Discordant perspectives of rheumatologists and patients on COBRA combination therapy in rheumatoid arthritis

Personalised care packages for people with rheumatoid arthritis: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVES

Disease management in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) requires holistic assessment. We aimed to design personalised care packages suitable for people with RA.

METHODS

This study was conducted using a mixed-methods approach and exploratory sequential design. Consensus workshops were held, involving people with RA and healthcare professionals (HCPs) treating them. Subsequently, an online survey sought views on future care packages for people with RA at relevant disease progression/stages, based on (1) results from previous quantitative data analyses (eg, socioeconomic/clinical factors), and (2) themes identified during workshops.

RESULTS

Two conceptual care pathways were identified: (1) around the time of RA diagnosis, an early opportunity to influence the disease course; (2) for individuals with established RA, emphasising the importance of 'the right MDT member at the right time'.Three care packages were suggested: (1) early care package (around RA diagnosis): introduction to MDT; (2) continuity of care package (established RA): primary/secondary providers; and (3) personalised holistic care package: integral to packages 1 and 2, implemented alongside allied health professionals.The survey received 41 responses; 82.9% agreed that people with RA need a consistent 'early care package' at diagnosis. 85.4% approved of additional care packages tailored to individuals' clinical, psychological and social needs when moving to different stages of their long-term disease. Fleiss' Kappa calculations demonstrated fair level of agreement among respondents.

CONCLUSION

Two care pathways, with three tailored care packages, were identified, with potential to improve management of people with RA. Future research will help to determine if such care packages can impact clinical (including patient-reported) outcomes.

The roles of HDAC with IMPDH and mTOR with JAK as future targets in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with combination therapy

Various studies have shown that cytokines are important regulators in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In synovial inflammation alteration of the enzyme HDAC, IMPDH enzyme, mTOR pathway, and JAK pathway increase cytokine level. These increased cytokine levels are responsible for the inflammation in RA. Inflammation is a physiological and normal reaction of the immune system against dangerous stimuli such as injury and infection. The cytokine-based approach improves the treatment of RA. To reach this goal, various researchers and scientists are working more aggressively by using a combination approach. The present review of combination therapy provides essential evidence about the possible synergistic effect of combinatorial agents. We have focused on the effects of HDAC inhibitor with IMPDH inhibitor and mTOR inhibitor with JAK inhibitor in combination for the treatment of RA. Combining various targeted strategies can be helpful for the treatment of RA.

Patient satisfaction with total joint replacement surgery for rheumatoid arthritis: a questionnaire survey for the 2020 update of the Japan college of rheumatology clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate satisfaction with total joint replacement (TJR) surgery among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

We mailed questionnaires to randomly selected members of the Japan Rheumatism Friendship Association, stratified by age and prefecture, throughout Japan. The questionnaire collected demographic and clinical characteristics as well as patients' satisfaction with TJR and their current therapy.

RESULTS

Of the 1156 patients who returned the questionnaire, 339 (29.3%) responded that they had had TJR of any type. The mean age was 66.6 years, and 94.4% were women. The mean time period from the hip and knee TJR was 14-15 years. Over half of the patients who had had TJR were satisfied with the results, especially those who had had hip (89.6%) and knee TJR (87.3%), who reported a high level of satisfaction. Multivariable linear regression analysis revealed that, in patients with knee TJR, satisfaction with current therapy was significantly related to whether they were satisfied with the results of the surgery.

CONCLUSION

Most patients with RA who had undergone TJR were satisfied with the results even after a long period of time, and their level of satisfaction was associated with their satisfaction with current therapy.

Intensive therapy for moderate established rheumatoid arthritis: the TITRATE research programme

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis is a major inflammatory disorder and causes substantial disability. Treatment goals span minimising disease activity, achieving remission and decreasing disability. In active rheumatoid arthritis, intensive management achieves these goals. As many patients with established rheumatoid arthritis have moderate disease activity, the TITRATE (Treatment Intensities and Targets in Rheumatoid Arthritis ThErapy) programme assessed the benefits of intensive management.

Objectives

To (1) define how to deliver intensive therapy in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis; (2) establish its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in a trial; and (3) evaluate evidence supporting intensive management in observational studies and completed trials.

Design

Observational studies, secondary analyses of completed trials and systematic reviews assessed existing evidence about intensive management. Qualitative research, patient workshops and systematic reviews defined how to deliver it. The trial assessed its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis.

