Search

BackgroundQualitative research is crucial to understand key stakeholders experiences and perspectives of care and health services. However, there is a lack of explicit frameworks and guidelines about how best to use qualitative evidence to formulate clinical recommendations. Part of the problem includes uncertainties about the contributions of qualitative research to the evidence, and the empirical and theoretical basis for appraising and synthesizing qualitative evidence in a standardized manner. In addition, most existing grading systems of qualitative research originates from quantitative research, and there is no clear guidance about how to incorporate qualitative research into the evidence hierarchy.ObjectivesTo conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) to answer two research questions (RQ):RQ1) What guidance (e.g., tools, checklists, frameworks) exists to assess the methodological quality of qualitative research employed to inform clinical recommendations?;RQ2) What methods exist specifically to grade levels of evidence for qualitative research?MethodsThe protocol for this review was registered on www.researchregistry.com (reviewregistry1240). Electronic databases (PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, COCHRANE, Emcare, PsycINFO, ERIC, Academic Search Premier, Sociological Abstracts, ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis Global) were searched for published and unpublished studies. Searches were completed from inception to 23rd October 2020. No restrictions were applied to clinical population. Eligible studies for both questions included primary articles and guideline documents available in English, describing the: i) development; ii) application of validated tools (e.g., checklists); iii) guidance on how to assess methodological quality of qualitive research and iv) guidance on how to grade levels of qualitative evidence. Opinion pieces and conference abstracts were excluded. Manual searches of the reference lists of full text articles were conducted. Two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full text. A narrative synthesis was conducted to identify key aspects between the included studies.Results9071 records were retrieved (Figure 1). After de-duplication and title/abstract screening, 51 full-articles articles were assessed for eligibility yielding 15 included articles. For RQ1, six articles were included that described six tools (1) The society for Critical Care Medicine Family – Cantered Care Guidelines; 2) Nursing Management of the Second Stage of Labour evidence based clinical practice guidelines; 3) Jonna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal of Qualitative Studies; 4) Critical Skill’s Appraisal Programme (CASP) and 6) the Modified CASP checklist). All tools ranged from 10 to 30 items, and evaluated research design, recruitment, ethical rigour, data collection and data analysis. Seven articles described one approach (GRADE CER-Qual) to assess methodological quality of qualitative research. This approach advised on the importance for assessing methodological limitations. For RQ2, two articles were included, one described a qualitative hierarchy of evidence, and another described a research pyramid that included a section on qualitative research.Figure 1.PRISMA diagram of included papersConclusionThis review highlights lack of consensus and limited availability of tools, checklists, and approaches to 1) appraise the methodological quality of qualitative research used to inform clinical recommendations and 2) grade levels of evidence for qualitative research. Current research agendas will need to determine the most relevant and appropriate method for the quality appraisal of qualitative research. This way, qualitative research could be more consistently and appropriately applied to the development of clinical recommendations.ReferencesN/ADisclosure of InterestsMandeep Sekhon: None declared, Annette de Thurah: None declared, George E. Fragoulis: None declared, Tanja Stamm: None declared, T.P.M. Vliet Vlieland: None declared, Bente Appel Esbensen: None declared, Heidi Lempp: None declared, Lindsay Bearne: None declared, Marios Kouloumas: None declared, Polina Pchelnikova: None declared, Thijs W. Swinnen: None declared, Chris Blunt: None declared, Ricardo J. O. Ferreira: None declared, Loreto Carmona: None declared, Elena Nikiphorou Speakers bureau: Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapgos, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Eli Lilly

