Skip to main content
Download PDF

Commonalities and differences in set-up and data collection across European spondyloarthritis registries — results from the EuroSpA collaboration

Arthritis Research & Therapy volume 25, Article number: 205 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

In European axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) clinical registries, we aimed to investigate commonalities and differences in (1) set-up, clinical data collection; (2) data availability and completeness; and (3) wording, recall period, and scale used for selected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Methods

Data was obtained as part of the EuroSpA Research Collaboration Network and consisted of (1) an online survey and follow-up interview, (2) upload of real-world data, and (3) selected PROMs included in the online survey.

Results

Fifteen registries participated, contributing 33,948 patients (axSpA: 21,330 (63%), PsA: 12,618 (37%)). The reported coverage of eligible patients ranged from 0.5 to 100%. Information on age, sex, biological/targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug treatment, disease duration, and C-reactive protein was available in all registries with data completeness between 85% and 100%. All PROMs (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity and Functional Indices, Health Assessment Questionnaire, and patient global, pain and fatigue assessments) were more complete after 2015 (68–86%) compared to prior (50–79%). Patient global, pain and fatigue assessments showed heterogeneity between registries in terms of wording, recall periods, and scale.

Conclusion

Important heterogeneity in registry design and data collection across fifteen European axSpA and PsA registries was observed. Several core measures were widely available, and an increase in data completeness of PROMs in recent years was identified. This study might serve as a basis for examining how differences in data collection across registries may impact the results of collaborative research in the future.

Background

Clinical registries and observational cohorts are essential for studying disease course, treatment effect, and safety in real-world patients. To study rare exposures and outcomes, very large study populations are required, such as through collaborative research across countries. Many countries have established clinical rheumatology registries [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]; however, differences in their design, data availability, and completeness pose a challenge when researchers pool data from multiple countries [14, 15].

In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), two surveys conducted among 25 European clinical cohorts and registries, and 14 biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARD) registries under the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR), suggested that existing heterogeneity in the data collection represents a limitation for data merging and collaborative research. As an example, the registries used diverse methods and instruments for measuring patient-reported outcomes, hampering direct comparability and interpretation [16,17,18,19].

The EuroSpA Research Collaboration Network (RCN) is a scientific collaboration among European clinical registries, collecting information on patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA), including axial SpA (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The individual registries collect a broad range of clinical data relevant for the everyday management of patients with SpA (www.eurospa.eu). However, specific knowledge about the commonalities and differences in data collection across the 16 participating registries is limited. The experience from RA clinical registries [16, 17] prompted the need for a similar cross-country exploration of data collection practices in SpA to gain a better understanding of the data used in pooled analyses. Ultimately, such knowledge may guide the design and interpretation of future collaborative studies. Furthermore, as recently suggested in the European Medicines Agency Patients Registries Initiative [20], it would be beneficial for collaborative research if a set of commonly collected variables with high data availability were defined.

The objective of this study was therefore to explore the design of European registries collecting information on axSpA and PsA, including the commonalities and differences in (1) the set-up, clinical data collection, and funding; (2) data availability and completeness; and (3) the wording, recall period, and scale of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Methods

The study consisted of three parts: (1) an online survey designed to capture aspects of registry set-up and clinical data collection, (2) data availability and completeness analysis performed on real-world data collected through EuroSpA, and (3) investigation of the wording, recall period and scale used for selected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Online survey regarding registry design

The survey data were collected and managed using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) tool, a secure, web-based software platform designed to support data capture for research studies [21, 22]. The survey covered the following 12 themes: general registry information (e.g., set-up, infrastructure for data-collection, funding), data management, demographics, diagnosis, disease characteristics, medication, safety, PROMs, lifestyle, laboratory measures, imaging, and comorbidities. The number of individual questions covered in each theme varied from 9 (safety) to 56 (general registry information), the full survey is included as Supplementary material. Each registry assigned 1–3 persons with a thorough knowledge of the registry, hereafter called “registry experts,” to complete the survey. Two investigators (LL, LØ) then reviewed the responses for inconsistencies and missingness. Next, a one-hour semi-structured interview was conducted through a video link by the same two investigators to supplement and validate the survey responses. A common interview guide was shared with the registry experts ahead of the interview (see Supplementary material).