Setting

Observational studies (in three London centres) involved 3167 patients. These were supplemented by secondary analyses of three previously completed trials (in centres across all English regions), involving 668 patients. Qualitative studies assessed expectations (nine patients in four London centres) and experiences of intensive management (15 patients in 10 centres across England). The main clinical trial enrolled 335 patients with diverse socioeconomic deprivation and ethnicity (in 39 centres across all English regions).

Participants

Patients with established moderately active rheumatoid arthritis receiving conventional disease-modifying drugs.

Interventions

Intensive management used combinations of conventional disease-modifying drugs, biologics (particularly tumour necrosis factor inhibitors) and depot steroid injections; nurses saw patients monthly, adjusted treatment and provided supportive person-centred psychoeducation. Control patients received standard care.

Main outcome measures

Disease Activity Score for 28 joints based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR)-categorised patients (active to remission). Remission (DAS28-ESR < 2.60) was the treatment target. Other outcomes included fatigue (measured on a 100-mm visual analogue scale), disability (as measured on the Health Assessment Questionnaire), harms and resource use for economic assessments.

Results

Evaluation of existing evidence for intensive rheumatoid arthritis management showed the following. First, in observational studies, DAS28-ESR scores decreased over 10–20 years, whereas remissions and treatment intensities increased. Second, in systematic reviews of published trials, all intensive management strategies increased remissions. Finally, patients with high disability scores had fewer remissions. Qualitative studies of rheumatoid arthritis patients, workshops and systematic reviews helped develop an intensive management pathway. A 2-day training session for rheumatology practitioners explained its use, including motivational interviewing techniques and patient handbooks. The trial screened 459 patients and randomised 335 patients (168 patients received intensive management and 167 patients received standard care). A total of 303 patients provided 12-month outcome data. Intention-to-treat analysis showed intensive management increased DAS28-ESR 12-month remissions, compared with standard care (32% vs. 18%, odds ratio 2.17, 95% confidence interval 1.28 to 3.68; p = 0.004), and reduced fatigue [mean difference –18, 95% confidence interval –24 to –11 (scale 0–100); p < 0.001]. Disability (as measured on the Health Assessment Questionnaire) decreased when intensive management patients achieved remission (difference –0.40, 95% confidence interval –0.57 to –0.22) and these differences were considered clinically relevant. However, in all intensive management patients reductions in the Health Assessment Questionnaire scores were less marked (difference –0.1, 95% confidence interval –0.2 to 0.0). The numbers of serious adverse events (intensive management n = 15 vs. standard care n = 11) and other adverse events (intensive management n = 114 vs. standard care n = 151) were similar. Economic analysis showed that the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £43,972 from NHS and Personal Social Services cost perspectives. The probability of meeting a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 was 17%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio decreased to £29,363 after including patients’ personal costs and lost working time, corresponding to a 50% probability that intensive management is cost-effective at English willingness-to-pay thresholds. Analysing trial baseline predictors showed that remission predictors comprised baseline DAS28-ESR, disability scores and body mass index. A 6-month extension study (involving 95 intensive management patients) showed fewer remissions by 18 months, although more sustained remissions were more likley to persist. Qualitative research in trial completers showed that intensive management was acceptable and treatment support from specialist nurses was beneficial.

Limitations

The main limitations comprised (1) using single time point remissions rather than sustained responses, (2) uncertainty about benefits of different aspects of intensive management and differences in its delivery across centres, (3) doubts about optimal treatment of patients unresponsive to intensive management and (4) the lack of formal international definitions of ‘intensive management’.

Conclusion

The benefits of intensive management need to be set against its additional costs. These were relatively high. Not all patients benefited. Patients with high pretreatment physical disability or who were substantially overweight usually did not achieve remission.

Future work

Further research should (1) identify the most effective components of the intervention, (2) consider its most cost-effective delivery and (3) identify alternative strategies for patients not responding to intensive management.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70160382.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Patients’ and rheumatologists’ perspectives on the efficacy and safety of low-dose glucocorticoids in rheumatoid arthritis—an international survey within the GLORIA study

Objective

To evaluate the current perspectives of patients and health professionals regarding the efficacy and safety of low-dose glucocorticoids (GCs) in RA.

Methods

Two online surveys were disseminated to patients and health professionals, in their native language, through national patient organizations and national rheumatology medical societies, respectively. SurveyMonkey®, MediGuard.org and the Glucocorticoid Low-dose Outcome in RA Study (GLORIA) website were used to offer and deliver these surveys.

