Resistance of rheumatoid arthritis patients to changing therapy: Discordance between disease activity and patients' treatment choices

The Art of Communicating Risk and Benefit to Promote Shared Decision-Making, Informed by Behavioral Economic Principles

image

Can Pharmacological Conditioning as an Add-On Treatment Optimize Standard Pharmacological Treatment in Patients with Recent-Onset Rheumatoid Arthritis? A Proof-of-Principle Randomized Clinical Trial

Medication regimens using conditioning via variable reinforcement have shown similar or improved therapeutic effects as full pharmacological treatment, but evidence in patient populations is scarce. This proof-of-principle double-blind randomized clinical trial examined whether treatment effects in recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can be optimized through pharmacological conditioning. After four months of standardized treatment (n = 46), patients in clinical remission (n = 19) were randomized to the Control group (C), continuing standardized treatment (n = 8), or the Pharmacological Conditioning (PC) group, receiving variable treatment according to conditioning principles (n = 11). After eight months, treatment was tapered and discontinued linearly (C) or variably (PC). Standard treatment led to large improvements in disease activity and HRQoL in both groups. The groups did not differ in the percentage of drug-free clinical remission obtained after conditioning or continued standard treatment. The PC group did show a larger decrease in self-reported disease activity (Cohen's d = 0.9) and a smaller increase in TNF-α levels (Cohen's d = 0.7) than the C group. During all phases, more differences between groups were found for the patients who followed protocol than for the intention-to-treat sample. Although the results are not conclusive, pharmacological conditioning may have some advantages in terms of disease progression and stability, especially during the conditioning phase, compared with standard clinical treatment. The effects may be particularly beneficial for patients who show a good initial response to increased medication dosages.

Tofacitinib versus methotrexate as the first-line disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: An open-label randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare tofacitinib and methotrexate (MTX) as first-line disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

This open-label, randomized controlled, parallel-group, 3-month trial randomly assigned 100 RA patients to tofacitinib 10 mg daily (49 patients) or MTX 25 mg subcutaneously weekly (51 patients). The primary end point was low disease activity (LDA) measured with Disease Activity Score-28 with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), and the secondary end point was LDA and remission measured by DAS28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), and Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI). Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) response and mean reduction of core set of outcomes from baseline at 12 weeks were also analyzed as secondary end points. In addition, acute-phase reactants and composite measurements among groups were examined.

RESULTS

LDA in DAS28-CRP was achieved in 17 (34.7%) tofacitinib patients and 18 (35.3%) MTX patients (p = .95). Fourteen (28.6%) and 11 (21.6%) tofacitinib and MTX patients, respectively, achieved LDA by DAS28-ESR (p = .42). Tofacitinib and MTX groups achieved LDA similarly in CDAI (36.7% against 37.3%; p = .96) and SDAI (38.8% vs. 39.2%; p = .96). There was no significant difference in achieving remission between the groups. At 12 weeks, tofacitinib reduced ESR and CRP (p < .05). Composite measures and functional status decreased within groups but not between groups (p > .05). Five (13.51%) tofacitinib patients developed hypertension. MTX caused gastrointestinal problems in 12 (30%) individuals. Two MTX (5%) and two tofacitinib (5.4%) patients had increased liver enzymes and renal impairment, respectively. Tofacitinib had 5.4% infection compared with 5% for MTX.

CONCLUSIONS

As tofacitinib may be more effective than MTX according to previous reports such as the ORAL Start study, high-dose MTX (25 mg/week, subcutaneously) used in this study may be as efficacious as tofacitinib in patients with established RA who were DMARD naive or had not received a therapeutic dose of DMARDs. However, adverse effects differed between groups. Registered on: ClinicalTrials.gov; ID: NCT04464642.

Improvement or Worsening of Disease Activity After Switch to Sarilumab in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis With a Partial Response to Adalimumab

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of switching from adalimumab to sarilumab monotherapy in partial responders with rheumatoid arthritis from the MONARCH randomized trial and its open-label extension (OLE).

METHODS

Partial response was defined as improvement in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) of 12 or 6 units (baseline score: >22 or >10 and ≤22, respectively). Proportions of adalimumab partial responders with meaningful worsening or improvement at OLE weeks 12 and 24 were evaluated using 2 CDAI thresholds (≥6 and ≥12 points), 28-joint Disease Activity Score using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (≥0.6 and ≥1.2 points), Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (≥0.22 and ≥0.30 points), Simple Disease Activity Index (≥7 and ≥13 points), physician and patient global assessments (≥10 and ≥20), and 28-joint swollen and tender joint counts (≥1 and ≥2 joints). Outcomes were analyzed using mixed-effect models with repeated measures for observed cases. The p values were produced using Wilcoxon tests.

RESULTS

Of 369 enrolled patients, 320 (87%) entered the OLE and 155 switched from adalimumab to sarilumab; 59% (91/155) were partial responders. At week 24, 4%-17% and 2%-12% of partial responders experienced a worsening using the lower and higher thresholds, respectively, whereas 47%-78% and 27%-66% experienced improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Partial responders to adalimumab who switched to sarilumab had a low likelihood of experiencing meaningful worsening, with most patients showing meaningful improvement or no change in disease activity. This may help alleviate patients' fears of worsening when considering switching to a treatment with a different mechanism of action.

What Factors Influence Treatment Effectiveness in Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Evidence-Based Approach to Multidimensional Measurement of Treatment Effectiveness

Purpose: The aim of the study was to examine the effects of socio-demographic characteristics, disease-related characteristics and health care use related-characteristics on the treatment effectiveness of rheumatoid arthritis patients, both separately and together. Methods: The sample of the study consisted of 440 rheumatoid arthritis patients for 99% confidence level, and this sample was reached based on the convenience sampling method. Patients who received at least one anti-TNF therapy were included in the study. Treatment effectiveness levels of rheumatoid arthritis patients were measured with a questionnaire. In the analysis of the study, four different regression models were established. In the first model, socio-demographic characteristics; in the second model, disease characteristics; in the third model, health care use characteristics: in the fourth model, the effect of all these variables on treatment effectiveness was examined. Results: In the study, smoking status, age (socio-demographic characteristics), drug regimen complexity, comorbidity status, education about the disease, disease duration (disease characteristics), and a number of admissions (health care use characteristics), were found to have a significant effect on treatment effectiveness. Conclusion: In the study, the factors affecting the treatment effectiveness were determined. Therefore, it is important to consider these factors revealed in this study in order to increase the treatment effectiveness in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Patient involvement in rheumatoid arthritis care to improve disease activity-based management in daily practice: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of an intervention to improve disease activity-based management of RA in daily clinical practice by addressing patient level barriers.

METHODS

The DAS-pass strategy aims to increase patients' knowledge about DAS28 and to empower patients to be involved in treatment (decisions). It consists of an informational leaflet, a patient held record and guidance by a specialized rheumatology nurse. In a Randomized Controlled Trial, 199 RA patients were randomized 1:1 to intervention or control group. Outcome measures were patient empowerment (EC-17; primary outcome), attitudes towards medication (BMQ), disease activity (DAS28) and knowledge about DAS28.

RESULTS

Our strategy did not affect EC-17, BMQ, or DAS28 use. However it demonstrated a significant improvement of knowledge about DAS28 in the intervention group, compared to the control group. The intervention had an additional effect on patients with low baseline knowledge compared to patients with high baseline knowledge.

CONCLUSION

The DAS-pass strategy educates patients about (the importance of) disease activity-based management, especially patients with low baseline knowledge.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The strategy supports patient involvement in disease activity-based management of RA and can be helpful to reduce inequalities between patients in the ability to be involved in shared decision making.

Factors affecting patient satisfaction related to cost and treatment effectiveness in rheumatoid arthritis: results from the multicenter observational cohort study, FRANK Registry

Background

To further improve rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment, it is necessary to understand each RA patient’s satisfaction and to identify the factors affecting their satisfaction. Despite the rise in medical costs for RA, little is known about the factors that influence patient satisfaction with the cost of treatment in RA patients.

Methods

This is a multicenter observational study of Japanese RA patients from the FRANK Registry with data analyzed from March 2017 to August 2020. We collected data on demographic characteristics, clinical data, quality of life which was evaluated using the EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire (EQ5D), and patient satisfaction. The four categories of patient satisfaction were evaluated individually (i.e., cost, treatment efficacy, activities of daily living [ADL], and global treatment satisfaction). We analyzed the factors that affected each patient’s satisfaction, such as age, sex, EQ5D, disease duration, disease activity, and treatment.

Results

This study included 2235 RA outpatients (406 males, 1829 females). In RA patients, “very satisfied” and “satisfied” were given for nearly half of each satisfaction aspect (cost 49%; efficacy 72%; ADL 58%; global treatment 66%) at the time of the initial registration. To investigate the factors influencing each satisfaction, multivariate analysis has revealed that the use of b/tsDMARDs increased satisfaction of treatment effect (odds ratio [OR] 0.66) and ADL (OR 0.78) but decreased cost satisfaction (OR 2.21). Age (50–64 years; OR 0.91; 65–74 years, 0.55: ≥ 75 years, 0.35), female (OR 0.81), and history of musculoskeletal surgery (OR 0.60) all increased cost satisfaction. Patients with lower disease activity and higher EQ5D scores had higher levels of satisfaction in all areas.