Patient data availability and completeness assessment of uploaded datasets

Considering the themes explored in the online survey, data availability across registries and data completeness across variables were investigated. A variable was considered available if collected in the registry; the data completeness was reported for each available variable. We used patient data that had been prospectively collected in the registries and uploaded onto a secure server by the individual registries for secondary use in the EuroSpA collaboration. Data were pseudonymized, i.e., personal identifiers had been removed and replaced with placeholder values prior to upload. Previous EuroSpA studies have been based on data uploaded in a similar manner [23, 24]. For the current study, we included data on patients with a clinical diagnosis of axSpA or PsA, aged 18 years or older, and followed in one of the participating registries from the start of their first course of biological (b) DMARD or targeted synthetic (ts) DMARD therapy between 2000 to 2021. Data from the baseline visit of the first b/tsDMARD treatment course were used for this study. A baseline visit was defined as a visit from 4 weeks before to 4 weeks after the treatment initiation date, with priority given to the closest visit before treatment start. Baseline visit data included age, time since diagnosis, clinical disease characteristics, medication, PROMs, and inflammatory markers. Other variables, e.g., HLA-B27, lifestyle, comorbidities, and classification criteria were considered patient-specific and were included independently of the baseline visit, if available in the registry. The availability of variables not accessible for evaluation in the uploaded data was instead based on the survey responses provided by the registry experts.

Wording, recall period, and scale used for selected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)

In the online survey, the registry experts reported the specific wording (translated into English when necessary), recall period, and scales (NRS or VAS) used in the patient global, pain and fatigue assessments. Further details were explored during the follow-up interview, and furthermore, the reported scale was verified by visual inspection of the distribution of the patient scores in the uploaded data.

Results

Registries from 15 countries participated: ATTRA (Czech Republic), DANBIO (Denmark), ERSBTR (Estonia), ROB-FIN (Finland), ICEBIO (Iceland), GISEA (Italy), AmSpA (Netherlands), NOR-DMARD (Norway), Reuma.pt (Portugal), RRBR (Romania), biorx.si (Slovenia), BIOBADASER (Spain), SRQ (Sweden), SCQM (Switzerland), and BSRBR-AS (UK). BSRBR-AS and AmSpA collected data on axSpA only. Data availability and completeness were assessed in a total of 33,948 patients (axSpA: 21,330, PsA: 12,618).

Online survey regarding registry design

In Table 1, an overview of the 15 registries, based on the online survey and follow-up interviews, is presented. The full survey is included as Supplementary material. A diagnosis was registered using the International Classification of Diseases – tenth revision (ICD-10) in 5 registries, classification criteria in 2 registries, and expert opinion in 1 registry. In the remaining 7 registries all three methods could be applied (Table 1). Treatment with b/tsDMARDs was registered by all, while treatments with conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and glucocorticoids were registered in 14, 8, and 11 registries, respectively (Table 1). The estimated coverage of eligible patients ranged from 0.5% (Netherlands) to 100% (Romania) for both diagnoses (Table 1). The sources of funding for the registry activities differed, 7/14 from research grants (covering 2–80% of expenses/cost), 4/14 from the public sector (covering 10–100%), 12/14 from industry (20–100%) and other sources in 3/14 registries (10–100%) (Table 1). The funding was further explored during the follow-up interviews and covered expenditures related to the development and running of IT platforms, dedicated research nurses, secretaries, data managers, and statisticians.

Table 1 Set-up of 15 registries in EuroSpA
Full size table

Patient data availability and completeness assessment of uploaded datasets

In Table 2, data availability and completeness are presented in pooled and stratified data (treatment courses initiated before vs. after January 1, 2015, and axSpA vs PsA), and in Fig. 1 data are further stratified by b/tsDMARD history and registry. Age, sex, disease duration, C-reactive protein (CRP), and details regarding b/tsDMARDs were available in all 15 registries with a data completeness ranging from 85 to 100% (Table 2). Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) scores were also available in all registries; while data completeness varied by the time period (later time period: 71% vs earlier: 54%) and diagnosis (axSpA: 78% vs PsA: 39%) (Table 2). The data completeness in variables describing peripheral involvement, such as swollen/tender joint counts and the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), were higher in PsA (50–85%) vs. axSpA (16–58%). Conversely, variables designed to evaluate axial involvement, such as the BASDAI, the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional and Metrology Indices (BASFI and BASMI), had higher data completeness in axSpA (39–78%) vs PsA (7–39%) (Table 2). All PROMs had higher data completeness in the later time period (68–86%) compared to before 2015 (50–79%) (Table 2). Variables describing uveitis and peripheral musculoskeletal manifestations (enthesitis and dactylitis) of SpA were more complete than were comorbid conditions (diabetes, cardiovascular, and kidney disease) (Table 2).