Results

A total of 1221 RA patients with exposure to GCs, and 414 rheumatologists completed the surveys. Patients and rheumatologists reported high levels of agreement regarding the efficacy of low-dose GCs: at least 70% considered that they are very rapid and effective in the control of signs and symptoms of RA. However, half of the patients also reported having suffered serious adverse events with GCs, and 83% described concerns about safety. The majority of rheumatologists estimated that endocrine, ophthalmologic and cutaneous adverse events affect &gt;4% of all patients treated with low-dose GCs for 2 years, based on a heat map.

Conclusions

RA patients with self-reported exposure to GCs express high levels of satisfaction with low-dose GCs efficacy, as do rheumatologists. However, both expressed excessive concerns regarding the safety of GCs (greatly exceeding the published evidence data), which may compromise the optimal use of this medication. This study indicates that there is an unmet need for appropriately designed prospective trials that shed light on the real risk associated with low-dose GCs, as well as a need for renovated educational programs on the real benefits and harms of low-dose GCs, for both patients and physicians.

Qualitative Research in Rheumatology: An Overview of Methods and Contributions to Practice and Policy

Patient-centered care is widely advocated in rheumatology. This involves collaboration among patients, caregivers, and health professionals and is particularly important in chronic rheumatic conditions because the disease and treatment can impair patients' health and well-being. Qualitative research can systematically generate insights about people's experiences, beliefs, and attitudes, which patients may not always express in clinical settings. These insights can address complex and challenging areas in rheumatology, such as treatment adherence and transition to adult healthcare services. Despite this, qualitative research comprises 1% of studies published in top-tier rheumatology journals. A better understanding about the effect and role, methods, and rigor of qualitative research is needed. This overview highlights the recent contributions of qualitative research in rheumatology, summarizes the common approaches and methods used, and outlines the key principles to guide appraisal of qualitative studies.

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.

Real-world questions and concerns about disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs): a retrospective analysis of questions to a medicine call center

Background

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have transformed the treatment of numerous autoimmune and inflammatory diseases but their perceived risk of harm may be a barrier to use.

Methods

In a retrospective mixed-methods study, we analysed conventional (c) and biologic (b) DMARDs-related calls and compared them with rest of calls (ROC) from consumers to an Australian national medicine call center operated by clinical pharmacists from September 2002 to June 2010. This includes the period where bDMARDs became available on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the government-subsidized prescription medicines formulary. We compared caller and patient demographics, enquiry types and motivation to information-seek for both cDMARDs and bDMARDs with ROC, using a t-test for continuous data and a chi-square test for categorical data. We explored call narratives to identify common themes.

Results

There were 1547 calls involving at least one DMARD. The top three cDMARD enquiry types were side effects (27.2%), interactions (21.9%), and risk versus benefit (11.7%). For bDMARDs, the most common queries involved availability and subsidized access (18%), mechanism and profile (15.8%), and side effects (15.1%). The main consumer motivations to information-seek were largely independent of medicines type and included: inadequate information (44%), wanting a second opinion (23.6%), concern about a worrying symptom (18.8%), conflicting information (6.9%), or information overload (2.3%). Question themes common to conventional and biological DMARDs were caller overemphasis on medication risk and the need for reassurance. Callers seeking information about bDMARDs generally overestimated effectiveness and focused their attention on availability, cost, storage, and medicine handling.

Conclusion

Consumers have considerable uncertainty regarding DMARDs and may overemphasise risk. Patients cautiously assess the benefits and risks of their DMARDs but when new treatments emerge, they tend to overestimate their effectiveness.

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.

Patients' Attitudes and Experiences of Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Spondyloarthritis: A Qualitative Synthesis

OBJECTIVE

Nonadherence to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDS) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis (SpA) results in increased disease activity and symptoms and poorer quality of life. We aimed to describe patients' attitudes and experiences of DMARDs in RA and SpA to inform strategies to improve medication adherence.

METHODS

Databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) were searched to January 2016. Thematic synthesis was used to analyze the findings.

RESULTS

From 56 studies involving 1,383 adult patients (RA [n = 1,149], SpA [n = 191], not specified [n = 43]), we identified 6 themes (with subthemes): intensifying disease identity (severity of sudden pharmacotherapy, signifying deteriorating health, daunting lifelong therapy), distressing uncertainties and consequences (poisoning the body, doubting efficacy, conflicting and confusing advice, prognostic uncertainty with changing treatment regimens), powerful social influences (swayed by others' experiences, partnering with physicians, maintaining roles, confidence in comprehensive and ongoing care, valuing peer support), privilege and right of access to biologic agents (expensive medications must be better, right to receive a biologic agent, fearing dispossession), maintaining control (complete ownership of decision, taking extreme risks, minimizing lifestyle intrusion), and negotiating treatment expectations (miraculous recovery, mediocre benefit, reaching the end of the line).

