How much is a reduction in morning stiffness worth to patients with rheumatoid arthritis?

Towards Personalising the Use of Biologics in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Introduction

There have been promising developments in technologies and associated algorithm-based prescribing (‘stratified approach’) to target biologics to sub-groups of people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The acceptability of using an algorithm-guided approach in practice is likely to depend on various factors.

Objective

This study quantified preferences for an algorithm-guided approach to prescribing biologics (termed ‘biologic calculator’).

Methods

An online discrete choice experiment (DCE) was designed to elicit preferences from patients and the public for using a ‘biologic calculator’ compared with conventional prescribing. Treatment approaches were described by five attributes: delay to starting treatment; positive and negative predictive value (PPV/NPV); risk of infection; and cost saving to the UK national health service. Each survey contained six choice sets asking respondents to select their preferred option from two hypothetical biologic calculators or conventional prescribing. Background questions included sociodemographics, health status and healthcare experiences. DCE data were analysed using mixed logit models.

Results

Completed choice data were collected from 292 respondents (151 patients with RA and 142 members of the public). PPV, NPV and risk of infection were the most highly valued attributes to respondents deciding between prescribing strategies.

Conclusion

Respondents were generally receptive to personalised medicine in RA, but researchers developing personalised approaches should pay close attention to generating evidence on both the PPV and the NPV of their technologies.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40271-021-00533-z.

Economic burden of fatigue or morning stiffness among patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective analysis from real-world data

Objective: Determine healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs associated with fatigue and stiffness among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods: A retrospective claims analysis compared RA patients with fatigue or stiffness to matched RA control patients with neither. Claims from a large US commercial insurance database identified new cases of stiffness/fatigue among newly diagnosed patients. Study patients had ≥2 medical claims for RA ≥45 days apart, continuous insurance coverage ≥12 months before RA index (baseline period) and ≥12 months after fatigue/stiffness index (follow-up period). Controls had no diagnosis of fatigue or stiffness ≥12 months before index. Cases had ≥1 claim of fatigue/stiffness after RA index; the first such claim was the index date. Multivariate logistic regressions, adjusting for baseline demographics, comorbidities, medication use and HCRU, were used to predict the propensity of having a fatigue/stiffness diagnosis. Controls were propensity-score matched to cases. Generalized linear models estimated all-cause and RA-specific costs associated with resource use as well as prescription drugs, adjusting for any unbalanced covariates after propensity-score matching.Results: Approximately 32% of newly diagnosed RA patients suffer from fatigue/stiffness. Matched cohorts were analyzed: fatigue vs. control; stiffness vs. control; fatigue and stiffness vs. control. After RA diagnosis, hospitalizations increased: 83% for fatigue, 117% for stiffness and 148% for both; total office visits increased 63%, 113% and 135%, respectively. Greater HCRU yielded significantly greater (all p < .001) per-patient-per-year hospitalization costs vs. matched controls: fatigue ($2554 vs. $1293); stiffness ($2792 vs. $892); fatigue and stiffness ($3322 vs. $1033). Per-patient-per-year costs of office visits increased significantly (all p < .001) vs. matched controls: fatigue ($1373 vs. $908); stiffness ($1580 vs. $761); fatigue and stiffness ($1989 vs. $921).Conclusions: RA patients with fatigue and/or stiffness report more HCRU and incur significantly higher medical costs than RA patients without them.

Patient Preferences for Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drug Treatment in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review

Objective.

To summarize patients’ preferences for disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods.

We conducted a systematic review to identify English-language studies of adult patients with RA that measured patients’ preferences for DMARD or health states and treatment outcomes relevant to DMARD decisions. Study quality was assessed using a published quality assessment tool. Data on the importance of treatment attributes and associations with patient characteristics were summarized across studies.

Results.

From 7951 abstracts, we included 36 studies from a variety of countries. Most studies were in patients with established RA and were rated as medium- (n = 19) or high-quality (n = 12). The methods to elicit preferences varied, with the most common being discrete choice experiment (DCE; n = 13). Despite the heterogeneity of attributes in DCE studies, treatment benefits (disease improvement) were usually more important than both non-serious (6 of 8 studies) and serious adverse events (5 of 8), and route of administration (7 of 9). Among the non-DCE studies, some found that patients placed high importance on treatment benefits, while others (in patients with established RA) found that patients were quite risk averse. Subcutaneous therapy was often but not always preferred over intravenous therapy. Patient preferences were variable and commonly associated with the sociodemographic characteristics.

Conclusion.

Overall, the results showed that many patients place a high value on treatment benefits over other treatment attributes, including serious or minor side effects, cost, or route of administration. The variability in patient preferences highlights the need to individualize treatment choices in RA.

What Is the Relationship Between Morning Symptoms and Measures of Disease Activity in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis?

OBJECTIVE

Little is known about the relationship between morning symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and measures of disease activity currently used to assess RA. Information available from the Circadian Administration of Prednisone in Rheumatoid Arthritis (CAPRA-2) study was used to investigate these relationships.