Table 2 Results regarding data availability and completeness
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Data completeness for variables collected in axSpA (upper panel) and PsA (lower panel) overall and stratified by time-period for initiation of a b/tsDMARD treatment course, b/tsDMARD history and registry. Legend: Unless otherwise stated, we used secondary pseudonymized baseline data from initiation of the first biologic (b) or targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment on patients with a clinical diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), 18 years or older, followed in one of the participating registries since the start of their first b/tsDMARD between 2000 and 2021. Sweden has provided data on Secukinumab-treated patients only. ASAS, Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society; CASPAR, Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis; MASES, Maastricht ankylosing spondylitis enthesitis index; PASI, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index; NAPSI, Nail Psoriasis Severity Index; BASMI, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index; cs, concomitant synthetic; NSAID, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug; PROMs, patient-reported outcome measures; BASDAI, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index; BASFI, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index; HAQ, Health Assessment Questionnaire; CRP, C-reactive protein; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; HLA-B27, Human Leukocyte Antigen subtypes B*2701-2759; EMMs, extra-musculoskeletal manifestations. *Baseline data on patients who initiated a TNFi between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2018 (alcohol); **baseline data on patients who initiated a new b/tsDMARD from January 1, 2015, and May 31, 2022 (prednisolone); ***baseline data on patients initiating a later line b/tsDMARD (1 prior or ≥2 prior)

Full size image

Variables not available in the uploaded data

Additional variables, such as physical activity, intramuscular and intra-articular use of glucocorticoids, EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), other comorbid conditions, imaging, and adverse events were available in some registries, as reported by the registry experts (Supplementary Table S1). Data completeness for these variables was not available in this study.

Wording, recall period, and scale used for selected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)

An overview of selected PROMs used in axSpA across registries is presented in Table 3 and a similar overview for PsA in Supplementary Table S2. For both diagnoses, differences in the wording, recall period, and scale were observed. For patient global, the questions referred to either “overall impact due to disease activity” or “overall impact due to the rheumatic disease”. For patient pain, the questions referred to either “pain due to the rheumatic disease,” “spinal pain,” or pain non-specifically. For patient fatigue, the questions referred to either “unusual fatigue/tiredness,” “fatigue due to the disease,” or to fatigue non-specifically. For both patient global, pain and fatigue assessments, the recall periods varied from “at the moment” to “last week,” and the assessments were performed using either numeric rating scales (NRS) from 0 to 10 or 100 or visual analog scales (VAS). The BASDAI and BASFI were assessed using either NRS 0–10 or 100 mm/10 cm VAS.

Table 3 Overview of selected patient-reported outcome measures in axSpA across registries
Full size table

Discussion

In this study, we investigated the design and data collection in 15 European SpA registries, covering ≈34,000 patients with axSpA and PsA. By collecting details of coverage, recruitment, funding, and assessment of PROMs in the participating registries, we have provided insights into potential challenges when attempting to pool data. High data completeness was observed in core demographic, clinical, and treatment-related variables, and moreover, we observed an increased data completeness of PROMs in recent years.

This study is the first to comprehensively characterize the commonalities and differences across European SpA registries. Heterogeneity across registries has been acknowledged as a factor in interpreting pooled data since EuroSpA was established in 2017, and this study provides further insights into such differences [14, 15, 34, 35]. In RA, two collaborative cross-country studies concluded that further collaboration would benefit from harmonization of data collection [16, 17]. Similarities between our study and the RA studies include the survey-based collection of information from registry experts regarding different aspects of European registries. Our study, however, adds further weight by incorporating real-world data uploaded by the registries for assessment of data completeness.