CONCLUSION

Patients perceive DMARDs as strong medications with alarming side effects that intensify their disease identity. Trust and confidence in medical care, positive experiences with DMARDS among other patients, and an expectation that medications will help maintain participation in life can motivate patients to use DMARDs. Creating a supportive environment for patients to voice their concerns may improve treatment satisfaction, adherence, and health outcomes.

Patients' and rheumatologists' preferences for the attributes of biological agents used in the treatment of rheumatic diseases in Spain

PURPOSE

To define importance values assigned to attributes of biological agents (BAs) by Spanish patients with rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis) and rheumatologists.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was an observational, cross-sectional design based upon a rank-based full-profile conjoint analysis. A literature review and four focus groups were undertaken to identify attributes and levels. An orthogonal matrix, combining the selected levels of attributes, was used to define scenarios. Participants ranked eight scenarios from 1 (most preferred) to 8 (least preferred). The relative importance (RI) of attributes was calculated. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify the characteristics that influenced the values of RI. A total of 488 patients (male 50.9%, mean age 50.6 [standard deviation {SD} 12.06] years, rheumatoid arthritis 33.8%, ankylosing spondylitis 32.4%, psoriatic arthritis 33.8%; mean time since diagnosis 12.6 [SD 8.2] years) and 136 rheumatologists (male 50.4%, mean age 46.4 [SD 9.1] years, mean time of practice 16.7 [SD 8.8] years) participated.

RESULTS

The ideal BAs for patients and physicians, respectively, should allow pain relief and improvement of functional capacity (RI 39% and 44.7%), with low risk of adverse events (RI 24.9% and 30.5%), a long time prior to perceiving the need for a new dose (RI 16.4% and 12.4%), and self-administration at home (RI 19.7% and 12.5%), as identified through their preferences.

CONCLUSION

Although efficacy and safety are paramount for patients and rheumatologists to make a choice regarding BAs, the need for a low frequency of administration and the administration method also play a role as preference attributes for BAs.

The optimal combination therapy for the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory autoimmune condition traditionally viewed as a severe destructive disease affecting physical health and global wellbeing. The treatment strategies for RA have changed in the last decades from mainly symptomatic towards a more vigorous and targeted approach.

AREA COVERED

Reviewing recent literature enhanced by own expertise and research, a case is made for starting early with an intensive combination treatment with glucocorticoids, followed by a treat to target approach in a tight control setting. Implementation issues that need to be addressed to make optimal use of the 'window of opportunity' are highlighted.

EXPERT OPINION

There is strong evidence in favor of traditional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) combined with a remission induction scheme of glucocorticoids to achieve adequate efficacy in controlling early rheumatoid arthritis with good safety and feasibility in daily clinical practice. Furthermore, the most optimal RA treatment should address not only the physician-oriented clinical disease outcomes but also the patient perspective. There is still a need for working on improving implementation of this approach in daily practice in order to provide optimal treatment benefit to more patients.

Glucocorticoid safety for treating rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Glucocorticoids (GCs) are often used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many other inflammatory diseases. Besides strong favorable effects on disease activity, GCs can cause (serious) side effects as well.

AREAS COVERED

Side effects of GCs that are ranked as most important by rheumatologists as well as by patients are bone loss and fractures, cardiovascular events, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus. In evaluating these side effects, confounding by indication is a disturbing factor: not only the use of GCs can increase the risk of several side effects, but so can the activity of the underlying disease, which in turn is related to the amount of GCs that is prescribed to the patient.

EXPERT OPINION

Generally, side effects predominantly occur in patients with a high disease activity and when used in high doses and for a long period of time. For these patients, caution and monitoring are most warranted. However, monitoring is not only recommended in patients with a high disease activity, and high-dose or long-term use of GCs, but in all GC users, since side effects may also occur in patients treated with low-dose GCs. When detecting possible negative effects in time, they might be managed and serious damage due to side effects might hopefully be prevented.

Patient experiences with intensive combination-treatment strategies with glucocorticoids for early rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate patients' experiences with intensive combination-treatment strategies with glucocorticoids (ICTS-GCs) in the early phase of early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA) treatment.