Conclusions

In this study, patient satisfaction in terms of cost, treatment effect, ADL, and overall treatment was generally higher, but some patients were dissatisfied. The cost of satisfaction increased with age and a history of musculoskeletal surgery, while it decreased with a lower EQ5D score and the use of b/tsDMARDs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13075-022-02746-5.

Evaluation of an Intervention to Support Patient-Rheumatologist Conversations About Escalating Treatment in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Proof-of-Principle Study

Objective

This study’s objective was to test whether an online video intervention discussing appropriate treatment escalation improves willingness to change treatment in people living with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

We conducted a controlled, randomized trial among patients with RA enrolled in ArthritisPower, a United States patient registry. We recruited participants by email and surveyed their assessment of disease activity (patient global), satisfaction with disease control (patient acceptable symptom state), attitudes about RA medications, decisional conflict (decisional conflict scale), and willingness to modify RA treatment (choice predisposition scale, higher scores are better) if or when recommended by their rheumatologist. Intervention groups watched educational videos relevant to a treat‐to‐target (T2T) strategy, whereas control groups viewed vaccination‐related videos as an “attention control.” We compared the between‐group difference in patients’ willingness to modify RA treatment (primary outcome) and difference in decisional conflict about changing RA treatment (secondary outcome) after watching the videos using t tests.

Results

Participants with self‐reported RA (n = 208) were 90% White and 90% women, with a mean (standard deviation) age of 50 (11) years, and 52% reported familiarity with the RA T2T strategy. We found a significant improvement in between‐group difference in willingness to change RA treatment among intervention versus control participants (0.49 [95% confidence interval 0.09‐0.88], P = 0.02). The effect size (Glass’s delta) for the intervention was 0.48. Decisional conflict about treatment change decreased, but the between‐group difference was not significant.

Conclusion

This novel educational patient‐directed intervention discussing appropriate treatment escalation was associated with improved willingness to change RA treatment if or when recommended by a rheumatologist. Further studies should evaluate whether this change in patients’ predisposition translates into actual treatment escalation.

Importance of Shared Treatment Goal Discussions in Rheumatoid Arthritis-A Cross-Sectional Survey: Patients Report Providers Seldom Discuss Treatment Goals and Outcomes Improve When Goals Are Discussed

Objective

Treat‐to‐target (T2T) and shared decision‐making are valued features of current guidelines for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management. Although T2T has demonstrated value for improving RA outcomes, implementation remains inconsistent and lacks standardization and procedures for including patient input. We sought to better understand the impact of shared decisions on T2T and how treatment goal discussions between patients and providers impact RA treatment improvement and satisfaction.

Methods

An anonymous, web‐based questionnaire was presented to United States residents aged 18 years or older with a self‐reported diagnosis of RA by a medical professional with 28 questions regarding socio‐demographics, RA disease activity (DA), diagnosis, treatments, outcomes, and goals. Analyses included descriptive statistics with χ² and rank sum tests for comparisons.

Results

The questionnaire was completed by 907 people (mean age of 58 years; mean 11 years since diagnosis; 90% female). The majority (571; 63%) did not discuss RA treatment goals with providers. Patients engaging in treatment goal discussions with their providers were three times more likely to be satisfied with their treatment plans. Patients discussing treatment goals with their providers were more likely to have improved DA levels and 68% more likely to reach remission.

Conclusion

A majority of patients with RA report having no treatment goal discussion with their providers; however, these discussions are associated with greater DA improvement and treatment satisfaction. Further research should seek understanding of how shared treatment goal discussions relate to successful RA management and explore the development of practical tools to implement them in regular clinic practice as part of a T2T regimen.

Factors associated with treatment satisfaction in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: data from the biological register RABBIT

Objective

To assess satisfaction with the effectiveness and tolerability of treatments in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Patients from the RABBIT register, starting a biological (b) or targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD), or a conventional synthetic (cs)DMARD treatment after ≥1 csDMARD failure, were included. Treatment satisfaction was measured after 1 year of treatment in four categories and binarised for analysis. Logistic regression models were performed to calculate ORs for factors associated with treatment satisfaction.

Results

Data of 10 646 patients (74% women, mean 58 years) were analysed. At baseline, 55% of the patients were satisfied with the efficacy and 68% with the tolerability of their previously given treatments. After 1 year, 85% of the patients were satisfied with treatment effectiveness and 90% with tolerability. Baseline satisfaction (OR 2.98, 95% CI 2.58 to 3.44), seropositivity (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.57), reduction of DAS28 (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.46) and pain (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.31), and the improvement of physical capacity (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.29) were positively associated with treatment satisfaction at follow-up while glucocorticoids (GCs) >5 mg/day, depression, fibromyalgia, obesity, prior bDMARDs and therapy changes were negatively associated. The impact of GC on satisfaction was dose-dependent, becoming strongest for GC >15 mg (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.34). A 5 mg/day reduction within 12 months was positively associated with satisfaction regarding efficacy (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.27) and tolerability (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.21).

Conclusion

Most patients were satisfied with their treatment’s effectiveness and tolerability after 1 year of treatment. Tapering GCs was positively associated with the improvement of patients’ satisfaction.

Predictive analytics for step-up therapy: Supervised or semi-supervised learning?

BACKGROUND

Step-up therapy is a patient management approach that aims to balance the efficacy, costs and risks posed by different lines of medications. While the initiation of first line medications is a straightforward decision, stepping-up a patient to the next treatment line is often more challenging and difficult to predict. By identifying patients who are likely to move to the next line of therapy, prediction models could be used to help healthcare organizations with resource planning and chronic disease management.

OBJECTIVE

To compared supervised learning versus semi-supervised learning to predict which rheumatoid arthritis patients will move from the first line of therapy (i.e., conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) to the next line of therapy (i.e., disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) within one year.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Five groups of features were extracted from an administrative claims database: demographics, medications, diagnoses, provider characteristics, and procedures. Then, a variety of supervised and semi-supervised learning methods were implemented to identify the most optimal method of each approach and assess the contribution of each feature group. Finally, error analysis was conducted to understand the behavior of misclassified patients.

RESULTS

XGBoost yielded the highest F-measure (42%) among the supervised approaches and one-class support vector machine achieved the highest F-measure (65%) among the semi-supervised approaches. The semi-supervised approach had significantly higher F-measure (65% vs. 42%; p < 0.01), precision (51% vs. 33%; p < 0.01), and recall (89% vs. 59%; p < 0.01) than the supervised approach. Excluding demographic, drug, diagnosis, provider, and procedure features reduced theF-measure from 65% to 61%, 57%, 54%, 51% and 49% respectively (p < 0.01). The error analysis showed that a substantial portion of false positive patients will change their line of therapy shortly after the prediction period.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that supervised learning approaches are not an optimal option for a difficult clinical decision regarding step-up therapy. More specifically, negative class labels in step-up therapy data are not a robust ground truth, because the costs and risks associated with higher line of therapy impact objective decision making of patients and providers. The proposed semi-supervised learning approach can be applied to other step-up therapy applications.

Co-Design of a Disease Activity Based Self-Management Approach for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective:

The systematic development of an intervention to improve disease activity-based management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in daily clinical practice that is based on patient-level barriers.

Methods:

The self-management strategy was developed through a step-wise approach, in a process of co-design with all stakeholders and by addressing patient level barriers to RA management based on disease activity.

Results:

The resulting DAS-pass strategy consists of decision supportive information and guidance by a specialised rheumatology nurse. It aims to increase patients’ knowledge on DAS28, to empower patients to be involved in disease management, and to improve patients’ medication beliefs. The decision supportive information includes an informational leaflet and a patient held record. The nurse individualises the information, stimulates patients to communicate about disease activity, and offers the opportunity for questions or additional support.

Conclusion:

The DAS-pass strategy was found helpful by stakeholders. It can be used to improve RA daily clinical practice. Our systematic approach can be used to improve patient knowledge and self-management on other RA related topics. Also, it can be used to improve the management of other chronic conditions. We therefore provide a detailed description of our methodology to assist those interested in developing an evidence-based strategy for educating and empowering patients.

Treatment satisfaction with rheumatoid arthritis in patients with different disease severity and financial burden: A subgroup analysis of a nationwide survey in China

BACKGROUND

Despite the recent advances in treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), there are still unmet needs in disease outcomes. This study aimed to analyze the satisfaction with drug therapies for RA according to the levels of disease severity (patient-assessed) and proportions of treatment cost to household income.

METHODS

This was a subgroup study of a cross-sectional study in patients with RA and their physicians. The patients were subdivided into different subgroups based on their self-assessed severity of RA and on the proportions of treatment cost to household income (<10%, 10-30%, 31-50%, and >50%). The Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication version II was used to assess patients' treatment satisfaction.

RESULTS

When considering all medications, effectiveness, convenience, and global satisfaction scores were lower in the severe and moderate RA subgroups than those in the mild and extremely mild RA subgroups (all P < 0.001). Effectiveness, side effects, and convenience scores were higher in the <10% subgroup compared to those in the >50% subgroup (all P < 0.05). Global satisfaction score was higher in the <10% subgroup than that in the 31% to 50% subgroup (F = 13.183, P = 0.004). For biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, effectiveness and convenience scores were lower in the severe RA subgroup than those in the extremely mild RA subgroup (both P < 0.05). Convenience score was higher in the <10% subgroup compared to that in the 31% to 50% and >50% subgroups (F = 12.646, P = 0.005). Global satisfaction score was higher in the <10% subgroup than that in the 31% to 50% subgroup (F = 8.794, P = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

Higher disease severity and higher financial burden were associated with lower patient satisfaction.