We noted large variation in coverage across registries, some covering up to 100% of eligible patients and others only a small proportion. This implies that some registry cohorts may be generally representative of patients with SpA in that country or region, whereas other cohorts may be highly selected. Such heterogeneity should be considered when pooling data across registries. Another interesting finding was that in some registries, a diagnosis could be assigned using several methods, i.e., either ICD-10, classification criteria, or expert opinion, while in two registries, classification criteria was the only method used. This may reflect that the registries have different main purposes - some of them are primarily clinical while others are mainly used for research. How a diagnosis is established is of importance since the concordance between clinical diagnoses and fulfillment of classification criteria is not complete, and the clinical characteristics of the patients may also differ according to the diagnostic strategy. In a recent study, 83% of patients with a clinical axSpA diagnosis (ICD-10 of all axSpA diagnoses combined) fulfilled either Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) or modified New York classification criteria, and those fulfilling the criteria were more often men and HLA-B27 positive but had less enthesitis [36]. To gain more insight, a future perspective would be to investigate how the different registration strategies are balanced in the registries.

We observed similar frequencies of missingness in our data and in the collated estimates previously reported by Radner et al. in European RA registries for disease duration, patient global score, patient pain, HAQ, joint counts and CRP (0–20%) and treatment with NSAID (20–40%), while our data were more complete regarding cigarette smoking and fatigue [16]. However, it should be noted that the frequencies presented by Radner et al. were self-reported estimates, while in this study they were based on calculations of real data [16]. As could be expected, the BASDAI and BASFI, which are measures developed for use in patients with ankylosing spondylitis, had more complete data in axSpA than in PsA patients, probably reflecting that the majority of the latter has a phenotype with predominantly peripheral involvement. It could also suggest that axial PsA is not routinely looked for in the clinical encounter and therefore tools to assess the axial domain of PsA are not applied in a subset of patients. In general, routine registration of PsA patients may be challenged by the heterogeneity of PsA and the large number of potentially affected domains.

Interestingly, we found higher data completeness across all PROMs in the later time period (after 2015), which may be a sign of an increasing focus on patient engagement, as illustrated by implementing online digital solutions to facilitate data collections using touch screens and apps [37,38,39].

Our evaluation of PROMs across registries revealed differences in the use of wording, recall period, and scale. The differences were most evident for the patient global, pain and fatigue scores, which could reflect that no specific wording, recall, or scale for the assessment of these concepts has been recommended across rheumatic diseases. However, some variation in the use of scale was still observed for the BASDAI and BASFI although these have been validated in several countries [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33].

Regarding the wording, only rough comparisons should be made due to the probable semantic differences following the translation of the original questions performed by the registry experts. Possible explanations of the differences observed in our study are many, given the heterogeneity of the registries in general. For instance, we could speculate that data collection practices in axSpA and PsA might have been influenced by RA registries since the movement towards including PROMs as outcome measures in rheumatology started with the development of a core set for endpoints in RA [40]. Several years later, recommendations for AS-specific scores and scales for spinal pain, patient global, and fatigue were proposed in the ASAS core set [41, 42].

In line with this theory, we have seen that the majority of the SpA registries included in our study ask about pain in more general terms and not about spinal pain specifically. Conversely, since widespread pain has been shown to be a strong predictor of poor outcome [43], and spinal pain is already included in the BASDAI, the registries may also have made an active decision to consider pain more generally. The impact of such cross-registry differences in PROM wording, recall period, and scale on data from pooled analyses has not been investigated.

Some limitations to our study should be noted. First, since the online survey and follow-up interviews were conducted in a small group of experts from each registry, we cannot exclude that the responses might have differed slightly, had other registry experts been assigned the task. This limitation would, however, mainly apply to the areas where we have not presented real data for verification, e.g., in registry set-up (including coverage, funding, and data management), safety, lifestyle, and imaging. Next, since all except one registry (BSRBR-AS in the UK) are non-English, the patient assessments were translated by the registry experts from the original language to English to compare the wording. Such a translation should ideally have been done by a native speaker, who has good knowledge of both languages and then translated back by a similarly knowledgeable bilingual [44]. Furthermore, the study revealed that some key patient variables were collected in all registries, whereas considerable heterogeneity in data availability was observed for other variables. Also, the wording, recall periods, and scales used for patient assessments differed across registries. Finally, we observed variation in data completeness of patient-reported outcomes over time with an increase in recent years, perhaps reflecting a larger emphasis on their relevance.

Conclusions

This study has uncovered considerable variation in the design of axSpA and PsA registries across fifteen countries in Europe. Moreover, differences in the availability and completeness of data in general, and the wording, recall periods, and scales used for patient assessments contributed to the heterogeneity., This study might serve as a basis for examining how differences in the current data collection across registries impact the pooled analyses, thereby informing the potential need for a more unified strategy in future collaborative research.