METHODS

We interviewed 26 participants individually, 4-6 months after initiation of ICTS-GCs (t1). Fourteen participants from the same sample took part in one of three focus groups at least 1 year after treatment initiation (t2). Each interview was audio-recorded, literally transcribed and thematically coded.

RESULTS

The participants described concerns and feelings about ICTS-GCs that changed over time; for example, a fear of side effects diminished when the treatment effects were beneficial or expected side effects did not materialize. Moreover, participants indicated additional information needs at t1 and t2. The most used sources of information were healthcare professionals, relatives, and the Internet. Furthermore, participants reported on their relationship with healthcare professionals and the need for trust and reassurance, especially at t1. Lastly, participants described their personal self-management strategies.

CONCLUSION

Despite their concerns at treatment initiation, most participants had positive experiences with ICTS-GCs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Healthcare professionals should be aware that, in the early phase of treatment, they can address patients' concerns, they are the most important information source, they need to create a relationship of trust, and guide patients in self-management strategies.

A maximum difference scaling survey of barriers to intensive combination treatment strategies with glucocorticoids in early rheumatoid arthritis

The objectives of the study were to determine the relative importance of barriers related to the provision of intensive combination treatment strategies with glucocorticoids (ICTS-GCs) in early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA) from the rheumatologists' perspective and to explore the relation between rheumatologists' characteristics and importance scores. A maximum difference scaling (MDS) survey was administered to 66 rheumatologists in Flanders and the Brussels-Capital Region. The survey included 25 barriers, previously being discovered in a qualitative study. The survey included 25 choice sets, each of which contained a different set of four barriers. In each choice situation, respondents were asked to choose the most important barrier. The mean relative importance score (RIS) for each barrier was calculated using hierarchical Bayes modeling. The potential relation between rheumatologists' characteristics and the RIS was examined using Spearman's correlation coefficient, Mann-Whitney U test, and Kruskal-Wallis H test. The three highest ranked barriers included "contraindicated for some patients (e.g., patients with comorbidities, older patients)," "an increased risk of side effects and related complications," and "patients' resistance" with a mean ± SD RIS of 9.76 ± 0.82, 8.50 ± 1.17, and 7.45 ± 1.22, respectively. Comparing the RISs based on rheumatologists' characteristics, a different ranking was found for three barriers depending on the age, university location, and/or frequency of prescribing ICTS-GCs. The dominant barriers hindering ICTS-GCs prescription from a rheumatologists' perspective are patient-related barriers and barriers related to the complexity of prescribing a combination therapy including GCs. A tailored improvement intervention is needed to overcome these barriers and should focus on the familiarity of rheumatologists with ICTS-GC and patient education.

Initial high-dose prednisolone combination therapy using COBRA and COBRA-light in early rheumatoid arthritis

Treatment with initial high-dose prednisolone and a combination of methotrexate (MTX) and sulfasalazine (SSZ) according to the COBRA regimen (Dutch acronym for combinatietherapie bij reumatoide artritis, 'combination therapy for rheumatoid arthritis'), has repeatedly been demonstrated to be very effective in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). COBRA combination therapy is superior to initial monotherapy of SSZ and MTX, is also associated with a good long-term outcome, is as safe as other treatment regimes, and performs as well as the combination of high-dose MTX and the tumor necrosis factor antagonist infliximab. A pilot study with an intensified version of the COBRA combination therapy showed that strict monitoring and aggressive treatment intensification based on the Disease Activity Score can result in a remission rate of 90% in patients with active early RA. Also, the first results indicate that an attenuated variation on COBRA combination therapy, called 'COBRA-light', is effective in decreasing disease activity and is generally well tolerated. Based on these results, we conclude that initial high-dose prednisolone in combination with MTX and SSZ could or should be the first choice in early active RA since it is effective and safe, and the cost price of the drugs is low.

Glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis: patients' beliefs and treatment adherence

OBJECTIVES

To investigate how chronic intake of glucocorticoids (GCs) is perceived by patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) in terms of necessity and concerns, and whether such beliefs influence treatment adherence.