A patient-centered knowledge translation tool for treat-to-target strategy in rheumatoid arthritis: Patient and rheumatologist perspectives

AIM

Implementation of treat-to-target (T2T) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) presents many challenges and an evidence-practice gap has emerged. This study assessed clinician and patient barriers to the implementation of an RA-T2T strategy and developed a knowledge translation (KT) tool for use in "real-life" clinical settings.

METHODS

Surveys of patients and rheumatologists measured agreement with RA-T2T recommendations and use in daily practice. Patient knowledge and perceptions were assessed as was clinician willingness to alter practice and barriers to RA-T2T using visual analog scales. An electronic KT-tool was developed and a two-phase usability trial undertaken to assess use in clinical interactions.

RESULTS

Ninety-one percent of patients had no prior knowledge of RA-T2T but agreed with the recommendations showing mean level agreement scores (8.39-9.54, SD 2.37-1.54). Ninety percent were willing to try RA-T2T, 49% felt their treatment could be improved and 28% wanted more involvement in treatment decisions. Rheumatologists agreed with RA-T2T recommendations (7.30-9.27, SD 2.59-0.91). Barriers to implementation identified by rheumatologists included time, appointment availability and perceived patient reluctance to escalate medications. Usability experiences with the KT-tool were tracked and clinicians reported it was easy to use (100%), resulted in a discussion of RA-T2T (73%) and a target being set for 63% of consults. Patients reported they read (92%) and understood (87%) the information in the KT-tool, and that a target was set in 62% of interactions.

CONCLUSIONS

RA-T2T uptake in clinical practice may be improved through understanding local clinician and patient barriers and an implementation strategy utilizing a patient-driven KT-tool.

What Are the Preferences of Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis for Treatment Modification? A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

Optimal care of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients entails regular assessment of disease activity and appropriate adjustment of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) until a predefined treatment goal is achieved. This raises questions about the approach to treatment decision making among RA patients and their preference for associated treatment changes. We aimed to systematically identify and synthesize the available evidence of RA patients' preferences regarding DMARD modification with an emphasis on escalating, tapering, stopping, or switching of DMARDs.

METHODS

A scoping review was undertaken to gauge the breadth of evidence from the range of studies relating to RA patients' preferences for DMARD modification. Pertinent databases were searched for relevant studies published between 1988 and 2019. Conventional content analysis was applied to generate themes about how patients perceive changes to their RA treatment.

RESULTS

Of the 1730 distinct articles identified, 32 were included for review. Eight studies investigated RA patients' perceptions of switching to other DMARDs, 18 studies reported RA patients' preferences for escalating treatment, and six studies explored the possibility of tapering or stopping of biologic DMARDs. Four overarching themes relating to RA patients' preferences for treatment modification were identified: (i) patient satisfaction, (ii) patients' beliefs, (iii) information needs, and (iv) patient-clinician relationships.

CONCLUSION

Uptake of treatment changes in clinical practice can be improved by understanding how RA patients approach the decision to modify their treatment and how this relates to their satisfaction, beliefs, information needs, and relationships with clinicians. Future work is needed to systematically determine the significance of these factors in RA patients' decision-making processes.

Patient and Rheumatologist Perspectives Regarding Challenges to Achieving Optimal Disease Control in Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To identify and prioritize patient- and rheumatologist-perceived barriers to achieving disease control.

METHODS

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and rheumatologists from the Corrona registry were invited by e-mail to participate in nominal groups. Two separate lists of barriers were created, 1 from RA patient-only nominal groups and the other from rheumatologist-only nominal groups, and barriers were sorted into themes. Next, using an online survey, a random sample of RA patients from the Corrona registry were asked to rank their top 3 barriers to achieving disease control.

RESULTS

Four nominal groups totaling 37 RA patients identified patient barriers to achieving control of RA activity that were classified into 17 themes. Three nominal groups totaling 25 rheumatologists identified barriers that were classified into 11 themes. The financial aspects of RA care ranked first for both types of nominal groups, while medication risk aversion ranked second among the perceived barriers of the physician nominal group and third among those of the RA patient nominal group. Among the 450 RA patients surveyed, 77% considered RA a top health priority, and 51% reported being aware of the treat-to-target strategy for RA care; the 3 most important patient-perceived challenges to achieving disease control were RA prognosis uncertainty, medication risk aversion, and the financial/administrative burden associated with RA care.

CONCLUSION

There are common, potentially modifiable, patient- and rheumatologist-reported barriers to achieving RA disease control, including perceived medication risk aversion, suboptimal treatment adherence, and suboptimal patient-physician communication regarding the benefits of tight control of disease activity in RA. Addressing these obstacles may improve adherence to goal-directed RA care.

Discontinuation of biologic therapy due to lack/loss of response and adverse events is similar between TNFi and non-TNFi class: Results from a real-world rheumatoid arthritis cohort

OBJECTIVES

Time to discontinuation of biologic therapy may be related to mechanism of action. We aimed to compare discontinuation of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) versus non-TNFi in an observational rheumatoid arthritis cohort.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI) starting biologic agents on or after 1st January 2010 were included. Time to discontinuation due to (1) any reason, (2) any of lack/loss of response, adverse events (AEs), physician, or patient decision, (3) lack/loss of response, and (4) AEs were assessed using Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 932 patients were included of whom 174 (18.7%) received non-TNFi and 758 (81.3%) received TNFi. Over a median follow-up of 1.7 years, discontinuation was reported for 416 (44.6%) due to any reason, 367 (39.4%) due to any of lack/loss of response, AEs, physician, or patient decision, 192 (20.6%) due to lack/loss of response, and 102 (10.9%) due to AEs. After adjusting for propensity score, there was no significant difference in discontinuation between the two classes due to any reason [HR 1.14 (0.90-1.46), p = 0.28], lack/loss of response [HR: 1.01 (0.70-1.47), p = 0.95], and AEs [HR: 1.06 (0.64-1.73), p = 0.83]. Similar results were found in biologic naïve patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis demonstrates that discontinuation of therapy is similar in patients started on TNFi and non-TNFi therapies. There was also no significant difference in stopping due to lack/loss of response or AEs, suggesting that these reasons should not drive the selection of one treatment over another.

Systematic Literature Review of Residual Symptoms and an Unmet Need in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective

To evaluate the nature and burden of residual disease in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients who meet treatment targets. Second, for those who did not meet targets, to evaluate how much is due to patient symptoms.

Methods

Prospective and retrospective studies were searched in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library in the English language from January 1, 2008 to April 18, 2018; conference abstracts (from January 2016 to April 2018) and reference lists of relevant studies were also screened.

Results

Of 8,339 records identified, 55 were included in the review; 53 were unique studies, including 10 randomized controlled trials. Of these, 48 reported on patients who achieved low disease activity (LDA) or remission. Studies varied in population, treatment goals, and outcome reporting. The proportions of patients with residual symptoms in these studies varied by the definitions used for LDA or remission and were more often reported in patients with LDA than those in remission. The most commonly reported outcome measures were functional disability (n = 34 studies), tender or swollen joints (n = 18), pain (n = 17), patient global assessment (n = 15), and fatigue (n = 14). However, few studies reported the percentage of patients achieving a specific threshold, which could then be used to easily define the presence of residual symptoms.

Conclusion

Residual symptoms are present in some patients despite their achieving LDA or remission, highlighting an unmet need, especially with respect to improving pain, fatigue, and function. Standardized reporting in future observational studies would facilitate better understanding of this issue in defined RA populations.

Valuing Healthcare Goods and Services: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the WTA-WTP Disparity

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review was to review the available evidence on the disparity between willingness to accept (WTA) and willingness to pay (WTP) for healthcare goods and services.

METHODS

A tiered approach consisting of (1) a systematic review, (2) an aggregate data meta-analysis, and (3) an individual participant data meta-analysis was used. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Scisearch, and Econlit were searched for articles reporting both WTA and WTP for healthcare goods and services. Individual participant data were requested from the authors of the included studies.

RESULTS

Thirteen papers, reporting WTA and WTP from 19 experiments/subgroups, were included in the review. The WTA/WTP ratios reported in these papers, varied from 0.60 to 4.01, with means of 1.73 (median 1.31) for 15 estimates of the mean and 1.58 (median 1.00) for nine estimates of the median. Individual data obtained from six papers, covering 71.2% of the subjects included in the review, yielded an unadjusted WTA/WTP ratio of 1.86 (95% confidence interval 1.52-2.28) and a WTA/WTP ratio adjusted for age, sex, and income of 1.70 (95% confidence interval 1.42-2.02). Income category and age had a statistically significant effect on the WTA/WTP ratio. The approach to handling zero WTA and WTP values has a considerable impact on the WTA/WTP ratio found.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The results of this study imply that losses in healthcare goods and services are valued differently from gains (ratio > 1), but that the degree of disparity found depends on the method used to obtain the WTA/WTP ratio, including the approach to zero responses. Irrespective of the method used, the ratios found in our meta-analysis are smaller than the ratios found in previous meta-analyses.