Availability of data and materials

The data in this article was collected in the individual registries and made available for secondary use through the EuroSpA Research Collaboration Network [https://eurospa.eu/#registries] Relevant patient-level data may be made available on reasonable request to the corresponding author, but will require approval from all contributing registries.

Abbreviations

axSpA:

Axial spondyloarthritis

ASAS:

Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society

BASDAI:

Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index

BASFI:

Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index

BASMI:

Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index

bDMARD:

Biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs

cs:

Conventional synthetic

EQ-5D:

Euro Qol-5 Dimensions

EULAR:

European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology

HAQ:

Health Assessment Questionnaire

ICD-10:

The International Classification of Diseases – tenth revision

NRS:

Numeric rating scale

NSAIDs:

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

PROM:

Patient-reported outcome measure

PsA:

Psoriatic arthritis

RA:

Rheumatoid arthritis

RCN:

Research Collaboration Network

REDCap:

Research Electronic Data Capture

SpA:

Spondyloarthritis

ts:

Targeted synthetic

VAS:

Visual analog scale

References

  1. Lapadula G, Ferraccioli G, Ferri C, et al. GISEA: an Italian biological agents registry in rheumatology. Reumatismo. 2011;63:155–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Codreanu C, Mogosan C, Enache L, et al. Romanian registry of rheumatic diseases: Efficacy and safety of biologic therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74(Issue Suppl 2). https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-eular.5823.

  3. Canhão H, Faustino A, Martins F, et al. Reuma. PT - the rheumatic diseases Portuguese register. Acta Reumatol Port. 2011;36:45–56.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Konttinen L, Honkanen V, Uotila T, et al. Biological treatment in rheumatic diseases: Results from a longitudinal surveillance: adverse events. Rheumatol Int. 2006;26:916–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ciurea A, Scherer A, Weber U, et al. Age at symptom onset in ankylosing spondylitis: is there a gender difference? Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73:1908–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Van Vollenhoven RF, Ashling J. Rheumatoid arthritis registries in Sweden. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005;23:195–200.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Pavelka K, Forejtová Š, Štolfa J, et al. Anti-TNF therapy of ankylosing spondylitis in clinical practice. Results from the Czech national registry ATTRA. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2009;27:958–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Carmona L, de la Vega M, Ranza R, et al. BIOBADASER, BIOBADAMERICA, and BIOBADADERM: Safety registers sharing commonalities across diseases and countries. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2014;32:163–7.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rotar Z, Hočevar A, Rebolj Kodre A, et al. Retention of the second-line biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis failing one tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor: data from the BioRx.si registry. Clin Rheumatol. 2015;34:1787–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Macfarlane GJ, Barnish MS, Jones EA, et al. The British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Registers in Ankylosing Spondylitis (BSRBR-AS) study: Protocol for a prospective cohort study of the long-term safety and quality of life outcomes of biologic treatment. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:347.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Ibfelt EH, Jensen DV, Hetland ML. The Danish nationwide clinical register for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: DANBIO. Clin Epidemiol. 2016;8:737–42.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Glintborg B, Gudbjornsson B, Krogh NS, et al. Impact of different infliximab dose regimens on treatment response and drug survival in 462 patients with psoriatic arthritis: Results from the nationwide registries DANBIO and ICEBIO. Rheumatol (United Kingdom). 2014;53:2100–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kvien TK, Heiberg MS, Lie E, et al. A Norwegian DMARD register: Prescriptions of DMARDs and biological agents to patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005;23:188–94.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ørnbjerg LM, Brahe CH, Askling J, et al. Treatment response and drug retention rates in 24 195 biologic-naïve patients with axial spondyloarthritis initiating TNFi treatment: routine care data from 12 registries in the EuroSpA collaboration. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78:1536–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Brahe CH, Ørnbjerg LM, Jacobsson L, et al. Retention and response rates in 14 261 PsA patients starting TNF inhibitor treatment - Results from 12 countries in EuroSpA. Rheumatol (United Kingdom). 2020;59:1640–50.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Radner H, Dixon W, Hyrich K, et al. Consistency and utility of data items across european rheumatoid arthritis clinical cohorts and registers. Arthritis Care Res. 2015;67:1219–29.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kearsley-Fleet L, Závada J, Hetland ML, et al. The EULAR Study Group for Registers and Observational Drug Studies: Comparability of the patient case mix in the European biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug registers. Rheumatol (United Kingdom). 2015;54:1074–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hewlett S, Hehir M, Kirwan JR. Measuring fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review of scales in use. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57:429–39.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nikiphorou E, Radner H, Chatzidionysiou K, et al. Patient global assessment in measuring disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis: a review of the literature. Arthritis Res Ther. 2016;18:251.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. McGettigan P, Alonso Olmo C, Plueschke K, et al. Patient Registries: an Underused Resource for Medicines Evaluation: Operational proposals for increasing the use of patient registries in regulatory assessments. Drug Saf. 2019;42:1343–51.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)-A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Informatics. 2019;95:103208.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ørnbjerg LM, Linde L, Georgiadis S, et al. Predictors of ASDAS-CRP inactive disease in axial spondyloarthritis during treatment with TNF-inhibitors: Data from the EuroSpA collaboration. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2022;56:152081.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ørnbjerg LM, Rugbjerg K, Georgiadis S, et al. One-Third of European Patients with Axial Spondyloarthritis Reach Pain Remission With Routine Care Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Treatment. J Rheumatol. 2022; https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.220459. Online ahead of print.

