Disease Activity Assessment and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with Early Rheumatoid Arthritis

Delivering a one-stop, integrated, and patient-centered service for patients with rheumatic diseases

Objective:

To describe a one-stop, integrated rheumatology service and assess patient satisfaction.

Methods:

A descriptive report and patient satisfaction survey of a rheumatology clinic model first developed in 1996 to enhance the patient “journey” through rheumatology services. A patient-satisfaction survey over a 3-week period assessed several aspects of care including quality of services, consultations, and patient education.

Results:

All referrals are screened by a rheumatologist to pre-schedule laboratory/radiology/other tests for the visit. Upon arrival to the clinic, patients check-in at an electronic desk, and then complete the electronic GoTreatIT monitoring system which assesses patient-reported outcomes. The patient is reviewed by a doctor in a 30- to 60-min consultation, and then by a nurse (for diagnosis/treatment education, vaccinations). An ultrasound machine and capillaroscopy are available for use in the clinic. Patients can be scheduled on the same day to see a nutritionist, physiotherapist, or other heath professionals as necessary. An “early-rheumatoid arthritis treatment path” is available to ensure early, intensive treatment. A patient satisfaction survey revealed high rating of the overall service (90.6/100). None of the patients felt that they lacked education on their disease or medication. Only 6% of the respondents gave negative feedback, reasons including feeling overwhelmed with information or not being given a cause for their symptoms. The multi-disciplinary approach was highly valued and only 3% would rather see a doctor and nurse on separate days.

Conclusion:

The specific clinic model provides an ideal setting for a one-stop service, avoiding unnecessary visits, collecting patient data, and enhancing the patient experience and journey through the system. Where possible, the specific clinic model could be used or adapted to build similar models in other rheumatology departments. The clinic model could also form the basis for services in other specialties dealing with chronic conditions.

Patient Expectations and Perceptions of Goal-setting Strategies for Disease Management in Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To identify how patients perceive the broad effect of active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on their daily lives and indicate how RA disease management could benefit from the inclusion of individual goal-setting strategies.

METHODS

Two multinational surveys were completed by patients with RA. The "Good Days Fast" survey was conducted to explore the effect of disease on the daily lives and relationships of women with RA. The "Getting to Your Destination Faster" survey examined RA patients' treatment expectations and goal-setting practices.

RESULTS

Respondents from all countries agreed that RA had a substantial negative effect on many aspects of their lives (work productivity, daily routines, participation in social and leisure activities) and emotional well-being (loss of self-confidence, feelings of detachment, isolation). Daily pain was a paramount issue, and being pain- and fatigue-free was considered the main indicator of a "good day." Setting personal, social, and treatment goals, as well as monitoring disease progress to achieve these, was considered very beneficial by patients with RA, but discussion of treatment goals seldom appeared to be a part of medical appointments.

CONCLUSION

Many patients with RA feel unable to communicate their disease burden and treatment goals, which are critically important to them, to their healthcare provider (HCP). Insights gained from these 2 surveys should help to guide patients and HCP to better focus upon mutually defined goals for continued improvement of management and achievement of optimal care in RA.

Randomised controlled trial of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors against combination intensive therapy with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in established rheumatoid arthritis: the TACIT trial and associated systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is initially treated with methotrexate and other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Active RA patients who fail such treatments can receive tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis), which are effective but expensive.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed whether or not combination DMARDs (cDMARDs) give equivalent clinical benefits at lower costs in RA patients eligible for TNFis.

DESIGN

An open-label, 12-month, pragmatic, randomised, multicentre, two-arm trial [Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors Against Combination Intensive Therapy (TACIT)] compared these treatment strategies. We then systematically reviewed all comparable published trials.

SETTING

The TACIT trial involved 24 English rheumatology clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

Active RA patients eligible for TNFis.

INTERVENTIONS

The TACIT trial compared cDMARDs with TNFis plus methotrexate or another DMARD; 6-month non-responders received (a) TNFis if in the cDMARD group; and (b) a second TNFi if in the TNFi group.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The Heath Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) was the primary outcome measure. The European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), joint damage, Disease Activity Score for 28 Joints (DAS28), withdrawals and adverse effects were secondary outcome measures. Economic evaluation linked costs, HAQ changes and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

In total, 432 patients were screened; 104 started on cDMARDs and 101 started on TNFis. The initial demographic and disease assessments were similar between the groups. In total, 16 patients were lost to follow-up (nine in the cDMARD group, seven in the TNFi group) and 42 discontinued their intervention but were followed up (23 in the cDMARD group and 19 in the TNFi group). Intention-to-treat analysis with multiple imputation methods used for missing data showed greater 12-month HAQ score reductions with initial cDMARDs than with initial TNFis [adjusted linear regression coefficient 0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.003 to 0.31; p = 0.046]. Increases in 12-month EQ-5D scores were greater with initial cDMARDs (adjusted linear regression coefficient -0.11, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.03; p = 0.009) whereas 6-month changes in HAQ and EQ-5D scores and 6- and 12-month changes in joint damage were similar between the initial cDMARD group and the initial TNFi group. Longitudinal analyses (adjusted general estimating equations) showed that the DAS28 was lower in the initial TNFi group in the first 6 months (coefficient -0.63, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.34; p < 0.001) but there were no differences between the groups in months 6-12. In total, 36 patients in the initial cDMARD group and 44 in the initial TNFi group achieved DAS28 remission. The onset of remission did not differ between groups (p = 0.085 on log-rank test). In total, 10 patients in the initial cDMARD group and 18 in the initial TNFi group experienced serious adverse events; stopping therapy because of toxicity occurred in 10 and six patients respectively. Economic evaluation showed that the cDMARD group had similar or better QALY outcomes than TNFi with significantly lower costs at 6 and 12 months. In the systematic reviews we identified 32 trials (including 20-1049 patients) on early RA and 19 trials (including 40-982 patients) on established RA that compared (1) cDMARDs with DMARD monotherapy; (2) TNFis/methotrexate with methotrexate monotherapy; and (3) cDMARDs with TNFis/methotrexate. They showed that cDMARDs and TNFis had similar efficacies and toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

Active RA patients who have failed methotrexate and another DMARD achieve equivalent clinical benefits at a lower cost from starting cDMARDs or from starting TNFis (reserving TNFis for non-responders). Only a minority of patients achieve sustained remission with cDMARDs or TNFis; new strategies are needed to maximise the frequency of remission.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Control Trials ISRCTN37438295.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.