Levels of satisfaction with rheumatoid arthritis treatment and associated alignment between physicians and patients across Latin America

INTRODUCTION

Discordance (misalignment) regarding treatment satisfaction may exist in real-life clinical practice between patients and their physicians. We aimed to assess physician and patient treatment satisfaction levels and associated degree of misalignment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHOD

A point-in-time, multinational survey of patients and physicians was conducted in Latin America from December 2014 to October 2015. Physician- and patient-reported satisfaction levels with current RA treatment, alignment levels in satisfaction perception, and factors associated with satisfaction misalignment were assessed through bivariate and logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

Participating physicians (N = 114) completed 555 patient record forms (PRFs); 372 patients completed self-complete questionnaires (PSC). A total of 346 physician-patient pairs were analyzed. Physicians reported satisfaction with current disease control in 270/346 (78.0%) PRFs; patients reported such satisfaction in 286/346 (82.7%) PSCs. Physician-patient alignment was observed in 78.6% of pairs. Compared with aligned patients, misaligned patients were younger, more likely to have moderate or severe disease (physician subjectively defined), deteriorating or unstable disease (physician subjectively defined), been exposed to a greater number of advanced therapy lines (biologic or Janus kinase inhibitor), greater current pain, a current acute episode, poorer health, and greater disability and impairment. Misaligned patients were less likely to be in remission. Logistic regression analysis revealed that misaligned patients were more likely to experience greater activity impairment.

CONCLUSIONS

High treatment satisfaction and alignment were observed among RA patients and their physicians in Latin America. Misaligned patients were more likely to report more severe disease and were less likely to be in remission. Addressing misalignment may lead to improved RA disease control.Key Points• High treatment satisfaction was observed among RA patients and their treating physicians in Latin America.• One-fifth of physician-patient pairs were misaligned in treatment satisfaction.• Patients misaligned with their physicians reported higher disease activity, lower quality of life, and greater disability than those who were aligned with their physicians.• Understanding and addressing misalignment in treatment satisfaction may improve outcomes in this patient population.

Disease activity-based management of rheumatoid arthritis in Dutch daily clinical practice has improved over the past decade

To re-evaluate the adherence to clinical practice guidelines recommended disease activity-based management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in daily clinical practice, among Dutch rheumatologists in the past decade. In 2007, disease activity was measured in only 16% of outpatient visits. All rheumatologists that participated in the 2007 study were invited to re-enter our study in 2016/2017. If necessary, data were supplemented with data from other rheumatologists. For all 26 rheumatologists who agreed to participate in our study, data were collected from 30 consecutive patients that visited the outpatient clinic. Per patient, data from four consecutive rheumatologist outpatient visits were collected. Since 2007, disease activity was measured more frequently in Dutch daily clinical practice, increasing from 16 to 79% of visits (2440/3081 visits). In addition, intensification of medication based on disease activity scores increased from 33 to 50% of visits (260/525 visits). DAS/DAS28 was the most frequently used disease activity measure (1596/2440 visits). There was a wide variation among rheumatologists in measuring disease activity and intensification of medication, 20-100% and 0-75% respectively. Over the past years, there has been a large improvement in disease activity assessment in daily clinical practice. Disease activity-based medication intensifications, also called tight control or treat to target, increased to a lesser extent. Large variation between different rheumatologists and clinics indicates that there is still room for improvement. Key Points • Following guideline dissemination disease activity is assessed more frequently (79%). • There is large variation between rheumatologists, indicating room for improvement. • Finding factors that explain variation is necessary to improve tight control in daily practice.

Assessments of the unmet need in the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: analyses from the NOR-DMARD registry

Objective

To describe the outcomes of MTX and biologic DMARD (bDMARD) treatment in patients with RA and assess unmet needs in patients who fail treatment, using real-world data from the Norwegian DMARD (NOR-DMARD) registry.

Methods

Data included RA treatment courses from January 2007 until July 2016. Patients received MTX monotherapy (in MTX-naïve patients), bDMARD monotherapy, bDMARDs + MTX, or bDMARDs + other conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs). DAS28-4(ESR) was used to measure remission (<2.6) and inadequate response (>3.2) across all groups at Months 6 and 12. Estimated ACR20/50/70 and EULAR good and good/moderate response rates (based on DAS28-4[ESR] score) for bDMARDs were modelled at Months 6 and 12 using logistic mixed regression. DAS28-4(ESR) scores and changes from baseline, and rates and reasons for discontinuation, were evaluated for all groups over 24 months.

Results

The 2778 treatment courses in this analysis included 714 MTX monotherapy, 396 bDMARD monotherapy, 1460 bDMARDs + MTX and 208 bDMARDs + other csDMARDs. Of patients with DAS28-4(ESR) data at Months 6 and 12 (25.0–34.1%), 33.9–47.2% did not switch treatment and were inadequate-responders at Month 12. There were no significant differences in efficacy between bDMARD groups (bDMARD monotherapy, or bDMARDs + MTX or other csDMARDs). Lack of efficacy was the most common reason for stopping treatment across all groups (13.7–22.1% over 24 months).

Conclusion

An unmet treatment need exists for patients still experiencing inadequate response to MTX monotherapy and bDMARDs as monotherapy or in combination with MTX/other csDMARDs after 12 months.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01581294.

Barriers to treatment optimization and achievement of patients' goals: perspectives from people living with rheumatoid arthritis enrolled in the ArthritisPower registry

BACKGROUND

Few studies have investigated patients' own treatment goals in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The objective of this real-world, cross-sectional study of US patients with RA was to identify factors that patients believed influenced their physician's treatment decisions. Secondary objectives included reasons patients tolerated sub-optimal disease control and their perceived barriers to treatment optimization.

METHODS

Eligible participants were enrolled in the ArthritisPower registry, ≥ 19 years, had physician-diagnosed RA, unchanged treatment within 3 months of baseline, prior/current disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatment (DMARDs), and computer/smartphone access. In December 2017, participants completed Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Computerized Adaptive Tests (PROMIS-CAT) for pain interference, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and physical function. Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) provided disease activity scores (0-30). Participants completed an online survey on barriers to treatment optimization, including self-perception of disease compared to RAPID3/PROMIS scores.

RESULTS

A total of 249 participants met inclusion criteria and completed the survey. Mean age (SD) was 52 (11) years, and the majority were female (92%) with high RAPID3 disease activity (175/249 [70%]; median score 18). The main reason participants did not change treatment was their physician's recommendation (66%; n = 32). Of participants with high RAPID3 disease activity, 66 (38%) were offered a treatment change; 19 (29%) of whom declined the change. Most participants who intensified treatment did so because their symptoms had remained severe or worsened (51%; n = 65); only 16 (25%) participants intensified because they had not reached a specified treatment goal. Among participants who self-reported their disease activity as "none/low" or "medium" (n = 202; 81% of cohort), most still had RAPID3 high disease activity (137/202 [68%]; score > 12). Most PROMIS scores showed moderate agreement with participants' self-assessment of health status, in contrast to RAPID3 (weighted kappa: 0.05 [95% CI - 0.01, 0.11]).

CONCLUSIONS

Most participants trusted their rheumatologist's treatment decisions and prioritized their physician's treatment goals over their own. Patients should be encouraged to share their treatment goals/expectations with their rheumatologist, in line with the treat-to-target approach. RAPID3 may be inappropriate for setting patient-centric treatment goals given the poor agreement with self-reported disease activity; most PROMIS scores showed better alignment with patients' own assessments.

Pharmacological conditioning in the treatment of recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized controlled trial study protocol

BACKGROUND

In pharmacological conditioning associations are formed between the effects of medication and contextual factors related to the medication. Pharmacological conditioning with placebo medication can result in comparable treatment effects and reduced side effects compared to regular treatment in various clinical populations, and may be applied to achieve enhanced drug effects. In the current study protocol, pharmacological conditioning is applied to achieve enhanced treatment effects in patients with recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The results from this study broaden the knowledge on the potential of pharmacological conditioning and provide a potential innovative treatment option to optimize long-term pharmacological treatment effectiveness for patients with inflammatory conditions, such as recent-onset RA.

METHODS

A multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial is conducted in patients with recent-onset RA. Participants start on standardized pharmacological treatment for 16 weeks, which consists of methotrexate (MTX) 15 mg/week and a tapered schedule of prednisone 60 mg or 30 mg. After 4 months, participants in clinical remission (based on the rheumatologist's opinion and a targeted score below 1.6 on a 44-joint disease activity score (DAS44)) are randomized to 1 of 2 groups: (1) the control group (C), which continues with a standardized treatment schedule of MTX 15 mg/week or (2) the pharmacological conditioning group (PC), which receives an MTX treatment schedule in alternating high and low dosages. In the case of persistent clinical remission after 8 months, treatment is tapered and discontinued linearly in the C group and variably in the PC group. Both groups receive the same cumulative amount of MTX during each period. Logistic regression analysis is used to compare the proportion of participants with drug-free clinical remission after 12 months between the C group and the PC group. Secondary outcome measures include clinical functioning, laboratory assessments, and self-reported measures after each 4-month period up to 18 months after study start.

DISCUSSION

The results from this study broaden the knowledge on the potential of pharmacological conditioning and provide a potential innovative treatment option to optimize long-term pharmacological treatment effectiveness in patients with inflammatory conditions, such as recent-onset RA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register, NL5652. Registered on 3 March 2016.

Satisfaction of Patients and Physicians with Treatments for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Population-Based Survey in China

PURPOSE

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic inflammatory disease characterized by chronic destructive synovitis and possible multisystem involvement. This study aimed to survey the treatment satisfaction of physicians and patients with RA, and to explore the potential factors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted in 12 centers across China between March 2018 and April 2018. The Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication version II was used to assess the treatment satisfaction of patients and physicians. Multivariable regression analysis was used to determine the factors independently associated with treatment satisfaction of patients.