BackgroundHealth professionals in rheumatology (HPRs) should participate in post-graduate or continuous education to update and advance their knowledge and skills. This can improve patient outcomes and increase quality of care.1 EULAR aims to become a leading provider of postgraduate education for HPRs.ObjectivesThe aims of this study were to evaluate the current motivations for participating in postgraduate education of HPRs, identify barriers and facilitators for participation in postgraduate education, and evaluate participation in the current educational offerings of EULAR for HPRs across Europe.MethodsAn online survey was developed and distributed in collaboration with the EULAR Standing Committee of Education and Training (ESCET) and the Paediatric Rheumatology European Society (PReS). The questionnaire was translated by national HPR representatives in 24 languages to cover the 25 national member organisations. Barriers were assessed using 5-point Likert scales, higher scores representing higher barriers. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. In addition, we ran the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) on the answers to the open questions. LDA is an unsupervised probabilistic topic modelling technique that extracts the meanings of a pre-defined number of topics. Design of the survey and reporting of results were done according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES).ResultsThe online questionnaire was accessed 3,589 times but only 667 complete responses were recorded. HPRs from 34 European countries responded to the survey; 80% of whom were women. The highest-ranked educational need was prevention, including lifestyle interventions and professional development. Although EULAR was well known among HPRs, only 32.1% of HPRs in adult care and 18.6% of HPRs in paediatric care have ever heard of the EULAR School of Rheumatology (Table 1 A).Table 1.A: Feedback on EULAR. Data are presented separately for HPRs in adult and paediatric care; except for the filter questions, no mandatory questions were included in the survey. To clarify the number of responses per question, the number of valid answers for each question was reported.VariablesHPRs in adult careHPRs in paediatric careHave you ever heard of the EULAR School of Rheumatology?61443 I am not sure, n(%)62 (10.1%)7 (16.3%) No, n(%)355 (57.8%)28 (65.1%) Yes, n(%)197 (32.1%)8 (18.6%)Are you aware of courses offered by the EULAR School of Rheumatology? (sub question)1978 I am not sure, n(%)30 (15.2%)2 (25.0%) No, n(%)63 (32.0%)5 (62.5%) Yes, n(%)104 (52.8%)1 (12.5%)Have you ever attended one of the EULAR School of Rheumatology courses? (sub question)1031 I am not sure, n(%)1 (1.0%)0 No, n(%)47 (45.6%)0 Yes, n(%)55 (53.4%)1 (100%)Have you ever participated in a EULAR annual congress meeting?61843 I am not sure, n(%)11 (1.8%)0 No, n(%)457 (73.9%)39 (90.7%) Yes, n(%)150 (24.3%)4 (9.3%)The main barriers to participation in EULAR’s educational offerings were identified by HPRs in adult care and in paediatric care (respectively) as: the unfamiliarity with the course content (3.48 [±1.50]; 3.92 [±1.46]), the associated costs (3.44 [±1.35]; 3.69 [±1.28]) and English language (2.59 [±1.50]; 2.80 [±1.34]).ConclusionEULAR is well-known by HPRs in Europe, however, awareness of educational offerings is low and barriers to participation are numerous. To become the leading provider of postgraduate training by 2023, EULAR could use a “franchise” model that can be tailored to local conditions. This could be achieved by strengthening national organizations by actively involving them in the development of training programs and disseminating these programs and offerings through their networks.References[1]World Health Organization. Health workforce: Education and training: World Health Organization; 2019 [Available from: https://www.who.int/hrh/education/en/ accessed November, 2019 2019.Disclosure of InterestsLisa Sperl: None declared, Tanja Stamm Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda, Consultant of: AbbVie and Sanofi Genzyme, Grant/research support from: AbbVie and Roche, Margaret Renn Andrews: None declared, Mathilda Bjork: None declared, Carina Boström: None declared, Jeannette Cappon: None declared, Jenny de la Torre-Aboki: None declared, Annette de Thurah: None declared, Andrea Domjan: None declared, Razvan Dragoi Speakers bureau: Received speaker fees last year from: Pfizer, Elly Lilly, Sandoz, Abbvie, Secom, EwoPharma, Fernando Estevez-Lopez: None declared, Ricardo J. O. Ferreira: None declared, George E. Fragoulis: None declared, Jolanta Grygielska: None declared, Katti Korve: None declared, Marja Leena Kukkurainen: None declared, Christel Madelaine-Bonjour: None declared, Andrea Marques: None declared, Jorit Meesters: None declared, Rikke Helene Moe: None declared, Ellen Moholt: None declared, Erika Mosor: None declared, Claudia Naimer-Stach: None declared, Mwidimi Ndosi: None declared, Polina Pchelnikova: None declared, Jette Primdahl: None declared, Polina Putrik: None declared, Anne-Kathrin Rausch Osthoff: None declared, Hana Smucrova: None declared, Sinisa Stefanac: None declared, Marco Testa: None declared, Leti van Bodegom-Vos: None declared, Wilfred Peter: None declared, Heidi A. Zangi: None declared, Olena Zimba: None declared, T.P.M. Vliet Vlieland: None declared, Valentin Ritschl: None declared

BackgroundExperimental evidence suggests that synovial fibroblasts (SFs) may play a central pathogenetic role in chronic inflammatory arthritis in humans. RNA of the mesenchymal marker cadherin-11 characterising SFs is overexpressed in the peripheral blood of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients compared to healthy donors and correlates with established polyarthritis [1]. Recently, Orange et al. using RNA sequencing and flow cytometry have identified in the peripheral blood of RA patients PRIME (PRe-Inflammatory MEsenchymal) cells, considered as the precursors to inflammatory sublining SFs, that could be used as predictors of RA flares [2].ObjectivesTo test the hypothesis that circulating PRIME cells can be identified by mass cytometry in patients with active RA, as well as in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).MethodsThe expression of markers suggestive of PRIME cells, namely, cadherin-11 and/or podoplanin (both expressed on SFs), and/or CD90 (Thy-1, expressed on sublining SFs), and/or Notch-3 (expressed on endothelial cells and sublining SFs), and/or CD34 (expressed on stem cells and SFs) was evident in all 10 RA and 5 PsA-derived blood samples. Circulating PRIME cell levels were elevated in patients (0.019%±0.003%) than healthy donors (0.008%±0.002%, p=0.004). The increased PRIME cell levels were more pronounced in PsA (0.023%±0.007%, p=0.003) than RA (0.017%±0.003%, p=0.03), when compared to healthy donors. PRIME cells were also present in 2 RA synovial fluid samples, being at three-fold higher levels than in the paired blood samples. Interestingly, a fraction of circulating PRIME cells exhibited expression of HLA-DR, suggestive of antigen-presenting capacity.ResultsThe expression of markers suggestive of PRIME cells, namely, cadherin-11 and/or podoplanin (both expressed on SFs), and/or CD90 (Thy-1, expressed on sublining SFs), and/or Notch-3 (expressed on endothelial cells and sublining SFs), and/or CD34 (expressed on stem cells and SFs) was evident in all 10 RA and 5 PsA-derived blood samples. Circulating PRIME cell levels were elevated in patients (0.019%±0.003%) than healthy donors (0.008%±0.002%, p=0.004). The increased PRIME cell levels were more pronounced in PsA (0.023%±0.007%, p=0.003) than RA (0.017%±0.003%, p=0.03), when compared to healthy donors. PRIME cells were also present in 2 RA synovial fluid samples, being at three-fold higher levels than in the paired blood samples. Interestingly, a fraction of circulating PRIME cells exhibited expression of HLA-DR, suggestive of antigen-presenting capacity.ConclusionRare circulating mesenchymal cells with antigen-presenting properties may be of pathogenetic importance in patients with RA and PsA. Whether their measurement is clinically relevant, as well their function during chronic inflammatory arthritis, merits further studies.References[1]Sfikakis PP, Christopoulos PF, Vaiopoulos AG, et al. Cadherin-11 mRNA transcripts are frequently found in rheumatoid arthritis peripheral blood and correlate with established polyarthritis. Clinical Immunology, 2014,155(1):33–41.[2]Orange DE, Yao V, Sawicka K, Fak J, et al. RNA Identification of PRIME cells predicting rheumatoid arthritis flares. New Engl J Med, 2020,383(3):218.AcknowledgementsWe acknowledge support of this work by the project “The Greek Research Infrastructure for Personalised Medicine (pMedGR)” (MIS 5002802) which is implemented under the Action “Reinforcement of the Research and Innovation Infrastructure”, funded by the Operational Programme “Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and Innovation” (NSRF 2014-2020) and co-financed by Greece and the European Union (European Regional Development Fund).Disclosure of InterestsNone declared.

BackgroundOpportunistic and chronic infections can arise in the context of treatment used for Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases (ARDs). Although it is recognized that screening procedures and prophylactic measures must be followed, clinical practice is largely heterogeneous, with relevant recommendations not currently developed or disparately located across the literature.ObjectivesTo conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) focusing on the screening and prophylaxis of opportunistic and chronic infections in ARDs. This is preparatory work done by members of the respective EULAR task force (TF).MethodsFollowing the EULAR standardised operating procedures, we conducted an SLR with the following 5 search domains; 1) Infection: infectious agents identifed by a scoping review and expert opinion (TF members), 2) Rheumatic Diseases: all ARDs, 3) Immunosuppression: all immunosuppressives/immunomodulators used in rheumatology, 4) Screening: general and specific (e.g mantoux test) terms, 5) Prophylaxis: general and specific (e.g trimethoprim) terms. Articles were retrieved having the terms from domains 1 AND 2 AND 3, plus terms from domains 4 OR 5. Databases searched: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane. Exclusion criteria: post-operative infections, pediatric ARDs, not ARDs (e.g septic arthritis), not concerning screening or prophylaxis, Covid-19 studies, articles concerning vaccinations and non-Εnglish literature. Quality of studies included was assessed as follows: Newcastle Ottawa scale for non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs), RoB-Cochrane tool for RCTs, AMSTAR2 for SLRs.Results5641 studies were initially retrieved (Figure 1). After title and abstract screening and removal of duplicates, 568 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Finally, 293 articles were included in the SLR. Most studies were of medium quality. Reasons for exclusion are shown in Figure 1. Results categorized as per type of microbe, are as follows: For Tuberculosis; evidence suggests that tuberculin skin test (TST) is affected by treatment with glucocorticoids and conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) and its performance is inferior to interferon gamma release assay (IGRA). Agreement between TST and IGRA is moderate to low. Conversion of TST/IGRA occurs in about 10-15% of patients treated with biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs). Various prophylactic schemes have been used for latent TB, including isoniazide for 9 months, rifampicin for 4 months, isoniazide/rifampicin for 3-4 months. For hepatitis B (HBV): there is evidence that risk of reactivation is increased in patients positive for hepatitis B surface antigen. These patients should be referred for HBV treatment. Patients who are positive for anti-HBcore antibodies, are at low risk for reactivation when treated with glucocorticoids, cDMARDs and bDMARDs but should be monitored periodically with liver function tests and HBV-viral load. Patients treated with rituximab display higher risk for HBV reactivation especially when anti-HBs titers are low. Risk for reactivation in hepatitis C RNA positive patients, treated with bDMARDs is low. However, all patients should be referred for antiviral treatment and monitored periodically. For pneumocystis jirovecii: prophylaxis with trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (alternatively with atovaquone or pentamidine) should be considered in patients treated with prednisolone: 15-30mg/day for more than 4 weeks. Few data exist for screening and prophylaxis from viruses like EBV, CMV and Varicella Zoster Virus. Expert opinion supports the screening of rare bugs like histoplasma and trypanosoma in patients considered to be at high risk (e.g living in endemic areas).Figure 1.SLR flowchartConclusionThe risk of chronic and opportunistic infections should be considered in all patients prior to treatment with immunosuppressives/immunomodulators. Different screening and prophylaxis approaches are described in the literature, partly determined by individual patient and disease characteristics. Collaboration between different disciplines is important.AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank all members of the EULAR Task Force for the screening and prophylaxis of chronic and opportunistic infections in Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases.Disclosure of InterestsNone declared