AB0662 TREATMENT AND FOLLOW-UP OF AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS IN DAILY CLINICAL PRACTICE - A SURVEY AMONG DUTCH RHEUMATOLOGISTS
Authors: A. Spoorenberg, S. Arends, R. Bruin, M. De Hair
Journal: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2020)

Background: ASAS-EULAR have developed management recommendations for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) to provide guidance to the management of patients with axSpA 1 . However, there is limited insight into how rheumatologists treat axSpA patients in daily clinical practice and if these recommendations are used. Objectives: To get insight into the management of axSpA patients in daily practice in the Netherlands. Methods: We performed a survey among rheumatologists in the Netherlands with 21 multiple choice questions; 5 general questions on characteristics of their practice and 16 questions addressing treatment and follow-up of axSpA patients in daily practice. The questionnaire was taken during structured face-to-face interviews by employees of the medical department of Novartis NL Rheumatologists in the Netherlands were invited to participate, aiming to get a sample of rheumatologists varying in geographical location and hospital type, as well as a mix of SpA-experts and non-SpA-experts. Rheumatologists gave approval for anonymous use of the data, which were entered in a database and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: Between October 15 2019 and January 16 2020, 36 rheumatologists participated; 6 from university hospitals, 27 from general hospitals and 3 from private care centers. 81% of the rheumatologists referred most of their axSpA patients (76-100%) after diagnosis for information and education concerning axSpA, exercise and lifestyle to a specialized nurse practitioner. Furthermore, 53% of rheumatologists referred most of their axSpA patients (76-100%) to a physiotherapist for exercise therapy. At diagnosis, approximately 55% of axSpA patients used the daily maximum dose of NSAIDs, compared to 25% for patients on biological treatment. The reported level of importance of different axSpA related aspects for starting a biological was largely similar for AS and nr-axSpA, although some differences could be observed (Figure 1): Most rheumatologists graded insufficient response to 2 NSAIDs during 4 weeks (94% for AS and 92% for nr-AxSpA) and bone marrow edema on MRI (75% and 89%) as important for starting a biological. About 60% of rheumatologists considered active disease using ASDAS/BASDAI important for the decision to start a biological, which was similar to the importance of the level of pain. For nr-axSpA, more rheumatologists graded elevated CRP and bone marrow edema on MRI as important for starting a biological, than for AS. Most rheumatologists (67%) do not base a decision that a biological is ineffective on ASDAS or BASDAI. To assess disease activity in axSpA, 86% of the rheumatologists always measured C-reactive protein (CRP), compared to 42% and 31% for BASDAI and ASDAS, respectively. 77% of rheumatologists reported to follow the 2016 ASAS-EULAR treatment recommendations for axSpA for treatment and follow-up of axSpA patients. Conclusion: This survey among Dutch rheumatologists suggests that ASDAS and BASDAI are as important for starting a biological in axSpA as is the level of pain. Moreover, in contrast to ASAS-EULAR treatment recommendations, most rheumatologists do not use validated disease activity instruments to assess biological ineffectiveness, which may be a topic for increasing awareness and education. References: [1]Van der Heijde D et al, Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:978-91. Acknowledgments: We would like to thank all participating rheumatologists. Disclosure of Interests: Anneke Spoorenberg: None declared, Suzanne Arends Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from Pfizer, Reindert Bruin Employee of: Current employee of Novartis Pharma B.V., Marjolein de Hair Employee of: Current employee of Novartis Pharma B.V.