RESULTS

The patients' satisfaction (n=335) with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) was higher than physicians' satisfaction (n=146) regarding the side effects (95.0±14.3 vs 84.6±15.7, P<0.001) and convenience (74.6±21.2 vs 69.1±16.5, P=0.002). Among physicians, global satisfaction with bDMARDs was higher than that with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs). The multivariable regression analysis showed that age was positively associated with satisfaction of patients, while college or above education and self-assessment of disease severity were inversely associated with satisfaction. Treatment satisfaction was associated positively with the quality of communication with the physician and inversely with treatment costs.

CONCLUSION

For bDMARDs, the treatment satisfaction of patients with RA is generally higher than that of physicians'. Physicians' satisfaction with bDMARDs is higher than with csDMARDs. Age, education, disease severity, communication with the physician, and treatment costs are independently associated with the treatment satisfaction among patients. Physician-patient communication should be improved in clinical practice. Treatment costs should be taken into account when physicians make decisions.

Challenges in Implementing Treat-to-Target Strategies in Rheumatology

Despite evidence that treat-to-target (TTT) approaches lead to better disease outcomes in RA, TTT is not widely implemented in rheumatology clinics in North America. This article discusses the barriers (including access to care, patient and physician factors, and systems issues) to implementing TTT in the clinic, and proposes possible solutions and future research directions.

Treatment Satisfaction With and Adherence to Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Adult Patients With Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To examine medication satisfaction and adherence and their relationships to disease variables and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adults with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

METHODS

Patients (n = 96, mean age 25 years, 67% female) completed questionnaires about their health status 19 years after disease onset. Patients receiving biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) or methotrexate (MTX) were assessed with the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) and the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM), including dimensions of effectiveness, side effects, convenience, and global satisfaction.

RESULTS

DMARDs were received by 52 patients (54%) (mean age 25 years, 75% female), of which 28 received MTX and 37 received bDMARDs. Patients receiving combination therapy of MTX and bDMARDs (n = 15) reported higher satisfaction with bDMARDs than MTX in the dimensions of side effects and global satisfaction (mean ± SD 92.9 ± 15.5 versus 56.2 ± 30.9, and mean ± SD 67.6 ± 19.8 versus 47.1 ± 21.7; P < 0.001 and P = 0.016, respectively). Patients receiving either bDMARDs (n = 22) or MTX (n = 13) reported higher satisfaction with bDMARDs than MTX for the dimensions of effectiveness and global satisfaction (mean ± SD 78.7 ± 15.4 versus 60.2 ± 19.9, and mean ± SD 73.6 ± 17.7 versus 52.3 ± 23.9; P = 0.004 and P = 0.005, respectively). Nearly one-half of patients (46%) reported low adherence (MMAS-8 score <6) and 25% high adherence (MMAS-8 score = 8). Higher levels of pain, psychological distress, more active joints, and current MTX use were the strongest correlates of lower medication satisfaction. Perceived medication effectiveness and global satisfaction correlated positively with physical and mental HRQoL.

CONCLUSION

Patients with JIA were more satisfied with bDMARDs than MTX, and 46% reported low adherence. Higher medication satisfaction was associated with better HRQoL.

Adherence to Treat-to-target Management in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Associated Factors: Data from the International RA BIODAM Cohort

Objective.

Compelling evidence supports a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy for optimal outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There is limited knowledge regarding the factors that impede implementation of T2T, particularly in a setting where adherence to T2T is protocol-specified. We aimed to assess clinical factors that associate with failure to adhere to T2T.

Methods.

Patients with RA from 10 countries who were starting or changing conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and/or starting tumor necrosis factor inhibitors were followed for 2 years. Participating physicians were required per protocol to adhere to the T2T strategy. Factors influencing adherence to T2T low disease activity (T2T-LDA; 44-joint count Disease Activity Score ≤ 2.4) were analyzed in 2 types of binomial generalized estimating equations models: (1) including only baseline features (baseline model); and (2) modeling variables that inherently vary over time as such (longitudinal model).

Results.

A total of 571 patients were recruited and 439 (76.9%) completed 2-year followup. Failure of adherence to T2T-LDA was noted in 1765 visits (40.5%). In the baseline multivariable model, a high number of comorbidities (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02–1.19), smoking (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.08–1.63) and high number of tender joints (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02–1.04) were independently associated with failure to implement T2T, while anticitrullinated protein antibody/rheumatoid factor positivity (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.50–0.80) was a significant facilitator of T2T. Results were similar in the longitudinal model.

Conclusion.

Lack of adherence to T2T in the RA BIODAM cohort was evident in a substantial proportion despite being a protocol requirement, and this could be predicted by clinical features. [Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) BIODAM cohort; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01476956].

Tapering biologic therapy for people with rheumatoid arthritis in remission: A review of patient perspectives and associated clinical evidence

OBJECTIVES

Biologic therapies have increased the control of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Questions remain about tapering biologics when remission is achieved in RA. The patient perspective has to be incorporated in pragmatic applications of tapering but is rarely accounted for in clinical studies of tapering. The aim of the present review was to summarize the evidence about RA patient perspectives on biologic tapering.

METHODS

We provided a narrative summary of the currently small body of research on patient perspectives retrieved through systematic searches with an emphasis on seeking qualitative research. In addition, we provided an update on relevant clinical research and financial considerations that frame the findings on patient perspectives.

RESULTS

Financial considerations around commencing/continuing on biologic therapies in RA vary internationally and have implications for patient perspectives. Recent clinical studies indicate that the benefit of tapering biologic therapy when in remission are predicted by drug concentration and aspects of disease activity, severity and duration. Three major concerns have been identified from studies of patient perspectives on biologic tapering: (a) disease relapse; (b) access to treatment in the case of disease flare when tapering; and (c) local motivation for dose reduction (i.e., driven by funding or health benefit).

CONCLUSIONS

More research is needed on tapering biologics, and should include studies of patient perspectives as well as health economic evaluations. Patient decision aids are a potential way of applying clinical and patient-focused evidence to help all parties come to a decision, but require developmental research and pragmatic evaluation.

The "Treat to Target" Approach to Rheumatoid Arthritis

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis has evolved significantly over the past decades. Therapeutic advances have made clinical remission a feasible goal. Systematic treatment approaches taking into account objective measures of disease activity ("treat-to-target"/"T2T") have been shown to result in better outcomes. This article reviews the latest information regarding T2T in rheumatoid arthritis, including a synopsis of the different disease activity scores available, new definitions of remission used in clinical trials and in routine clinical care, studies supporting a T2T approach, the role of imaging to guide treatment, and areas in which uncertainty remains.

Health Care Effect of Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Use on Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

BACKGROUND

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are recommended as the standard of care for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) due to their ability to reduce pain and disability; however, DMARD use is low in some subgroups of the RA population.

OBJECTIVE

To identify characteristics associated with DMARD use in the overall cohort of patients with RA and newly diagnosed RA patients.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study used claims from a large national health plan. Use of DMARDs was measured according to the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) as the proportion of patients with RA receiving DMARDs. Following HEDIS measure technical specifications, we identified patients aged 18-89 years with continuous enrollment during 2014 (measurement year) with ≥ 2 claims for RA outpatient visits and/or discharges on different dates between January and November 2014. Additionally, we identified a subset of patients newly diagnosed with RA in 2014 based on absence of any claims for RA or DMARDs in 2013. Descriptive analyses and bivariate associations were used to compare demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with RA with or without DMARD use in 2014. Health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs were compared in 2014 for patients enrolled in Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) plans during both 2014 and 2015. Regression models were used to evaluate patient and provider characteristics associated with DMARD use in 2014 and the effect on HCRU and costs.

RESULTS

Among the 33,880 patients identified with RA in 2014, most patients received a DMARD (75.2%); 29.4% of patients newly diagnosed with RA had been treated with DMARDs in 2014. Patients with DMARD use, on average, were younger (aged 67 years ± 10.7 vs. 69 years ± 10.7) and healthier (Deyo-Charlson Comorbidity Index [DCCI] 2.4 ± 1.9 vs. 2.6 ± 2.1) and included a greater proportion of women (75.9% vs. 71.0%) than those with no DMARD use (P < 0.0001). Use of DMARDs (P < 0.0001) was associated with 14.5% fewer hospitalizations and 18.0% fewer emergency department visits. Although total costs increased by 15.0% with use of DMARDs, when the cost of DMARDs was excluded, the total cost decreased by 13.7% (P < 0.0001). Female gender (32.2%), higher claims-based index for RA severity score (47.0%), higher RxRisk-V score (26.7%), visit to a rheumatologist (34.3%), and use of glucocorticoids (17.7%) increased the odds of DMARD use (P < 0.0001). Use of certain classes of medication, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (12.3%), opioids (19.5%), antidepressants (20.0%), muscle relaxants (12.5%), and anticonvulsants (15.5%), were associated with lower use of DMARDs (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

We found significant differences in demographic and clinical characteristics between patients with and without DMARD use, which can potentially inform treatment decisions regarding DMARD use as deemed necessary by the provider. Future research should investigate the reasons for lack of treatment.

DISCLOSURES

This study was supported by funding from Eli Lilly to Humana as a collaborative research project involving employees of both companies. Boytsov, Saverno, Zhang, and Gaich are employees of Eli Lilly. Nair, Bhattacharya, Abbott, and Dixon are employees of Humana, which received funding from Eli Lilly to complete this research.

