Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Clinical practice guidelines are not always followed consistently. To better understand potential barriers to the implementation of treatment recommendations in axial spondyloarthritis and ankylosing spondylitis (axSpA/AS), an online survey was conducted. METHODS: Email invitations were sent to US rheumatology care providers in January 2023. The questionnaire included 20 questions, with an estimated completion time of 5-7 minutes. RESULTS: One hundred four of 441 (24%) invitees participated, including 80/104 (77%) board-certified rheumatologists and 20/104 (19%) fellows. Survey participants identified UpToDate (85%), treatment guidelines (74%), and colleagues (54%) as relevant sources of knowledge for managing axSpA/AS. Of the participants, 64% and 53% considered themselves to be at least moderately familiar with the American College of Rheumatology/Spondylitis Association of America/Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (ACR/SAA/SPARTAN) and Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (ASAS/EULAR) treatment recommendations for axSpA/AS, respectively. Whereas 69% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that disease activity scores are useful for making treatment decisions in axSpA/AS, only 37% measure patient-reported outcomes (PROs) frequently (≥ 50% of clinic visits) while 82% do so for C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). PROs are typically recorded during clinic encounters (65%) and CRP/ESR are obtained after the visit (86%). Of the participants, 57% and 47% considered the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index and Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score to be at least moderately useful for measuring disease activity in axSpA/AS, respectively; 41% and 37% thought the same about the ASAS 20% improvement criteria and Clinical Disease Activity Index, respectively. CONCLUSION: Treatment guidelines are an important resource for rheumatologists who manage patients with axSpA/AS. Although there is general agreement that disease activity monitoring is important, the implementation of the respective recommendations is lacking. Reasons may include lack of familiarity and an underdeveloped infrastructure to efficiently collect PROs.