Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the extent to which internationally agreed treat-to-target recommendations were applied in clinical practice in patients with axial spondyloarthritis. METHODS: Data were used from a web-based patient registry for monitoring SpA in daily practice in the Netherlands. The extent to which treat-to-target was applied was evaluated through four indicators: the proportion of patients (i) with ≥1 Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) assessed during a 1-year period, (ii) having inactive disease/low disease activity (i.e. ASDAS < 2.1), (iii) in whom re-evaluation of ASDAS within recommended intervals occurred, and (iv) with high disease activity (HDA, i.e. ASDAS ≥ 2.1) in whom treatment was adapted ≤6 weeks after obtaining ASDAS ≥ 2.1. Patients with HDA with treatment adaptations were compared with patients with HDA without treatment adaptations. RESULTS: In 185 out of 219 patients (84%), disease activity was monitored with ≥1 ASDAS during a 1-year period, of whom 71 (38%) patients had a score below the target (ASDAS < 2.1) at first measurement. Re-evaluation of ASDAS ≤3 months occurred in 11% and 23% of the patients with inactive disease/low disease activity and HDA, respectively. Treatment adaptation occurred in 19 out of 114 patients (17%) with HDA. Patients in whom treatment was adapted had significantly higher ASDAS (P < 0.01), CRP levels (P < 0.05) and physician global assessment (P < 0.05) compared with patients without treatment adaptations. CONCLUSIONS: Treat-to-target was applied to a limited extent in clinical practice in patients with axial spondyloarthritis. Available disease activity scores seemed not to be used for determining the frequency of re-evaluation nor treatment adaptation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Beckers et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: