Focus group interviews reveal reasons for differences in the perception of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis

Anxiety impacts rheumatoid arthritis symptoms and health-related quality of life even at low levels

OBJECTIVES

We explored the burden of symptoms of anxiety and depression on health-related quality of life (HRQL) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Adults with RA participating in an observational cohort completed PROMIS tests of depression, anxiety, fatigue, physical function (PF), pain interference (PI), sleep disturbance, and participation in social roles and activities at the baseline visit. Clinical measures of disease status were also obtained. We used ANOVA and partial correlation adjusting for the swollen joint count (SJC) to examine associations of anxiety and depression with other aspects of HRQL. Mild and moderate-severe anxiety were defined as T-scores ≥55.4 and ≥ 62.3 and mild and moderate-severe depression was defined as ≥52.5 and ≥58.6 based on previous validated clinical thresholds. Multivariable linear regression (MVR) was used to identify predictors of emotional distress with a subset analysis of those in remission/low disease activity.

RESULTS

Of 196 RA participants, 18% had mild anxiety, 9% had moderate-severe anxiety, 18% had mild depression, and 14% had moderate-severe depression symptoms. Anxiety and depression scores were associated with significantly worse mean scores across HRQL domains (p <0.05). In MVR, depression (β=0.75, p<0.001), PF (β=0.14, p=0.024) and fatigue (β=0.15, p=0.015) predicted higher anxiety levels, whereas only anxiety predicted higher depression levels (β=0.70, p=<0.001). In subset analysis, PF no longer predicted higher anxiety levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Emotional distress is common in RA, even when disease is well controlled, with considerable impacts on other aspects of HRQL even at mild levels.

'It can't be zero!' Difficulties in completing patient global assessment in rheumatoid arthritis: a mixed methods study

OBJECTIVES

Patient global assessment (PGA) is purported to add the patient's perspective in the composite measures of RA. However, PGA is not standardized and it is not known whether patients' interpretation of the measure is consistent with its intended purpose. This study aimed to explore difficulties experienced by patients with RA in completing PGA, and to assess the impact of a structured explanation in improving its validity and reliability.

METHODS

This was a mixed methods study, using interviews, focus groups and PGA data. During interviews, patients (convenience sample, n = 33) completed three often-used PGA formulations. Then a nurse provided structured explanation about what PGA is and why it is used. After further discussion, patients completed one PGA version again. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. We compared PGA scores pre- and post-explanation (Wilcoxon signed-ranks) and the proportion of patients achieving RA remission with PGA ⩽1 (McNemar's tests).

RESULTS

Three themes emerged: understanding the meaning of PGA, the purpose of PGA and measurement difficulties. The difficulties caused systematic errors in PGA completion such as marking higher when feeling well, marking near the centre or away from zero. The structured explanation was helpful. Following the explanation, the median PGA score decreased from 3.0 to 2.1 cm, and the proportion of non-remission solely due to PGA >1 from 52% to 41%; none of these changes was statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Many patients have difficulties in completing PGA. Standardization of PGA and a structured explanation may improve its clarity, validity and reliability.

Patient-physician discrepancy in the perception of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. A qualitative systematic review of the literature

Introduction

Recommendations on chronic diseases management emphasise the need to consider patient perspectives and shared decision-making. Discrepancies between patients and physicians’ perspectives on treatment objectives, disease activity, preferences and treatment have been described for immune-mediate inflammatory diseases. These differences could result on patient dissatisfaction and negatively affect outcomes.

Objective

To describe the degree of patient-physician discrepancy in three chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (rheumatoid arthritis [RA], psoriatic arthritis [PsA] and psoriasis [Ps]), identifying the main areas of discrepancy and possible predictor factors.

Methods

Qualitative systematic review of the available literature on patient and physician discrepancies in the management of RA, PsA and Ps. The search was performed in international (Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, ISI-WOK) and Spanish electronic databases (MEDES, IBECS), including papers published from April 1, 2008 to April 1, 2018, in English or Spanish, and conducted in European or North American populations. Study quality was assessed by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine criteria.

Results

A total of 21 studies were included (13 RA; 3 PsA; 4 Ps; 1 RA, Ps, and Axial Spondyloarthritis). A significant and heterogeneous degree of discrepancy between patients and physicians was found, regarding disease activity, treatment, clinical expectations, remission concept, and patient-physician relationship. In RA and PsA, studies were mainly focused on the evaluation of disease activity, which is perceived as higher from the patient’s than the physician’s perspective, with the discrepancy determined by factors such as patient’s perception of pain and fatigue. In Ps, studies were focused on treatment satisfaction and patient-physician relationship, showing a lower degree of discrepancy in the satisfaction regarding these aspects.

Conclusions

There is a significant degree of patient-physician discrepancy regarding the management of RA, PA, and Ps, what can have a major impact on shared decision-making. Future research may help to show whether interventions considering discrepancy improve shared decision-making.

Factors associated with patient-physician discordance in a prospective cohort of patients with psoriatic arthritis: An Asian perspective

Objectives

To evaluate factors associated with patient‐physician discordance in a multiethnic Asian cohort of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients.

Methods

We used data from a prospective cohort of consecutive patients with PsA fulfilling the Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis, recruited from a single center in Singapore. Sociodemographic, clinical data and patient‐reported outcomes were collected using a standardized protocol at baseline, 4 months, 8 months, 1 year, 2 years and 5 years. patient‐physician discordance was defined as patient global assessment minus physician global assessment (PGA‐PhGA). We evaluated variables associated with patient‐physician discordance using generalized linear regression to control for within‐subject effect.

Results

One hundred and fortytwo patients (51.4% male, 66.2% Chinese, mean [SD] age and duration of illness 51.1 [13.8] years and 27.5 [98.3] months) were recruited at baseline. Paired results for PGA and PhGA were available for 291 visits with median (interquartile range) follow‐up time of 11.6 (17) months. In univariable analysis, duration of illness, fatigue, pain, tender and swollen joint count, dactylitis count, and health‐related quality of life (Short Form‐36) domains were significantly correlated with patient‐physician discordance. In multivariable analysis, age, fatigue level, pain score were positively associated with patient‐physician discordance, while swollen joint count and mental health were negatively associated with patient physician discordance.

Conclusions

Increased age, higher fatigue levels, higher pain score  and poorer mental health may explain underestimation of disease activity by physicians. Physicians’ overestimation of disease activity may be explained by higher swollen joint counts.

Patients' conceptions of their own influence on good treatment response to biological therapy in chronic inflammatory arthritis

BACKGROUND

Biological therapies are common in the treatment of patients with chronic inflammatory arthritis (CIA). However, despite the fact that many patients respond well to their biological therapies, there are still a number of nonresponders. In order to design the best care for patients, it is important to understand how they conceive their own role in their treatment response.

OBJECTIVE

To explore how patients with CIA conceive their own influence on a good treatment response to biological therapy.

METHODS

This study had an exploratory and descriptive design with a phenomenographic approach. Interviews were conducted with 25 patients (11 women and 14 men) aged 17-79 years, with CIA who were undergoing biological therapy and who had low disease activity or were in remission.

RESULTS

Patients with CIA undergoing biological therapy conceived their own influence on good treatment response in terms of adherence, physical activity, mental attitude, social support, and self-awareness. Adherence was described as the foundation for the patients' own influence on good treatment response. Physical activity, mental attitude, and social support reflected three essential ways of understanding patients' influence on good treatment response where the patients spoke about physical strength, mental strength, and social strength. Self-awareness reflected a comprehensive way of influencing good treatment response in which patients balanced their physical, mental, and social resources in partnership with health care professionals.

CONCLUSION

Patients conceived that they had a responsibility for adhering to the treatment as well as achieving balance in life in order to ensure good treatment response. Self-awareness was essential for maintaining a good treatment response, and this reflected the patients' awareness of the complexity of living their lives with a chronic illness.