POS0501 SUSTAINED 2-YEAR REMISSION OF THE DISEASE IN A CLINIC OF EXCELLENCE IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS. EXPERIENCE OF THE CLINICAL REGISTRY IN COLOMBIA
Authors: J. M. Bello-Gualtero, E. Peña, P. I. Santos Moreno, J. Vesga Gualdrón, G. Saavedra, C. Perez
Journal: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2021)

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease with no cure, characterized by episodes of exacerbation and remission, which requires permanent use of medications. Clinics of excellence are multidisciplinary and centralized programs that improve adherence to treatments. Information on the benefits of these models of care has been published but is not definitive. In Colombia, the clinical registry of patients with RA is kept in the Cuenta de Alto Costo (CAC). Objectives: To demonstrate the difference in the percentages of sustained remission at 2 years, between an institution with non-centralized management or standard of care (Hospital Militar Central-HMC) compared to another institution with centralized management or clinic of excellence (BIOMAB-IPS) and determine if the results are determined by any of the intervention variables or by the program. Methods: The 2-year clinical records for the CAC were compared between an institution with non-centralized management (HMC) in comparison with another institution with centralized management (BIOMAB-IPS), performing a sociodemographic description, measuring control of the disease DAS28 clinimetry, Fisher’s test non-parametric bivariate analysis, multiple regression model, and population matching with Propensity score Matching (PSM). Results: Complete information was obtained from 2 years of follow-up, in centralized management 3457 patients and for the non-centralized unit 114 patients. Most of them corresponded to 2962 women (82%), with time of illness of 9.5 years and 10.2 years, respectively, without statistically significant differences. A difference was observed in the 2 programs to maintain remission at 2 years, in favor of the centralized program 54.7% vs 28.6.2% (p &lt;0.00). With the binomial generalized linear regression model, it was confirmed that this difference was not explained by variables such as the use of biological therapy (RR = 0.77; 95% CI 0.69-0.86), use of DMARDs (RR = 0.71; 95% CI 0.62-0.82) and number of rheumatology consultations (RR = 0.97; 95% CI 0.92-1.02) in comparison with the centralized care model (RR = 2.32; 95% CI 1.58-3.35). Due to the biases between the groups due to the non-probability sampling, a PSM was performed, with a 1: 1 match, caliper of 0.065, obtaining a pseudo population with well-balanced covariates (see table 1). In the common support area, statistically significant differences were documented in sustained remission over 2 years, in favor of the centralized care group 45 vs 17.9% (p = 0.001). Conclusion: With the information from the clinical records, statistical strategies can be used to evaluate important differences in centralized care programs, observing favorable results of these types of care that are not related to isolated elements of the program, but to the overall effect of the program. References: [1]Austin PC. Double propensity-score adjustment: A solution to design bias or bias due to incomplete matching. Stat Methods Med Res. 2017;26(1):201–22.33333 Disclosure of Interests: Juan Manuel Bello-Gualtero: None declared, Esperanza Peña: None declared, Pedro Iván Santos Moreno: None declared, Jasmin Vesga Gualdrón Employee of: Baxter, Ginna Saavedra: None declared, Clara Perez: None declared