Toward Defining Primary and Secondary Nonresponse in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Treated with Anti-TNF: Results from the BioTRAC and OBRI Registries

OBJECTIVE

Although most patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) respond to anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) treatment, some present with initial nonresponse (1ry nonresponse) or lose initial responsiveness (2ry nonresponse). We compared the rate of real-world "nonresponse" to first anti-TNF as reported by treating physicians to the nonresponse rate per accepted definitions and recommended treat-to-target strategies.

METHODS

Patients were included from the Biologic Treatment Registry Across Canada (BioTRAC) and Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI) registries who were taking their first anti-TNF, with ≥ 1 followup visit. Posthoc reclassification of physician-reported nonresponse was based on prior achievement of 28-joint count Disease Activity Score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) low disease activity (LDA), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) LDA, or good/moderate European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response, and actual time of physician-reported nonresponse.

RESULTS

Among 736 BioTRAC and 640 OBRI patients, 13.7% and 18%, respectively, discontinued their anti-TNF because of physician-reported nonresponse. Based on reclassification using disease activity, 65.6% (BioTRAC) and 87.2% (OBRI) of 1ry nonresponders did not achieve DAS28-ESR LDA, 65.6%/90.7% CDAI LDA, and 46.9%/61.5% good/moderate EULAR response. Among 2ry nonresponders, 50.7%/47.8% did not achieve DAS28-ESR LDA, 37.7%/52.9% CDAI LDA, and 15.9%/19.6% good/moderate EULAR response before treatment discontinuation. Regarding actual time of nonresponse, 18.8% of BioTRAC and 60.8% of OBRI 1ry nonresponders discontinued at ≤ 6 months. In both registries, a high proportion of 2ry nonresponders discontinued their anti-TNF after 12 months (87.0% BioTRAC, 60.9% OBRI).

CONCLUSION

Physician-reported 1ry nonresponse was more correlated with non-achievement of DAS28-ESR LDA or CDAI LDA, whereas 2ry nonresponse with actual time of discontinuation. Further work is needed to confirm the importance of response and type of response to the initial anti-TNF in identifying patients most likely to benefit from a second biologic agent treatment.

The patient perspective on biologic DMARD dose reduction in rheumatoid arthritis: a mixed methods study

Objectives

The aim of this study was to identify the factors that play a role for patients with RA when considering dose reduction (i.e. gradual tapering until discontinuation) of biological DMARDs (bDMARDs), and to determine their relative importance.

Methods

A mixed methods design was used in which we identified influencing factors by performing semi-structured interviews and ranked these factors using a Maximum Difference Scaling questionnaire. Also, we looked at the influence of several patient characteristics on this ranking.

Results

For sub study 1 and 2, 22 and 192 patients with RA were included, respectively, in the analyses. Thirty factors were identified from the interviews-characterized into nine themes-and appraised in the questionnaire. Most respondents had a positive attitude towards bDMARD dose reduction. The study showed that patients are concerned that dose reduction will lead to a disease flare that affects their daily life (pain, function). It is important for them to know that it is possible to increase the dose if (further) reduction fails and that the bDMARD will be effective again. Patients value the opinion of their rheumatologist, and being involved in the decision to start tapering is highly ranked as well. The most important factors were consistent between different groups of patients.

Conclusion

The results from this study facilitate implementation of bDMARD dose reduction; they inform care providers on what is important for patients and provide a basis for shared decision making.

Patients' information and perspectives on biosimilars in rheumatology: A French nation-wide survey

OBJECTIVE

To assess the patients' information about biosimilars and to identify the patients' incentives and deterrents to concur with the use of biosimilars.

METHODS

Nation-wide cross-sectional study assessing information and concerns about biosimilars of French patients treated for rheumatic inflammatory diseases, whether they were treated or not by a biological DMARD. The assessment was available online from March to July 2017.

RESULTS

Among the 629 respondents, 43% knew what biosimilars were. The main sources of information were rheumatologists and patient associations. Among patients treated with a biosimilar, 44% were not informed before they received the treatment. The patients' concerns focused on the non-similar molecular structure (46%), efficacy (60%) and safety (57%) comparatively to the originator biologic. 15% of respondents would refuse to switch their biologic to its biosimilar. More than 50% of respondents would warily accept to switch medications and interrupt the treatment if in doubt. Being informed about biosimilars and a good understanding of the definition of biosimilars were characteristics associated with better adherence to biosimilars. The rheumatologist was considered the most influent source of information about biosimilars and was considered reliable when deciding to switch a biologic to its biosimilar. Patient were reluctant to substitution of the medications by pharmacists (2%). Medico-economical issues acted as an incentive and a deterrent to accept the switch of medication.

CONCLUSION

Biosimilars are largely unknown to patients. Information seems to be instrumental in improving the patients' adherence to biosimilars and could help preserving the therapeutic relationship and avoiding a nocebo effect.

Longitudinal Occurrence and Predictors of Patient-Provider Discordance Between Global Assessments of Disease Activity in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Case-Control Study

OBJECTIVE

To identify longitudinal predictors of discordance between patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and their health care providers, where patient global assessment of disease activity is substantially higher than provider global assessment.

METHODS

This retrospective case-control study included 102 cases with positive discordance (i.e., ≥25 mm between patient and provider global assessments) and 102 controls without discordance who were matched for age, sex, RA duration, and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score. Data were collected at the baseline visit (date of diagnosis or earliest available visit), the index visit (participation in a previous cross-sectional study), and at up to 11 additional visits before the index visit. Data included patient characteristics, disease activity measures, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (3-variable) using the C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP), and medications. Data were analyzed by using linear and logistic regression models with smoothing splines for nonlinear trends.

RESULTS

Overall, the mean age was 63 years, 75% of patients were female, and the mean RA duration was 10 years. Compared with controls, cases had higher rates of discordant visits during the 4 years before the index visit, and they had a higher CDAI score and DAS28-CRP earlier in the disease course. Cases more frequently had antinuclear antibodies, nonerosive disease, prior depression, or prior use of antidepressants or fibromyalgia medications. Disease-modifying medication use was not different between cases and controls.

CONCLUSION

The findings inform new hypotheses about the relationships of disease activity and antinuclear antibodies to the later occurrence of positive discordance among patients with RA.

Barriers to treatment adjustment within a treat to target strategy in rheumatoid arthritis: a secondary analysis of the TRACTION trial

Objectives

Adherence to a treat to target (TTT) strategy is a recommended paradigm for RA; however, research shows there are many barriers to implementation. We conducted a trial to improve TTT implementation, and herein examine barriers to treatment adjustment within TTT among patient visits not in agreement with the TTT paradigm.

Methods

Chart review assessed TTT implementation based on documentation of four items: designation of a treatment target, recording a disease activity measure, shared-decision making when applicable and adjusting treatment when disease activity was not at target. A treatment decision not in agreement with the TTT paradigm was defined as lack of treatment adjustment when disease activity was not at the pre-determined treatment target. Providers were encouraged to report the barriers to treatment change; these were categorized and analysed by study staff. Multiple barriers were possible for one visit.

Results

Eighty-three visits not in agreement with the TTT strategy were observed in 74 patients, during which 90 reported barriers to treatment adjustment were noted. Common barriers to adjusting treatment included patient preference in 37.1% of visits and elevated disease activity measure despite no objective evidence of active RA in 38.6% of visits.

Conclusion

An elevated disease activity measure not reflective of RA disease activity and patient preference are the two leading barriers to treatment adjustment to TTT in RA. Understanding barriers to adherence should guide interventions aimed at using better markers of disease activity and improving alignment with patient preference, with the overarching goal of enhancing TTT adherence.

Latent profile analysis approach to the relationship between patient and physician global assessments of rheumatoid arthritis activity

Objective

Patients and physicians commonly differ in their assessments of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) activity. Clinically meaningful discordance thresholds or validation of their ability to predict functional outcomes are lacking. We explored whether an unbiased, person-centred latent profile analysis (LPA) approach could classify cases based on patient global assessment (PtGA) and physician global assessment (MDGA) assessments of RA activity. We further examined whether the LPA groups displayed greater differences in clinical outcomes compared with traditional threshold-based groups. Finally, we evaluated whether LPA yielded higher explanatory power for clinical outcomes.

Methods

LPA was performed in 618 patients with established RA from a single centre. A threshold-based discordance definition was used as a comparator, with patients classified into concordant (PtGA–MDGA within ± 3 cm), positively discordant (PtGA–MDGA ≥3 cm) and negatively discordant groups (PtGA–MDGA ≤−3 cm).

Results

LPA yielded five distinct groups: low PtGA/low MDGA (35.9%), moderate PtGA/moderate MDGA (18.6%), high PtGA/high MDGA (14.7%), high PtGA/low MDGA (23.3%) and low PtGA/high MDGA (7.4%). Groups differed across clinical, physical function, pain, fatigue, health-related quality of life, work productivity and activity impairment outcomes (p<0.001). Concordance groups, in particular, displayed marked heterogeneity in outcomes depending on the magnitude of disease activity reported, with the low/low group faring the best (p<0.001). The LPA solution demonstrated superior explanatory power for all outcomes (p<0.001).

Conclusions

We confirmed the validity and advantages of LPA in characterising the relationship between PtGA and MDGA over a conventional threshold-based definition. LPA yielded optimally distinct, clinically meaningful and cohesive groupings, demonstrating superior explanatory power for disease-related outcomes of interest.

Treatment Patterns of Newly Diagnosed Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients from a Commercially Insured Population

INTRODUCTION

To describe treatment patterns in newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in a large, nationally representative managed-care database.