  25. Šléglová O, Dušek L, Olejárová M, et al. Evaluation of status and quality of life in patients with ankylosing spondylitis - Validation of Czech versions of Bath questionnaires - BAS-G. BADAI a BASFI Ces Revmatol. 2004;12:43–54.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Pedersen OB, Hansen GO, Svendsen AJ, et al. Adaptation of the Bath measures on disease activity and function in ankylosing spondylitis into Danish. Scand J Rheumatol. 2007;36:22–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Heikkilä S, Viitanen JV, Kautianen H, et al. Evaluation of the Finnish versions of the functional indices BASFI and DFI in spondylarthropathy. Clin Rheumatol. 2000;19:464–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Pimentel-Santos FM, Pinto T, Santos H, et al. Portuguese version of the bath indexes for ankylosing spondylitis patients: a cross-cultural adaptation and validation. Clin Rheumatol. 2012;31:341–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cardiel MH, Londoño JD, Gutiérrez E, et al. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI), the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) and the Dougados Functonal Index (DFI) in a Spanish speaking population wit. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2003;21:451–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Cronstedt H, Waldner A, Stenström CH. The Swedish version of the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index. Reliability and validity. Scand J Rheumatol Suppl. 1999;111:1–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Waldner A, Cronstedt H, Stenström CH. The Swedish version of the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index. Reliability and validity. Scand J Rheumatol Suppl. 1999;111:10–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Garrett S, Jenkinson T, Kennedy LG, et al. A new approach to defining disease status in ankylosing spondylitis: The bath ankylosing spondylitis disease activity index. J Rheumatol. 1994;21:2286–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Calin A, Garrett S, Whitelock H, et al. A new approach to defining functional ability in ankylosing spondylitis: The development of the bath ankylosing spondylitis functional index. J Rheumatol. 1994;21:2281–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lindström U, Di Giuseppe D, Delcoigne B, et al. Effectiveness and treatment retention of TNF inhibitors when used as monotherapy versus comedication with csDMARDs in 15 332 patients with psoriatic arthritis. Data from the EuroSpA collaboration. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021;80:1410–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Michelsen B, Lindström U, Codreanu C, et al. Drug retention, inactive disease and response rates in 1860 patients with axial spondyloarthritis initiating secukinumab treatment: routine care data from 13 registries in the EuroSpA collaboration. RMD Open. 2020;6:e001280.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Lindqvist E, Olofsson T, Jöud A, et al. How good is the agreement between clinical diagnoses and classification criteria fulfilment in axial spondyloarthritis? Results from the SPARTAKUS cohort. Scand J Rheumatol. 2022; https://doi.org/10.1080/03009742.2022.2064183. Online ahead of print.

