 0.83–0.98 for both inter-rater and intra-rater reliabilities of all 25 experts. Conclusions The ‘halo’ and the ‘compression’ signs are regarded as the most important US abnormalities for GCA. The inter-rater and intra-rater agreement of the new OMERACT definitions for US lesions in GCA was excellent.

ObjectiveTo describe the perception of the current role of systemic glucocorticoids in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by examining their importance and the current level of evidence in recent guidelines, and to identify open questions to be addressed in future guidelines and research projects.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review using the databases Ovid Embase, PubMed Medline, and Cochrane Library for guidelines on the pharmacologic treatment of RA. Retrieved articles were evaluated regarding their quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool and scrutinized for all relevant information concerning the use of glucocorticoids.ResultsAll guidelines agree that glucocorticoids, especially if given at low doses and for a short duration, are an appropriate option in the treatment of RA. However, many recommendations remain vague, as reliable and detailed evidence is scarce. Important aspects of glucocorticoid therapy are partially or completely neglected, and the existing nomenclature is not used uniformly. Quality evaluation revealed flaws in many articles, concerning not only glucocorticoid‐specific recommendations but also guideline quality in general.ConclusionCurrent recommendations for use of glucocorticoids in the management of RA are suboptimal. More rigorous evaluation of doses, timing, and duration of their use is needed. Existing nomenclature on glucocorticoid therapy should be used uniformly.

ObjectiveTo compare health care planning models forecasting rheumatology workforce requirements in western countries.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted through medical databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library) and the grey literature. All articles reporting a rheumatology workforce model were included.ResultsThe search yielded 6,508 articles, and 14 publications (on 12 studies) were included. Workforce models were available for the US (n = 3), Canada (n = 3), the US plus Canada (n = 1), Germany (n = 2), Spain (n = 1), and the UK (n = 2). The number of rheumatologists required to serve a population of 100,000 people was calculated, with a range of 0.7 (UK, calculated for 1988) to 3.5 (Spain, calculated for 2021). Most models used a needs‐based approach (n = 6); 3 studies each applied a supply‐ or demand‐based method. The following variables were considered by ≥1 model: disease prevalence, patients' referral to rheumatologists, clinical visits/patient/year, population development, factors influencing performance of rheumatologists, patient flow/care sharing, and medical technologies/infrastructure development.ConclusionHeterogeneity in methods used, the period or calendar years for which the estimates were projected, and heterogeneity of variables evaluated led to disparate estimates, with results ranging from 0.7 to 3.5 rheumatologists per 100,000 population. An international initiative is needed to agree upon a common approach for a reliable estimation of manpower requirements in rheumatology.

Abstract Therapy for polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) varies widely in clinical practice as international recommendations for PMR treatment are not currently available. In this paper, we report the 2015 European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommendations for the management of PMR. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology as a framework for the project. Accordingly, the direction and strength of the recommendations are based on the quality of evidence, the balance between desirable and undesirable effects, patients’ and clinicians’ values and preferences, and resource use. Eight overarching principles and nine specific recommendations were developed covering several aspects of PMR, including basic and follow‐up investigations of patients under treatment, risk factor assessment, medical access for patients and specialist referral, treatment strategies such as initial glucocorticoid (GC) doses and subsequent tapering regimens, use of intramuscular GCs and disease modifying anti‐rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), as well as the roles of non‐steroidal anti‐rheumatic drugs and non‐pharmacological interventions. These recommendations will inform primary, secondary and tertiary care physicians about an international consensus on the management of PMR. These recommendations should serve to inform clinicians about best practices in the care of patients with PMR.