METHOD

Ninety-eight consecutive SSc patients who they had been taking oral GCs for > 3 months prior to the study were enrolled. All patients underwent a clinical evaluation and laboratory investigations, and were asked to complete four self-administered questionnaires: the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (Specific-BMQ), the four-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-4), the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Moreover, patients answered two additional questions investigating their knowledge about GC-related adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients (83.6%) believed in the necessity of GCs for maintaining health but 72.8% also reported concerns about potential AEs to GCs. A high adherence rate was recorded in 64.1% of patients. Only about 20% of patients reported knowing that a daily GC dose and treatment duration influence the burden of GC-related AEs. Patients who believed that GC-related AEs were influenced by the dose scored lower concerns (p = 0.043) and were more frequently labelled as accepting (perceiving high necessity and low concerns) (p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients taking GCs perceived them as necessary, but high concerns about chronic GC use exist. Patients with a poorer knowledge of the factors associated with GC-related AEs and those with a poorer quality of life were the most worried about these compounds. Experimental studies assessing the efficacy of educational programmes aiming to increase the adherence to GC therapy should be planned in these patients.

Methotrexate in combination with other DMARDs is not superior to methotrexate alone for remission induction with moderate-to-high-dose glucocorticoid bridging in early rheumatoid arthritis after 16 weeks of treatment: the CareRA trial

Objectives

To compare the efficacy and safety of intensive combination strategies with glucocorticoids (GCs) in the first 16 weeks (W) of early rheumatoid arthritis (eRA) treatment, focusing on high-risk patients, in the Care in early RA trial.

Methods

400 disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD)-naive patients with eRA were recruited and stratified into high risk or low risk according to classical prognostic markers. High-risk patients (n=290) were randomised to 1/3 treatment strategies: combination therapy for early rheumatoid arthritis (COBRA) Classic (methotrexate (MTX)+ sulfasalazine+60 mg prednisone tapered to 7.5 mg daily from W7), COBRA Slim (MTX+30 mg prednisone tapered to 5 mg from W6) and COBRA Avant-Garde (MTX+leflunomide+30 mg prednisone tapered to 5 mg from W6). Treatment modifications to target low-disease activity were mandatory from W8, if desirable and feasible according to the rheumatologist. The primary outcome was remission (28 joint disease activity score calculated with C-reactive protein <2.6) at W16 (intention-to-treat analysis). Secondary endpoints were good European League Against Rheumatism response, clinically meaningful health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) response and HAQ equal to zero. Adverse events (AEs) were registered.

Results

Data from 98 Classic, 98 Slim and 94 Avant-Garde patients were analysed. At W16, remission was reached in 70.4% Classic, 73.6% Slim and 68.1% Avant-Garde patients (p=0.713). Likewise, no significant differences were shown in other secondary endpoints. However, therapy-related AEs were reported in 61.2% of Classic, in 46.9% of Slim and in 69.1% of Avant-Garde patients (p=0.006).

Conclusions

For high-risk eRA, MTX associated with a moderate step-down dose of GCs was as effective in inducing remission at W16 as DMARD combination therapies with moderate or high step-down GC doses and it showed a more favourable short-term safety profile.

EudraCT number:

2008-007225-39.

Intensive combination treatment regimens, including prednisolone, are effective in treating patients with early rheumatoid arthritis regardless of additional etanercept: 1-year results of the COBRA-light open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial

Background

Recently, we documented the likely non-inferiority of Combinatietherapie Bij Reumatoïde Artritis (COBRA)-light therapy (methotrexate increased to 25 mg/week with initial prednisolone 30 mg/day) compared with the original COBRA therapy (methotrexate 7.5 mg/week, sulfasalazine 2 g/day, with initial prednisolone 60 mg/day) after 26 weeks in patients with early active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Objective

To assess the non-inferiority of COBRA-light versus COBRA after 1 year in terms of disease activity (DAS44), functional outcome (Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ)) and radiographic progression (Sharp/van der Heijde score (SHS)), and to assess the effect of adding etanercept.

Methods

An open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial of 162 patients with active early RA, following a treat-to-target protocol incorporating the addition of etanercept if DAS44 ≥1.6 at weeks 26 or 39.

Results

Both groups showed major improvements in DAS44 after 52 weeks: mean (SD) −2.41 (1.2) in the COBRA and −2.02 (1.0) in the COBRA-light group (p=ns). In both groups, functional ability improved and radiological progression of joints was minimal. At least one adverse event was reported in 96% of the patients in both groups. In total, 25 serious adverse events occurred: 9 vs 16 in COBRA and COBRA-light, respectively. Treatment actually instituted was often less intensive than required by the protocol: of the total population, 108 patients (67%) required etanercept (more in the COBRA-light group), but only 67 of these (62%) actually received it.