  37. Cheung PP, De Wit M, Bingham CO, et al. Recommendations for the Involvement of Patient Research Partners (PRP) in OMERACT Working Groups. A Report from the OMERACT 2014 Working Group on PRP. J Rheumatol. 2016;43:187–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. De Wit MPT, Berlo SE, Aanerud GJ, et al. European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the inclusion of patient representatives in scientific projects. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:722–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Glintborg B, Jensen DV, Terslev L, et al. Nationwide, large-scale implementation of an online system for remote entry of patient-reported outcomes in rheumatology: characteristics of users and non-users and time to first entry. RMD Open. 2022;8:e002549.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Boers M, Tugwell P, Felson DT, et al. World Health Organization and International League of Associations for Rheumatology core endpoints for symptom modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. J Rheumatol Suppl. 1994;41:86–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. van der Heijde D, Bellamy N, Calin A, et al. Preliminary core sets for endpoints in ankylosing spondylitis. Assessments in Ankylosing Spondylitis Working Group. J Rheumatol. 1997;24:2225–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Van Der Heijde D, Calin A, Dougados M, et al. Selection of instruments in the core set for DC-ART, SMARD, physical therapy, and clinical record keeping in ankylosing spondylitis. Progress report of the ASAS Working Group. J Rheumatol. 1999;26:951–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Dean LE, MacFarlane GJ, Jones GT. Five potentially modifiable factors predict poor quality of life in ankylosing spondylitis: results from the scotland registry for ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol. 2018;45:62–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Sousa VD, Rojjanasrirat W. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17(2):268–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Open access funding provided by Royal Library, Copenhagen University Library The EuroSpA Research Collaboration Network was financially supported by Novartis Pharma AG. Novartis had no influence on the data collection, statistical analyses, manuscript preparation or decision to submit the manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Mikkel Østergaard and Merete L. Hetland contributed equally.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Copenhagen Center for Arthritis Research (COPECARE), Rigshospitalet, Glostrup, Denmark

    Louise Linde, Lykke M. Ørnbjerg, Simon H. Rasmussen, Mikkel Østergaard & Merete L. Hetland

  2. Faculty of Medicine, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland

    Thorvardur Jon Love, Bjorn Gudbjornsson & Gerdur Gröndal

  3. Department of Rheumatology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark

    Anne Gitte Loft

  4. Department of Rheumatology, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

    Jakub Závada & Jiří Vencovský

  5. Department of Rheumatology, East-Tallinn Central Hospital, Tallinn, Estonia

    Karin Laas

  6. Departments of Medicine and Rheumatology, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland

    Dan Nordstrom

  7. Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Jyvaskyla, Finland

    Tuulikki Sokka-Isler

  8. Rheumatology Unit, University of Bari, Bari, Italy

    Florenzo Iannone

  9. Rheumatology Unit, Department of Medicine (DIMED), University of Padova, Padova, Italy

    Roberta Ramonda

  10. Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Amsterdam Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    Pasoon Hellamand

  11. Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway

    Eirik K. Kristianslund & Tore K. Kvien

  12. Sociedade Portuguesa de Reumatologia, Reuma.pt, Lisbon, Portugal

    Ana M. Rodrigues

  13. Department of Rheumatology, Hospital Garcia de Orta, Almada, Lisbon, Portugal

    Maria J. Santos

  14. Center for Rheumatic Diseases, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania

    Catalin Codreanu

  15. Department of Rheumatology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Ziga Rotar & Matija Tomšič

  16. Department of Rheumatology, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain

    Isabel Castrejon

  17. Universidad de La Laguna and Rheumatology Service, La Laguna, Spain

    Federico Díaz-Gonzáles

  18. Clinical Epidemiology Division, Department of Medicine Solna, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

    Daniela Di Giuseppe & Lotta Ljung

  19. Department of Rheumatology, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland

    Michael J. Nissen

  20. Department of Rheumatology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Adrian Ciurea

  21. Aberdeen Centre for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Health (Epidemiology Group), University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

    Gary J. Macfarlane & Maureen Heddle

  22. Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, DANBIO Registry, Rigshospitalet, Glostrup, Denmark

