Article

Best practices in scleroderma: an analysis of practice variability in SSc centres within the Canadian Scleroderma Research Group (CSRG).

University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.
Clinical and experimental rheumatology (Impact Factor: 2.97). 01/2012; 30(2 Suppl 71):S38-43.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT There is currently no consensus on best practice in systemic sclerosis (SSc). To determine if variability in treatment and investigations exists, practices among Canadian Sclerodermia Research Group (CSRG) centres were compared.
Prospective clinical and demographic data from adult SSc patients are collected annually from 15 CSRG treatment centres. Laboratory parameters, self-reported socio-demographic questionnaires, current and past medications and disease outcome measures are recorded. For centres with >50 patients enrolled, treatment practices were analysed to determine practice variability.
Data from 640 of 938 patients within the CSRG database met inclusion criteria, where 87.3% were female, the mean ± SEM age was 55.3±0.5, 48.9% had limited SSc and 47.8% had diffuse SSc (and 3.3% uncharacterised). Some investigation and treatment practices were inconsistent among 6 centres including proportion receiving: PDE5 (phosphodiesterase type 5) inhibitors for Raynaud's phenomenon (p=0.036); cyclophosphamide (p=0.037) and azathioprine (p=0.037) for treatment of ILD; and current use of D-penicillamine, although uncommon, varied among sites. Annual echocardiograms and PFTs were frequently done and did not vary among sites but the rate of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) was directly related to site size and this was not the case for other organ involvement.
Despite routine tests within a database, site variation in SSc with respect to investigations and management among CSRG centres exists suggesting a need for a standardised approach to the investigation and treatment of SSc. One can speculate that larger centres are more export in detecting PAH.

0 Followers
 · 
60 Views
 · 
1 Download
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Glucocorticoids (GC) represent a mainstay in the therapeutical strategies of many autoimmune diseases, but their role in systemic sclerosis (SSc) is controversial. The main objective of this review is to assess the extent of and the factors associated with GC use in SSc patients, taking into account data from cohort studies and registries. We performed a search in MEDLINE databases updated to April 2013. The pooled prevalence and factors associated with GC utilization in both SSc patients collectively considered and in any of the two subsets of the disease were calculated. The pooled prevalence was 0.36 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.28-0.43) for overall sample. In six studies, data about the GC prescription in the two different subsets of the disease were available. The pooled prevalence was 0.52 (95 % CI 0.49-0.55) in diffuse and 0.33 (95 % CI 0.31-0.35) in limited cutaneous disease patients. Five papers reporting data about the dose of GC prescribed showed a pooled prevalence of 0.89 (95 % CI 0.87-0.91) for a daily dose of <15 mg of prednisone equivalent. Huge heterogeneity was identified across studies (I (2) > 75 %). No significant correlation was detected between the extent of GC utilization and either the percentage of concomitant immunosuppressants intake (p = 0.347), diffuse subset (p = 0.720) or female sex (p = 0.913). Despite the limited evidence for their effectiveness, GC are frequently prescribed in SSc patients, mostly in those with the diffuse subset. The variability in the extent of their utilization in different centres is considerable and suggests the need to develop treatment recommendations.
    Clinical Rheumatology 11/2013; DOI:10.1007/s10067-013-2422-0 · 1.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The extent to which pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) experts share common practice patterns that are in alignment with published expert consensus recommendations is unknown. Our objective was to characterize the clinical management strategies used by an international cohort of self-identified PAH experts. A 32-item questionnaire composed mainly of rank order or Likert scale questions was distributed via the Internet (August 5, 2013, through January 20, 2014) to four international pulmonary vascular disease organizations. The survey respondents (N = 105) were field experts reporting 11.6 ± 8.7 years of PAH experience. Likert scale responses (1 = disagree, 7 = agree) were 3.0-5.0, indicating a disparity in opinions, for 78% of questions. Respondent (dis)agreement scores were 4.4 ± 2.2 for use of expert recommendations to determine catheterization timing in PAH. For PAH patients without cardiogenic shock or known vasoreactivity status, the most and least preferred first-line therapies (1 = most preferred, 5 = least preferred) were phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE-Vi) and subcutaneous prostacyclin analogues, respectively (1.4 ± 0.8 vs. 4.0 ± 1.1; P < 0.05). Compared with US-practicing clinicians (N = 46), non-US-practicing clinicians (N = 57) favored collaboration between cardiology and pulmonary medicine for clinical decision making (1 = disagree, 7 = agree; 3.1 ± 2.2 vs. 4.8 ± 2.2; P < 0.0001) and PDE-Vi (6.5% vs. 22.4%) as first-line therapy for PAH patients with cardiogenic shock but were less likely to perform vasoreactivity testing in patients with lung disease-induced pulmonary hypertension (4.3 ± 2.1 vs. 2.2 ± 1.6; P < 0.0001). In conclusion, practice patterns among PAH experts diverge from consensus recommendations and differ by practice location, suggesting that opportunity may exist to improve care quality for this highly morbid cardiopulmonary disease.
    09/2014; 4(3):441-51. DOI:10.1086/677357

Preview

Download
1 Download
Available from