METHODS

CAPRA-2 included 350 patients with RA who were symptomatic despite treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, randomized 2:1 to additional treatment with a 5-mg daily dose of delayed-release prednisone or placebo. Pearson's correlations were used to evaluate the relationships between change from baseline in symptoms (duration of morning stiffness, severity of morning stiffness, and intensity of pain on waking) and measures of disease activity (the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria [ACR20], the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints [DAS28], and the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index). Correlations were defined as weak (<0.3), moderate (0.3-0.7), or strong (>0.7).

RESULTS

There was a strong correlation between the severity of morning stiffness and the intensity of morning pain (Pearson's correlation 0.91, P < 0.001). There was a weak correlation between the duration of morning stiffness and measures of disease activity (0.24-0.28), with moderate correlations between the severity of morning stiffness or intensity of pain on waking and DAS28 or ACR20 scores (0.44-0.48). Severity of morning stiffness showed less variability and a greater effect size than did duration of morning stiffness.

CONCLUSION

Morning symptoms and measures of disease activity show weak to moderate correlations. Severity of morning stiffness showed less variability and greater effect size than did duration of morning stiffness. These findings suggest that severity is the preferred construct to measure the impact of morning stiffness in patients with RA, information that is not fully captured in the RA core set.

Efficacy and safety of modified-release prednisone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

The introduction of modified-release (MR) prednisone adds a drug with encouraging potential to the armamentarium of the rheumatologist. In particular, for patients experiencing a reduced quality of life due to prolonged morning stiffness, it is a promising therapeutic approach. Two clinical trials and one open-label observational study investigated the effectiveness of MR prednisone in reducing rheumatoid arthritis-related morning stiffness for both new and current users of corticosteroids. The efficacy and safety of MR prednisone use in rheumatoid arthritis patients are reviewed in this article. This includes pivotal trials as well as pathophysiological considerations and clinical implications.

Measuring the economic value of morning stiffness: consistency over 1 year

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to determine the within-patient variation in the duration of morning stiffness (MS) over 1 year and the corresponding monetary equivalents assigned to its changes using the willingness-to-pay (WTP) methodology.

METHOD

A sample of 100 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was drawn from the register of the Hospital District of Southwest Finland. Subjects were interviewed by telephone on recruitment and 1 year later, using the same structured questionnaire. The subjects were asked to estimate in minutes the typical duration of their MS during the previous week. Sociodemographic background data and subjects' WTP for a 25, 50, 75, and 100% reduction in MS duration were requested, and years with RA diagnosis and serological data were obtained from hospital records.

RESULTS

After 1 year, there was a reduction in average MS duration from 44.7 min to 39.0 min (ns); duration was reduced in 35% of patients, unchanged in 35%, and prolonged in 30%. Changes in MS duration were reflected by within-patient variation in WTP estimates. In linear regression models, change in duration of MS significantly (p < 0.03) explained the variation in change of WTP for symptom reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

WTP methodology produces consistent monetary values to assess the relative values patients with RA place on reduction in duration of MS.

Reporting of patient-perceived impact of rheumatoid arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis over 10 years: a systematic literature review

OBJECTIVE

RA and axial SpA have an important impact on patients' lives. The objective of this study was to explore the reporting of different aspects of that impact in publications, with a focus on differences between diseases and over time.

METHODS

A systematic literature review retrieved all articles reporting on the life impact of RA or axial radiographic SpA in adults published within the last 10 years and issued from European research. The data were classified into physical impact (including pain, functional assessment and fatigue), psychological impact (including psychological distress and coping) and social impact (including relationships, family and social life). The number of articles published over time was analysed by linear regression.

RESULTS

In all, 1352 abstracts were screened and 149 publications (40,056 patients) were analysed: 129 articles (86.5%) concerned RA and 16 (10.7%) concerned axial SpA. The mean number of articles reporting on the physical aspects of impact was 11.4 (s.d. 4.8) per 2-year period, but increased more than 2-fold (from 7 articles in 2001-3 to 15 in 2010-11), in particular due to recent publications on fatigue, whereas the number of articles on psychological aspects [mean 12.4 (s.d. 4.0)] decreased markedly after 2006. Publications reporting on social aspects [mean 8.2 (s.d. 4.1)] remained globally stable.

CONCLUSION

In the era of biologics, there is an interest in the patient-perceived life impact of RA and axial SpA in the European literature, but the impact of RA has been the subject of greater exploration. There are clearly trends over time in the reporting of impact.

Cost of rheumatic disorders in the Netherlands

Rheumatic disorders concern a broad spectrum of painful disorders affecting the musculoskeletal system, and are responsible for a considerable amount of disease burden and also a substantial economic burden. This economic burden consists of direct and indirect costs, but also the so-called intangible costs. In this study, we estimated the societal cost of rheumatic disorders in the Netherlands, including intangible costs. Data from the National Monitor on Musculoskeletal System 2010 were used to assess resource used, multiplied with standard prices for the Netherlands to obtain total costs for the 1.8 million people suffering from rheumatic disorders. These estimates were supplemented with data from secondary sources. Total societal costs of rheumatic disorders in the Netherlands amount to €4.7 million a year, that is, €2665 per person with rheumatic disorders. Rheumatic disorders have considerable costs, which justify more attention in discussing investments in facing the challenges in our ageing Western societies.