    Bente Glintborg

Authors
  1. Louise Linde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lykke M. Ørnbjerg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Simon H. Rasmussen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thorvardur Jon Love
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anne Gitte Loft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jakub Závada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jiří Vencovský
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Karin Laas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Dan Nordstrom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Tuulikki Sokka-Isler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Bjorn Gudbjornsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Gerdur Gröndal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Florenzo Iannone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Roberta Ramonda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Pasoon Hellamand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Eirik K. Kristianslund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Tore K. Kvien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Ana M. Rodrigues
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Maria J. Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Catalin Codreanu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Ziga Rotar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Matija Tomšič
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Isabel Castrejon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  24. Federico Díaz-Gonzáles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  25. Daniela Di Giuseppe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  26. Lotta Ljung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  27. Michael J. Nissen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  28. Adrian Ciurea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  29. Gary J. Macfarlane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  30. Maureen Heddle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  31. Bente Glintborg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  32. Mikkel Østergaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  33. Merete L. Hetland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LL, LMØ, SHR, TJL, AGL, MØ and MH conceptualized the study. AGL, JZ, KL, DN, BG, FI, PH, EKK, TKK, AMR, CC, ZR, IC, DDG, GJM, MH and BG collected data by completing the REDCap survey and/or participating in the follow-up interviews. LL, LMØ and SHR analyzed the data. LL drafted the manuscript, and all authors interpreted the data, read and approved the final manuscript. For further details, see CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) statement in Supplementary material.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Louise Linde.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All participating registries obtained the necessary approvals (including written informed patient consent if needed) in accordance with legal, compliance and regulatory requirements from national Data Protection Agencies and/or Research Ethics Boards prior to the data transfer. The study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Louise Linde, Lykke M. Ørnbjerg and Simon H. Rasmussen: Research grants from Novartis; Thorvardur Jon Love: None; Anne Gitte Loft: Research Grant from Novartis, and speaking and/or consulting fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB; Jakub Zavada: Speaker and consulting fees from Abbvie, Elli-Lilly, Sandoz, Novartis, Egis, UCB; Jiří Vencovský: Consulting and/or speaking fees from Abbvie, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pfizer and UCB; Karin Laas: Consulting and/or speaking fees from Amgen, Johnson and Johnson and Novartis; Dan C. Nordstrom: Consulting and/or speaking fees from Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB; Tuulikki Sokka-Isler: non-financial support from DiaGraphIT, personal fees from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Medac, Merck, Novartis, Orion Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB and Bohringer Ingelheim, grants from Amgen, outside the submitted work; Bjorn Gudbjornsson: Consulting and/or Speaking fees from Novartis and Nordic-Pharma; Gerdur Gröndal: None, Florenzo Iannone: Consulting and/or speaking from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB; Roberta Ramonda:  Consulting and/or speaking fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssens, Novartis, UCB and Pfizer; Pasoon Hellamand: Research grant from Novartis; Eirik K. Kristianslund: None; Tore K. Kvien: Fees for speaking and/or consulting last 2 years from AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion, Gilead, Grünenthal, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB and research funding to Diakonhjemmet Hospital from AbbVie, BMS, Galapagos, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB; Ana M. Rodrigues: Research grant from Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen, consulting and/or speaking from Abbvie, Amgen; Maria J. Santos: Speaker fees from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer; Catalin Codreanu: Speaker and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ewopharma, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer; Ziga Rotar: Speaker or consultancy fees from Abbvie, Novartis, MSD, Medis, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Lek, Janssen; Matija Tomšič: Consulting and/or speaking fees from Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Sandoz-Lek; Isabel Castrejon: Speaker and/or consultancy fees from BMS, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, GSK; Federico Díaz-Gonzáles: None; Daniela Di Giuseppe: None; Lotta Ljung: No grants, consulting or speaking fees, but has, for Karolinska University Hospital and as register holder for the Swedish Rheumatology Register in the last years agreements with Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Sobi, UCB, Janssen, BMS, GSK, Otsuka; Michael J. Nissen: Consulting and/or speaking fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssens, Novartis and Pfizer; Adrian Ciurea: Consulting and/or speaking fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer; Gary J. Macfarlane: Research grant from GSK; Maureen Heddle: None; Bente Glintborg: Research grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, BMS, Sandoz; Mikkel Østergaard: Research grants from Abbvie, BMS, Merck, Celgene and Novartis, and speaker and/or consultancy fees from Abbvie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi and UCB; Merete L. Hetland: Research grants from Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Janssen Biologics B.V, Lundbeck Fonden, MSD, Medac, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Biopies, Sandoz, Novartis

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

 Full online survey.

Additional file 2.

Interview guide – data mapping. S1. Data availability as reported by the registries. S2. Overview of selected patient reported outcomes in PsA across registries.

Additional file 3.

 Supplementary data: CRediT statement. 

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Linde, L., Ørnbjerg, L.M., Rasmussen, S.H. et al. Commonalities and differences in set-up and data collection across European spondyloarthritis registries — results from the EuroSpA collaboration. Arthritis Res Ther 25, 205 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13075-023-03184-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13075-023-03184-7

Keywords

Arthritis Research & Therapy

ISSN: 1478-6362

Contact us