Conclusions

Intensive COBRA or COBRA-light therapy has major, comparably favourable effects on disease activity, functional ability and radiological outcome after 1 year in patients with early RA. Protocolised addition of etanercept was often not implemented by treating rheumatologists, and patients receiving it appeared to have limited added benefit, probably because of low disease activity levels at its initiation.

Trial registration number:

ISRCTN55552928.

Patient experiences, attitudes and expectations towards receiving information about anti-TNF medication--"It could give me two heads and I'd still try it!"

Background

Anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies are an important recent development in the treatment of autoimmune disease. Despite important side effects relating to immune suppression, there is lack of research into patient experiences, attitudes and expectations about the information they receive prior to starting anti-TNF therapy.

Methods

In May 2011 participants were purposively sampled to form two focus groups varying in age, anti-TNF agent and pre-therapy disease activity. A semi-structured topic guide was used to explore patients’ experiences regarding the information they received prior to commencing anti-TNF therapy. The focus groups were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using content analysis.

Results

Four key themes were identified.

Firstly, weighing the risks and benefits of anti-TNF therapy. However, most participants attached limited importance to side effects, saying their strong desire for RA symptom control was overriding. Two reported deliberately concealing illness in order to continue their medication.

Secondly, the desire for information. They suggested that counselling should occur at an early stage and not during a severe RA flare-up.

Thirdly, the process of starting anti-TNF. Many identified that their biggest worry was whether they would be eligible for the new medication. They remembered little about the investigations they underwent, and none said they would have objected to being tested for blood borne viruses.

Finally, the experience of being on anti-TNF. Most were positive, describing effects on quality of life as well as symptoms.

Conclusions

The use of qualitative methodology in this study has enabled an understanding of patients’ attitudes towards receiving information about anti-TNF therapy. The results may be useful to health professionals in terms of the timing and content of the information given to patients prior to commencing anti-TNF therapy.

Patients' views about treatment with combination therapy for rheumatoid arthritis: a comparative qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Combinations of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are increasingly used to control active rheumatoid arthritis (RA); however there is little information about patients' perspectives, their expectations, concerns and experiences of this intensive treatment.

METHOD

We interviewed a quota sample of 18 patients from a single tertiary outpatient clinic, stratified by gender, ethnicity and age, based on the outpatient clinic population. Patients with early RA (<2 years) received combined conventional DMARDs; patients with established RA (>2 years) received combined conventional DMARDs or DMARDs with biologics.

RESULTS

Four main themes emerged from the analytical framework: (i) patients' expectations about the combined treatment focuses mainly on physical symptoms; (ii) the impact of the treatment on quality of life varied with the new medication in both groups (iii) concerns about new interventions concentrated mainly on potential side effects; and (iv) combination therapy can be self-managed in close collaboration with clinic staff, but this requires individualised management approaches. These themes resonate with von Korff's collaborative management of chronic illness model.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge this is the first qualitative study that examined systematically in patients with early and established RA their expectations, impact on quality of life, concerns about side effects and the management of the treatment when taking combined medication with DMARDs or DMARDs and biologics. Patients have generally positive views of combination DMARDs. Within routine practice settings, achieving medication concordance with complex combined DMARD regimens is challenging, and the concerns vary between patients; careful individual assessments are essential to successfully deliver such intensive treatment.

[Treat-to-target from the patient perspective]

The international treat-to-target initiative including rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients has defined remission or alternatively low disease activity as treatment goals. In Germany representatives of the medical profession, such as doctors, nurses and including the Deutsche Rheuma-Liga, are deliberating how to adapt and realize these goals in practice. The patient's perspective has to be taken into consideration as an outcome variable. Until now no combined patient reported outcome (PRO) score exists which is generally accepted by the scientific community and which puts the patient's perspective as the main primary outcome.Patients and doctors ought to decide jointly about the therapy goal remission/low disease activity and about other PROs and the planned strategy to achieve these goals. A precondition is that a sufficient timeframe is still available for this. The joint target of the medical profession and the Deutsche Rheuma-Liga is 1 rheumatologist per 50,000 adult inhabitants. An interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary treatment of RA patients is just as imperative as the expansion of patient training, information and self-management programs.

