Direct healthcare resource utilisation, health-related quality of life, and work productivity in patients with moderate rheumatoid arthritis: an observational study

Significant others in inflammatory arthritis: roles, influences, and challenges-a scoping review

Improving self-management in individuals with inflammatory arthritis (IA) is crucial for effective disease management. However, current recommendations primarily focus on interventions for the diagnosed individuals, overlooking the potential impact of their significant others on their self-management abilities. This review aims to fill this gap by identifying and mapping relevant research employing both qualitative and quantitative design to provide a broader understanding of the potential of significant others in relation to IA management. We examined studies published from 2007 to 2024 that explore our research questions using electronic databases and grey literature searches. Two independent reviewers meticulously screened and categorized the studies based on a developed framework employing basic content analysis. Out of 20.925 studies, 43 were included: 22 quantitative studies (including 1 educational trial), 20 qualitative studies, and 1 mixed-methods study. Our analysis of the included studies revealed that significant others predominantly provided practical and emotional support and could positively or negatively influence the person with IAs self-management abilities. Additionally, significant others reported their own feelings of emotional distress and expressed the need for knowledge, skills and social support enabling them to provide better support while taking care of them self. Greater focus on the significant others of those diagnosed with IA in their provision of support to this patient group may both improve the people with IA self-management skills and address significant others' reported needs. Future studies should explore the impact of such initiatives through randomized controlled trials.

Fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis patients: The status, independent risk factors, and consistency of multiple scales

INTRODUCTION

Fatigue is a common symptom that negatively affects the outcomes and functions of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. This study aimed to assess the fatigue by two scales and validate their consistency, also to comprehensively evaluate fatigue-related risk factors in RA patients.

METHODS

In this case-control study, the fatigue of 160 RA patients and 60 healthy controls was evaluated by the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multi-Dimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ) and the Chinese version of the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI-C). The 28-joint disease activity score using erythrocyte sedimentation rate of RA patients was assessed.

RESULTS

The BRAF-MDQ and BFI-C scores were elevated in RA patients versus healthy controls (all p < .001). Interestingly, BRAF-MDQ global fatigue score positively correlated with BFI-C global fatigue score in both RA patients (r = .669, p < .001) and healthy controls (r = .527, p < .001); meanwhile, Kendall's tau-b test showed a high consistency between BRAF-MDQ and BFI-C global fatigue scores in RA patients (W = 0.759, p < .001) and healthy controls (W = 0.933, p < .001). Notably, higher education level (В = -4.547; 95% confidence interval: -7.065, -2.029; p < .001) and swollen joint count (В = 1.965; 95% confidence interval: 1.375, 2.554; p < .001) independently related to BRAF-MDQ global fatigue score; higher education level (В = -0.613; 95% confidence interval: -0.956, -0.269; p = .001) and clinical disease activity index (В = 0.053; 95% confidence interval: 0.005, 0.102; p = .032) independently linked with BFI-C global fatigue score.

CONCLUSION

Fatigue commonly occurs in RA patients, which independently relates to education level and disease activity. Furthermore, BRAF-MDQ and BFI-C scales exhibit a high consistency in assessing fatigue.

2023 EULAR recommendations for the management of fatigue in people with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases

OBJECTIVES

Fatigue is prevalent in people with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (I-RMDs) and recognised as one of the most challenging symptoms to manage. The existence of multiple factors associated with driving and maintaining fatigue, and the evidence about what improves fatigue has led to a multifaceted approach to its management. However, there are no recommendations for fatigue management in people with I-RMDs. This lack of guidance is challenging for those living with fatigue and health professionals delivering clinical care. Therefore, our aim was to develop EULAR recommendations for the management of fatigue in people with I-RMDs.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary taskforce comprising 26 members from 14 European countries was convened, and two systematic reviews were conducted. The taskforce developed the recommendations based on the systematic review of evidence supplemented with taskforce members' experience of fatigue in I-RMDs.

RESULTS

Four overarching principles (OAPs) and four recommendations were developed. OAPs include health professionals' awareness that fatigue encompasses multiple biological, psychological and social factors which should inform clinical care. Fatigue should be monitored and assessed, and people with I-RMDs should be offered management options. Recommendations include offering tailored physical activity and/or tailored psychoeducational interventions and/or, if clinically indicated, immunomodulatory treatment initiation or change. Patient-centred fatigue management should consider the individual's needs and preferences, their clinical disease activity, comorbidities and other psychosocial and contextual factors through shared decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

These 2023 EULAR recommendations provide consensus and up-to-date guidance on fatigue management in people with I-RMDs.

Comparison Between Burden of Care Partners of Individuals with Alzheimer's Disease Versus Individuals with Other Chronic Diseases

BACKGROUND

Caregiving in Alzheimer's disease (AD) is often provided by informal care partners, who spend more hours per week on average than care partners of individuals with conditions other than AD. However, the burden of care in partners of individuals with AD has not been systematically compared to that of other chronic diseases.

OBJECTIVE

The current study therefore aims to compare the care partner burden of AD to that of other chronic diseases through a systematic literature review.