METHODS

Newly diagnosed RA patients were identified from 07/01/2006-08/31/2014. Patients had ≥ 1 RA diagnosis by a rheumatologist, or ≥ 2 non-rheumatologist RA diagnoses ≥ 30 days apart, or RA diagnosis followed by a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) prescription fill within 1 year. Patients were ≥ 18 years old at index (earliest date fulfilling diagnostic criteria) and had ≥ 6 and 12 months of pre- and post-index health plan enrollment, respectively. Patterns of DMARD treatment, including conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARD), tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), non-TNFi, and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), were captured during follow-up.

RESULTS

Of the 63,101 RA patients identified, 73% were female; mean age was 57 years. During an average of 3.5 ± 2.1 years of follow-up, 45% of patients never received a DMARD, 52% received a csDMARD (94 ± 298 mean ± SD days from index), 16% a TNFi (315 ± 448 days), 4% a non-TNFi (757 ± 660 days), and < 1% a JAKi. Among DMARD recipients, the most common treatment patterns were: receiving csDMARDs only (68%), adding a TNFi as second-line therapy after initiation of a csDMARD (12%), and receiving only a TNFi (6%) during follow-up. Among those not on DMARDs, the all-cause usage of an opioid was 56% and 19% had chronic opioid use (≥ 180 days supplied).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite American College of Rheumatology recommendations for DMARD treatment of RA, nearly half of newly diagnosed RA patients received no DMARD therapy during follow-up. These data identify a treatment gap in RA management.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly & Company.

Timing and Impact of Decisions to Adjust Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients With Active Disease

OBJECTIVE

Guidelines recommend that rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with moderate-to-high disease activity (MHDAS) adjust disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy at least every 3 months until reaching low disease activity or remission (LDAS). We examined how quickly RA patients with MHDAS adjust DMARD therapy in clinical practice, and whether those who adjust DMARDs within 90 days in response to MHDAS reach LDAS sooner.

METHODS

We identified RA patients with MHDAS in the University of Pittsburgh Rheumatoid Arthritis Comparative Effectiveness Research registry, and conducted a competing risks regression on time to DMARD therapy adjustment and a Cox regression on time to LDAS.

RESULTS

We identified 538 eligible subjects with 943.5 patient-years of followup. Sixty percent of patients with persistent MHDAS adjusted DMARDs within 90 days. Among all subjects, median times to DMARD adjustment and LDAS were 154 (interquartile range [IQR] 1-706) days and 301 (IQR 140-706) days, respectively. Being elderly (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 0.61, P = 0.02), lower baseline disease activity (SHR 0.72, P < 0.01), longer duration of RA (SHR 0.98, P < 0.01), and biologic use (SHR 0.71, P < 0.01) were significantly associated with longer times to therapy adjustment. African American race (hazard ratio [HR] 0.63, P = 0.01), higher baseline disease activity (HR 0.75, P < 0.01), and not adjusting DMARD therapy within 90 days (HR 0.76, P = 0.01) were associated with longer times to LDAS.

CONCLUSION

Adjusting DMARDs within 90 days was associated with shorter times to LDAS, but many patients with persistent MHDAS waited >90 days to adjust DMARDs. Interventions are needed to address the timeliness of DMARD adjustments for RA patients with MHDAS.

Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients' Motivations for Accepting or Resisting Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Treatment Regimens

OBJECTIVE

Patient refusal of and nonadherence to treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) can adversely affect disease outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This qualitative study describes how RA patients' feelings in response to experiences and information affected their decisions to accept (agree to adopt, initiate, and implement) or resist (refuse, avoid, and discontinue) DMARD treatment regimens.

METHODS

A total of 48 RA patients were interviewed about their experiences making decisions about DMARDs. The interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed for themes related to their internal motivations for accepting or resisting treatment regimens, using a narrative analysis approach.

RESULTS

In addition to feelings about the necessity and dangers of medications, patients' feelings towards their identity as an ill person, the act of taking medication, and the decision process itself were important drivers of patient's decisions. For patients' motivations to accept treatment regimens, 2 themes emerged: a desire to return to a normal life, and fear of future disability due to RA. For motivations to resist treatment regimens, 5 themes emerged: fear of medications, maintaining control over health, denial of sick identity, disappointment with treatment, and feeling overwhelmed by the cognitive burden of deciding.

CONCLUSION

Feelings in response to experiences and information played a major role in how patients weighed the benefits and costs of treatment options, suggesting that addressing patients' feelings may be important when rheumatologists counsel about therapeutic options. Further research is needed to learn how best to address patients' feelings throughout the treatment decision-making process.

Consensus-based recommendations for the use of biosimilars to treat rheumatological diseases

The study aimed to develop evidence-based recommendations regarding the evaluation and use of biosimilars to treat rheumatological diseases. The task force comprised an expert group of specialists in rheumatology, dermatology and gastroenterology, and pharmacologists, patients and a regulator from ten countries. Four key topics regarding biosimilars were identified through a process of discussion and consensus. Using a Delphi process, specific questions were then formulated to guide a systematic literature review. Relevant English-language publications through November 2016 were searched systematically for each topic using Medline; selected papers and pertinent reviews were examined for additional relevant references; and abstracts presented at the 2015 and 2016 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) annual scientific meetings were searched for those about biosimilars. The experts used evidence obtained from these studies to develop a set of overarching principles and consensus recommendations. The level of evidence and grade of recommendation were determined for each. By the search strategy, 490 references were identified. Of these, 29 full-text papers were included in the systematic review. Additionally, 20 abstracts were retrieved from the ACR and EULAR conference abstract databases. Five overarching principles and eight consensus recommendations were generated, encompassing considerations regarding clinical trials, immunogenicity, extrapolation of indications, switching between bio-originators and biosimilars and among biosimilars, and cost. The level of evidence and grade of recommendation for each varied according to available published evidence. Five overarching principles and eight consensus recommendations regarding the evaluation and use of biosimilars to treat rheumatological diseases were developed using research-based evidence and expert opinion.

Examination of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Association with TNF-Inhibitor Treatment Response: Results from a US Observational Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Implementation of a treat-to-target strategy is challenging when the patient and physician prioritize different goals. This study aimed to "translate" improvements in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) to concepts that resonate with patients (such as pain, fatigue, morning stiffness) by examining the association between changes in disease activity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a national cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating their first biologic treatment.

METHODS

Patients in the Corrona registry with moderate or high disease activity (M/HDA) (defined by a CDAI score > 10), prior use of at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD), 12-month follow-up, and initiating their first tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) between 1 January 2006 through 1 November 2015 were identified. Patients were stratified on the basis of CDAI during follow-up, and changes in PROs were compared with a test of trend using CDAI-defined groups.

RESULTS

Of 1570 patients, 37% achieved sustained remission or low disease activity (remission/LDA), 15% had improving remission/LDA, 12% had worsening M/HDA, and 35% were in sustained M/HDA during 12-month follow-up. Those in sustained remission/LDA had greater magnitude of improvement in physical functioning, pain, fatigue, morning stiffness, patient's global assessment, and quality of life compared with patients in sustained M/HDA (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Reduction in disease activity was associated with improvements in PROs, with the greatest improvements seen in those who achieved sustained remission/LDA. These results reinforce the benefits of a treat-to-target approach to RA care and may improve dialogue between patients and providers, support shared decision-making, and reduce "clinical inertia."

FUNDING

Corrona, LLC.

Benefit of biologics initiation in moderate versus severe rheumatoid arthritis: evidence from a United States registry

Objectives

To compare clinical outcomes and treatment patterns among patients with moderate vs severe RA following biologic DMARD initiation.

Methods

Biologics-naive patients with moderate to severe RA [Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) >10] who initiated a biologic DMARD were selected from the Corrona registry (2001-13). CDAI, functional status [modified HAQ (mHAQ)] and patterns of drug use were compared at 1 and 2 years post-initiation between patients with moderate (CDAI >10⩽22) vs severe (CDAI >22) baseline disease activity.

Results

A total of 1596 patients (817 severe, 779 moderate) had ⩾1 year of follow-up and 1269 (635 severe, 634 moderate) had ⩾2 years of follow-up. Patients with severe vs moderate baseline disease activity experienced greater improvements in disease activity [mean change in CDAI -18.9 vs -6.0 at year 1; -21.0 vs -7.1 at year 2 ( P < 0.0001)] and physical function [mean change in mHAQ -0.2 vs -0.1 ( P < 0.0001) at year 1; -0.2 vs -0.1 ( P = 0.0013) at year 2]. Greater proportions of patients with moderate vs severe disease activity achieved remission (CDAI ⩽2.8) [22.7 vs 15.8% ( P = 0.0003) at year 1; 25.9 vs 20.9% ( P = 0.0396) at year 2] or low disease activity (CDAI <10) [60.1 vs 41.2% at year 1; 66.7 vs 49.4% at year 2 ( P < 0.0001)]. Most patients remained on the original biologic drug (>70% at year 1; >62% at year 2).

Conclusion

With biologic therapy, RA patients with higher baseline disease activity achieved greater improvements in measures of disease activity than those with lower levels of disease, but less often achieved the common targets of remission or low disease activity.

Spontaneous mental associations with the words "side effect": Implications for informed and shared decision making

OBJECTIVE

To gain insight into patients' medical decisions by exploring the content of laypeople's spontaneous mental associations with the term "side effect."