Patient Perspective on Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Absence of disease activity, or remission, is the most important treatment goal for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Since a new preliminary definition of remission in RA for clinical trials has been proposed, we investigated what determinants of disease activity patients associate with a state of remission and whether dimensions of impact of disease on daily life are involved. Our report summarizes progress of a workshop at OMERACT 10 on the patient perspective on remission in RA, including the results of a short pre-conference survey among patients, the discussions among the participants and a research agenda resulting from these discussions. This initial OMERACT workshop on remission from the patient perspective showed that there is a great interest among patients, physicians, and researchers to study the concept of remission, taking into account measures that patients indicate as important, but that there is a lack of data on appropriate measures, resulting in a considerable research agenda.

An association study of disease activity score components and patient satisfaction with overall health for early RA patients on non-biologic DMARD therapy

Patient overall satisfaction with health (PSH) was measured by a subset of questions from the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales II. Based on longitudinal observations for 267 early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients of the United States Western Consortium (WC) cohort receiving first non-biologic DMARD treatment, we estimated the 1-year change in PSH (Δ PSH). Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the association of improvement in Δ PSH with the core set of clinical and patient-reported components of disease activity scores (DAS). Most patients were more satisfied with health after 1 year of treatment (80%); few achieved DAS28-ESR minimal disease activity (27%) or remission (7%). Laboratory and joint count measures were not associated with improved 12-month PSH. Patients with greater HAQ-DI (P = 0.0473) and self-reported stiffness (P = 0.0669) were more likely to have a perceived overall health benefit from treatment. Regardless of objective disease status, patients are generally satisfied with first-line treatment, which could present a challenge to implementing DAS-guided treatment change. Patients with greater self-reported functional limitations might have lower expectations for treatment benefit and be less willing to modify their current therapy; subjective assessments of function and stiffness could be particularly useful in identifying these patients.

A Lively Mind in a Frozen Body

“Rickety Kate” was the descriptive name of Minnie Agnes Filson, a popular Australian poet featured widely in the Australian media from the 1930s through to the 1960s. The assumed name was a reflection of her severe rheumatoid arthritis, which left her completely immobilized. During her lifetime, Kate received a variety of conventional medical treatments, which proved largely ineffective. She finally turned to an Indian healer, who managed to improve her quality of life although her physical disabilities persisted. This article explores the history of rheumatoid arthritis from a patient’s perspective in the light of the scientific knowledge at the time and critically reflects on the relationship between conventional and complementary/alternative medicine then and today.

Patient preferences and satisfaction in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with biologic therapy

Significant advances in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been made over the past 10 years with the introduction of biologic therapies, such as the TNF inhibitors. With these medications, many patients with RA have seen significant improvement in symptoms, function, and quality of life. However, with the introduction of the biologics, decision-making for this chronic disease that affects up to 1% of the population has become even more complex. Patient preferences for mode and frequency of administration, and for certain risks vs benefits as well as medication beliefs are central to uptake and adherence to these medications. This review examines the current literature on patient satisfaction, adherence, and preference for biologic therapy in RA.

Facilitating the Use of COBRA Combination Therapy in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Pilot Implementation Study

Objective.

COBRA combination therapy is well known and has uncontested efficacy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, it is infrequently applied in Dutch clinical practice. Based on qualitative research on opinions of physicians and patients towards COBRA therapy, our study describes the development and pilot testing of an implementation package to facilitate prescription and use of COBRA therapy in early RA.

Methods.

The implementation package was developed to address specific barriers towards prescription of COBRA therapy and comprised informational handouts (an information booklet and leaflet for patients), preprinted prescription orders, and background information on COBRA therapy for the rheumatologists. Twenty-two rheumatologists agreed to participate, including the arthritis nurse where available. Rheumatologists, nurses, and patients were asked to record their experience. All Dutch arthritis nurses were invited to an educational session on COBRA therapy.

Results.

Sixteen rheumatologists accompanied by 10 arthritis nurses used the material to prescribe COBRA therapy to a total of 27 patients. Rheumatologists and nurses both gave high marks to the supplied materials. Eighty-eight percent of rheumatologists reported that the material sped up the prescription process, and 65% indicated they would prescribe COBRA therapy more frequently if these materials were available routinely. Patients expressed great satisfaction with the information handouts, rating it 2.8 (standard deviation 0.5) on a scale of −3 (very negative) to +3 (very positive). Most patients (89%) planned to keep the information booklet as a reference and 70% used it as a tool to remember the correct intake of medication. The attitude and perceived capability of nurses towards the guidance of patients with RA receiving COBRA therapy was improved through a brief educational intervention.

Conclusion.

Rheumatologists, patients, and arthritis nurses all highly appreciated the implementation package and indicated that its availability would increase uptake of COBRA therapy.