BMC Rheumatology (Oct 2022)

Attitudes and practices in the laboratory monitoring of conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs by rheumatologists and rheumatology trainees

  • James J. Tsakas,
  • David F. L. Liew,
  • Cameron L. Adams,
  • Catherine L. Hill,
  • Susanna Proudman,
  • Samuel Whittle,
  • Rachelle Buchbinder,
  • Philip C. Robinson

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41927-022-00290-y
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 6, no. 1
pp. 1 – 8

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Objectives There is scant research about laboratory monitoring in people taking conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) for rheumatic disease. Our objective was to conduct a scoping study to assess the range of current attitudes and the variation in practice of laboratory monitoring of csDMARDs by rheumatologists and trainees. Methods Australian and overseas rheumatologists or trainees were invited through newsletter, Twitter and personal e-mail, to complete an anonymous online survey between 1 February and 22 March 2021. Questions focused on laboratory tests requested by csDMARD prescribed, frequency/pattern of monitoring, influence of additional factors and combination therapy, actions in response to abnormal tests, and attitudes to monitoring frequencies. Results were presented descriptively and analysed using linear and logistic regression. Results There were 221 valid responses. Most respondents were from Australia (n = 53, 35%) followed by the US (n = 39, 26%), with a slight preponderance of women (n = 84, 56%), ≥ 11 years in rheumatology practice (n = 83, 56%) and in mostly public practice (n = 79, 53%). Respondents had a wide variation in the frequency and scheduling of tests. In general, respondents reported increasing monitoring frequency if patients had numerous comorbidities or if both methotrexate and leflunomide were being taken concurrently. There was a wide variety of responses to abnormal monitoring results and 27 (40%) considered that in general, monitoring tests are performed too frequently. Conclusions The results demonstrated a wide variation in the frequency of testing, factors that should influence this, and what responses to abnormal test results are appropriate, indicates a likely lack of evidence and the need to define the risks, benefits and costs of different csDMARD monitoring regimens.

Keywords