METHODS

An online cross-sectional survey asked 144 women aged 40-74, "What are the first three things you think of when you hear the words 'side effect?"' Data were analyzed using content analysis, chi-square, and Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

17 codes emerged and were grouped into 4 themes and a Miscellaneous category: Health Problems (70.8% of participants), Decision-Relevant Evaluations (52.8%), Negative Affect (30.6%), Practical Considerations (18.1%) and Miscellaneous (9.7%). The 4 most frequently identified codes were: Risk (36.1%), Health Problems-Specific Symptoms (35.4%), Health Problems-General Terms (32.6%), and Negative Affect-Strong (19.4%). Code and theme frequencies were generally similar across demographic groups (ps>0.05).

CONCLUSION

The term "side effect" spontaneously elicited comments related to identifying health problems and expressing negative emotions. This might explain why the mere possibility of side effects triggers negative affect for people making medical decisions. Some respondents also mentioned decision-relevant evaluations and practical considerations in response to side effects.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Addressing commonly-held associations and acknowledging negative affects provoked by side effects are first steps healthcare providers can take towards improving informed and shared patient decision making.

The added value of musculoskeletal ultrasound to clinical evaluation in the treatment decision of rheumatoid arthritis outpatients: physician experience matters

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal ultrasound improves the accuracy of detecting the level of disease activity (DA) in RA patients, although its impact on the final treatment decision in a real clinical setting is uncertain. The objectives were to define the percentage of clinical scenarios from an ongoing cohort of RA outpatients in which the German Ultrasound Score on 7 joints (GUS-7) impacted the treatment and to explore if the impact differed between a senior rheumatologist (SR) vs. a trainee (TR).

METHODS

Eighty-five consecutive and randomly selected RA outpatients underwent 170 assessments, 85 each by the SR and the TR. Initially, both physicians (blinded to each other) performed a rheumatic assessment and recommended a preliminary treatment. Then, the patients underwent the GUS-7 evaluation by an experienced rheumatologist blinded to clinical evaluations; selected joints of the clinically dominant hand were assessed by gray-scale and power Doppler (PD). In the final step, the TR and the SR integrated the GUS-7 findings with their previous evaluation and reviewed their recommendations. The patients received the final recommendation from the SR to avoid patient confusion. The study was approved by the Internal Review Board and all the patients signed informed consent. GUS-7 usefulness was separately evaluated by the SR and the TR according to a visual analogue scale (0 = not useful at all, 10 = very useful). Descriptive statistics were used.

RESULTS

The patients were primarily middle-aged females (91.4%) with (mean ± SD) disease duration of 7.5 ± 3.9 years. The majority of them (69.2% according to TR and 71.8% to SR) were in DAS28-ESR-remission. In 34 of 170 clinical scenarios (20%), the GUS-7 findings modified the final treatment proposal; 24 of these scenarios were determined by the TR vs. 10 by the SR: 70.5% vs. 29.5%, p = 0.01. Treatment changes (increase, decrease and joint injection) were similar between both specialists. As expected, the TR rated the GUS-7 usefulness higher than the SR, particularly in the clinical scenarios where the GUS-7 findings impacted treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Musculoskeletal ultrasound added to standard rheumatic assessments impacted the treatment proposal in a limited number of patients; the impact was greater in the TR.

Using Dermal Temperature to Identify Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients With Radiologic Progressive Disease in Less Than One Minute

Objective

To explore development of a screening test for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients most likely to develop radiographic damage in the next year. The test is a simple, objective measurement of elevated dermal temperature over an inflamed joint in this observational, prospective cohort study.

Methods

Seropositive RA patients were sequentially enrolled into cohorts with hot or cool joints, as determined by a dermal thermometer. Patients naive to biologic therapy were maintained on a stable dosage of methotrexate (20–25 mg/week). The hot‐joint cohort had a joint skin temperature greater than their body temperature on vital signs. Hand/wrist radiographs obtained at baseline and 1 year later were read and scored using modified Sharp/van der Heijde scores (SHS) by a single reader without sequence order or identifiers.

Results

Each cohort consisted of 104 patients enrolled into observation between 2009 and 2014. Patients in the cohort with hot joints had a mean ± SD joint temperature of 1.06 ± 0.69°F above central body temperature and a nearly 4‐fold higher risk of new radiographic damage than those with cool joints (SHS score 8.7 ± 6.2 versus 2.5 ± 1.4; P < 0.001). Sensitivity and specificity for joint temperature to predict radiographic damage in the next year were 92% and 78%, respectively, in the hot‐joint cohort. As expected, this cohort at baseline was younger, had more recent onset RA, and had higher Westergren erythrocyte sedimentation rate levels than the cool‐joint cohort (P < 0.001 for each).

Conclusion

Dermal joint temperature may become a screening test to quickly and accurately identify individual RA patients at high risk for radiographic damage and those who may benefit most from biologic therapy.

Use of Low-Literacy Decision Aid to Enhance Knowledge and Reduce Decisional Conflict Among a Diverse Population of Adults With Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results of a Pilot Study

OBJECTIVE

Despite innovations in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), adherence is poor and disparities persist. Shared decision making (SDM) promotes patient engagement and enhances adherence; however, few tools support SDM in RA. Our objective was to pilot a low-literacy medication guide and decision aid to facilitate patient-clinician conversations about RA medications.

METHODS

RA patients were consecutively enrolled into 1 of 3 arms: 1) control; patients received existing medication guide prior to clinic visit, 2) adapted guide prior to visit, and 3) adapted guide prior to plus decision aid during visit. Outcomes were collected immediately postvisit, at 1-week, and at 3- and 6-month interviews. Eligible adults had to have failed at least 1 disease-modifying antirheumatic drug and fulfill 1 of the following: age >65 years, immigrant, non-English speaker, less than high school education, limited health literacy, and racial/ethnic minority. Primary outcomes were knowledge of RA medications, decisional conflict, and acceptability of interventions.

RESULTS

The majority of 166 patients were immigrants (66%), non-English speakers (54%), and had limited health literacy (71%). Adequate RA knowledge postvisit in arm 3 was higher (78%) than arm 1 (53%; adjusted odds ratio 2.7, 95% confidence interval 1.2, 6.1). Among patients with a medication change, there was lower (better) mean decisional conflict in arms 2 and 3 (P = 0.03). There were no significant differences in acceptability.

CONCLUSION

A low-literacy medication guide and decision aid was acceptable, improved knowledge, and reduced decisional conflict among vulnerable RA patients. Enhancing knowledge and patient engagement with decision support tools may lead to medication choices better aligned with RA patients' values and preferences.

Patient experience with intravenous biologic therapies for ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn's disease, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ulcerative colitis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to describe patient experience with intravenous (IV) biologics for ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn's disease, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, or ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted in 405 patients with these autoimmune diseases who were receiving an IV biologic to treat their disease.

RESULTS

On a 7-point scale (1= not at all satisfied; 7= very satisfied), mean satisfaction with IV medication was rated 6.1; 77% of patients rated satisfaction as 6 or 7. The most frequently perceived benefits of IV therapy were related to supervision provided by health care professionals. Most patients (82%, n=332) preferred their IV medication to subcutaneous injection. The three most common reasons for preferring IV were not wanting to self-inject (43%), less frequent dosing (34%), and preference for administration by a health care professional (24%). African-American/black patients had a stronger preference for IV administration than Caucasian/white patients (97% vs 80%, P<0.05) and a greater dislike of needles/self-injection (71% vs 40%, P<0.05). Hospital outpatient departments were not rated as well as physician in-office infusion. Only half (49%) of the patients reported that both they and their physician equally influenced the choice to switch from subcutaneous to IV therapy, and only 30% were given a choice of infusion center.

CONCLUSION

Users of IV biologics are highly satisfied with their medications and perceive the opportunity for health care provider interaction at their infusion facilities as an advantage of their regimen. These findings support continued need for IV therapeutic options and shared decision-making between patients and physicians while selecting biologic treatments.

Barriers and facilitators to disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a qualitative theory-based study

Background

Although disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are the cornerstone of treatment for inflammatory rheumatic diseases, medication adherence to DMARDs is often suboptimal. Effective interventions to improve adherence to DMARDs are lacking, and new targets are needed to improve adherence. The aim of the present study was to explore patients’ barriers and facilitators of optimal DMARD use. These factors might be used as targets for adherence interventions.

Methods

In a mixed method study design, patients (n = 120) with inflammatory arthritis (IA) completed a questionnaire based on an existing adapted Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify facilitators and barriers of DMARD use. A subgroup of these patients (n = 21) participated in focus groups to provide insights into their facilitators and barriers. The answers to the questionnaires and responses of the focus groups were thematically coded by three researchers independently and subsequently categorized.

Results

The barriers and facilitators that were reported by IA patients presented large inter-individual variations. The identified barriers and facilitators could be captured in the following domains based on an adapted TDF: (i) knowledge, (ii) emotions, (iii) attention, memory, and decision processes, (iv) social influences, (v) beliefs about capability, (vi) beliefs about consequences, (vii) motivation and goals, (viii) goal conflict, (ix) environmental context and resources, and (x) skills.

Conclusions

Patients with IA have a variety of barriers and facilitators with regard to their DMARD use. All of these barriers and facilitators could be categorized into adapted domains of the TDF. Interventions that address individual facilitators and barriers, based on capability, opportunity, and motivation, are needed to develop strategies for medication adherence that are tailored to individual patient needs.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-016-1289-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.