METHODS

Data was collected from journal articles published in the last 10 years, using two unique search strings in PubMed and analysed using pre-defined patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including the EQ-5D-5L, GAD-7, GHQ-12, PHQ-9, WPAI and the ZBI. The data was grouped according to the included PROMs and the diseases studied. The number of participants in the studies reporting burden of caregiving in AD was adjusted to reflect the number of participants in studies reporting care partner burden in other chronic diseases.

RESULTS

All results in this study are reported as a mean value and standard deviation (SD). The ZBI measurement was the most frequently used PROM to collect care partner burden (15 studies) and showed a moderate burden (mean 36.80, SD 18.35) on care partners of individuals with AD, higher than most of the other included diseases except for those characterized by psychiatric symptoms (mean scores 55.92 and 59.11). Other PROMs such as PHQ-9 (six studies) and GHQ-12 (four studies) showed a greater burden on care partners of individuals with other chronic diseases such as heart failure, haematopoietic cell transplantations, cancer and depression compared to AD. Likewise, GAD-7 and EQ-5D-5L measurements showed a lesser burden on care partners of individuals with AD compared to care partners of individuals with anxiety, cancer, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The current study suggests that care partners of individuals with AD experience a moderate burden, but with some variations depending on the PROMs used.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study were mixed with some PROMs indicating a greater burden for care partners of individuals with AD versus other chronic diseases, and other PROMs showing a greater burden for care partners of individuals with other chronic diseases. Psychiatric disorders imposed a greater burden on care partners compared to AD, while somatic diseases in the musculoskeletal system resulted in a significantly smaller burden on care partners compared to AD.

Evaluating the efficacy of upadacitinib in patients with moderate rheumatoid arthritis: a post-hoc analysis of the SELECT phase 3 trials

Objectives

Moderately active RA is associated with poor patient outcomes. Despite this, some health systems have restricted access to advanced therapies to those with severe RA. There is also limited evidence of the efficacy of advanced therapies in the moderately active RA population. This post-hoc analysis from four phase 3 trials explored the efficacy of upadacitinib (UPA) for moderately active RA.

Methods

Patients included in this analysis received UPA 15 mg once daily [monotherapy after switching from MTX or in combination with stable background conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs)] or placebo. Clinical, functional and radiographic outcomes were analysed separately for patients with moderate disease activity {28-joint count DAS using CRP [DAS28(CRP)] of >3.2 and ≤5.1} and severe disease activity [DAS28(CRP) >5.1].

Results

Patients with moderate disease activity who received UPA 15 mg (combination or monotherapy) after an inadequate response to biologic DMARDs and/or csDMARDs were significantly more likely to achieve a 20% improvement in the ACR response criteria, low disease activity status [DAS28(CRP) ≤ 3.2] or clinical remission [DAS28(CRP) < 2.6] by week 12/14 vs placebo. Statistically significant improvements in patient-reported functioning and pain from baseline were observed for UPA 15 mg vs placebo at week 12/14. Radiographic progression was also significantly reduced at week 26 compared with placebo. Similar improvements were observed for severe disease.

Conclusion

This analysis provides support for the use of UPA for the treatment of patients with moderate RA.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: SELECT-NEXT: NCT02675426; SELECT-COMPARE: NCT02629159; SELECT-MONOTHERAPY: NCT02706951; SELECT-BEYOND: NCT02706847.

Predictive model to identify multiple failure to biological therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Background:

Despite advances in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the wide range of therapies available, there is a percentage of patients whose treatment presents a challenge for clinicians due to lack of response to multiple biologic and target-specific disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs).

Objective:

To develop and validate an algorithm to predict multiple failure to biological therapy in patients with RA.

Design:

Observational retrospective study involving subjects from a cohort of patients with RA receiving b/tsDMARDs.

Methods:

Based on the number of prior failures to b/tsDMARDs, patients were classified as either multi-refractory (MR) or non-refractory (NR). Patient characteristics were considered in the statistical analysis to design the predictive model, selecting those variables with a predictive capability. A decision algorithm known as ‘classification and regression tree’ (CART) was developed to create a prediction model of multi-drug resistance. Performance of the prediction algorithm was evaluated in an external independent cohort using area under the curve (AUC).

Results:

A total of 136 patients were included: 51 MR and 85 NR. The CART model was able to predict multiple failures to b/tsDMARDs using disease activity score-28 (DAS-28) values at 6 months after the start time of the initial b/tsDMARD, as well as DAS-28 improvement in the first 6 months and baseline DAS-28. The CART model showed a capability to correctly classify 94.1% NR and 87.5% MR patients with a sensitivity = 0.88, a specificity = 0.94, and an AUC = 0.89 (95% CI: 0.74–1.00). In the external validation cohort, 35 MR and 47 NR patients were included. The AUC value for the CART model in this cohort was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.73–0.9).

Conclusion:

Our model correctly classified NR and MR patients based on simple measurements available in routine clinical practice, which provides the possibility to characterize and individualize patient treatments during early stages.