Factors influencing the prescription of intensive combination treatment strategies for early rheumatoid arthritis

Belgian rheumatologists' preferences regarding measures of disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from a mixed-methods study

The reliability and clinical usefulness of the different composite disease activity scores and their individual components in Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) are still debated. This study investigated which measures of disease activity were preferred by rheumatologists. A mixed-method study was performed. First, ten Belgian rheumatologists were invited for individual interviews on their current practice and preferences for measurement of RA disease activity. Results of this qualitative study and evidence from literature served as input for developing a survey. This survey asked rheumatologists to rate preferred standard disease activity score(s), their individual components, ultrasound and related patient-reported outcomes (PROs), by maximum difference scaling. The relative importance score (RIS) for each indicator was calculated using hierarchical Bayes modeling. The qualitative study included 6/10 invited rheumatologists. Composite scores and components were perceived as useful, while PROs were found subjective. Interestingly, ultrasound was used to mediate discrepancies between physician and patient. The survey based on this was sent to 244 Belgian rheumatologists, 83/244 (34%) responded, including 66/83 (80%) complete and 17/83 (20%) incomplete surveys (two missing essential information). Most rheumatologists (75/81, 93%) used a disease activity score and 68/81 (84%) preferred the DAS28-CRP. Swollen joint count obtained the highest mean ± SD RIS (22.54 ± 2.64), followed by DAS28 ESR/CRP (20.61 ± 4.06), ultrasound (16.47 ± 7.97), CRP (13.34 ± 6.11) and physician's global assessment (12.59 ± 7.83). PROs including fatigue, pain, and patient's global assessment, and Health Assessment Questionnaire, obtained the lowest mean RIS (0.34-2.54). Rheumatologists place more faith in self-assessed disease activity components or in laboratory tests. Trust in PROs to evaluate disease activity is low in clinical practice.

2018 Chinese Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

A multidisciplinary guideline development group was established to formulate this evidence-based diagnosis and treatment guidelines for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in China. The grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) system was used to rate the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations, which were derived from research articles and guided by the analysis of the benefits and harms as well as patients' values and preferences. A total of 10 recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of RA were developed. This new guideline covered the classification criteria, disease activity assessment and monitoring, and the role of disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologics, small molecule synthetic targeting drugs, and glucocorticoids in the treat-to-target approach of RA. This guideline is intended to serve as a tool for clinicians and patients to implement decision-making strategies and improve the practices of RA management in China.

Effectiveness of methotrexate with step-down glucocorticoid remission induction (COBRA Slim) versus other intensive treatment strategies for early rheumatoid arthritis in a treat-to-target approach: 1-year results of CareRA, a randomised pragmatic open-label superiority trial

Objectives

Combining disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with glucocorticoids (GCs) is an effective treatment strategy for early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA), yet the ideal schedule and feasibility in daily practice are debated. We evaluated different DMARD combinations and GC remission induction schemes in poor prognosis patients; and methotrexate (MTX) with or without GC remission induction in good prognosis patients, during the first treatment year.

Methods

The Care in ERA (CareRA) trial is a 2-year investigator-initiated randomised pragmatic open-label superiority trial comparing remission induction regimens in a treat-to-target approach. DMARD-inexperienced patients with ERA were stratified into a high-risk or low-risk group based upon presence of erosions, disease activity, rheumatoid factor and anticitrullinated protein antibodies. High-risk patients were randomised to a COBRA Classic (MTX + sulfasalazine + prednisone step-down from 60 mg), COBRA Slim (MTX + prednisone step-down from 30 mg) or COBRA Avant Garde (MTX + leflunomide + prednisone step-down from 30 mg) scheme. Low-risk patients were randomised to MTX tight step-up (MTX-TSU) or COBRA Slim. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients in 28 joint disease activity score calculated with C-reactive protein remission at week 52 in an intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes were safety and effectiveness (ClinicalTrial.gov identifier NCT01172639).

Results

98 COBRA Classic, 98 COBRA Slim (high risk), 93 COBRA Avant Garde, 47 MTX-TSU and 43 COBRA Slim (low risk) patients were evaluated. Remission was achieved in 64.3% (63/98) COBRA Classic, 60.2% (59/98) COBRA Slim (high risk) and 62.4% (58/93) COBRA Avant Garde patients at W52 (p=0.840); and in 57.4% (27/47) MTX-TSU and 67.4% (29/43) COBRA Slim (low risk) patients (p=0.329). Less adverse events occurred per patient with COBRA Slim (high risk) compared with COBRA Classic or COBRA Avant Garde (p=0.038). Adverse events were similar in MTX-TSU and COBRA Slim (low risk) patients (p=0.871). At W52, 76.0% patients were on DMARD monotherapy, 5.2% used GCs and 7.5% biologicals.

Conclusions

MTX with a moderate-dose GC remission induction scheme (COBRA Slim) seems an effective, safe, low-cost and feasible initial treatment strategy for patients with ERA regardless of their prognostic profile, provided a treat-to-target approach is followed.

Trial registration numbers

EudraCT-number 2008-007225-39 and NCT01172639; Results.

Initial combination therapy versus step-up therapy in treatment to the target of remission in daily clinical practice in early rheumatoid arthritis patients: results from the DREAM registry

BACKGROUND

Treat to target (T2T) is widely accepted as the standard of care for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and has been shown to be more effective than traditional routine care. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of two T2T strategies in patients with early RA: a step-up approach starting with methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy (cohort I) versus an initial disease-modifying antirheumatic drug combination approach (cohort II).

METHODS

A total of 128 patients from cohort II were case-control-matched with 128 patients from cohort I on gender, age, and baseline disease activity. Twelve-month follow-up data were available for 121 patients in both cohorts. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients having reached at least one 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) score <2.6 (remission) during 12 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes were time until remission was achieved and mean DAS28 scores at 6- and 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

After 12 months of follow-up, remission was reached at least once in 77.3 % of the patients in cohort II versus 71.9 % in cohort I (P = 0.31). Median time until first remission was 17 weeks in cohort II versus 27 weeks in cohort I (P = 0.04). A significant time by strategy interaction was found in mean DAS28 scores. Post hoc analysis revealed a significant difference in mean DAS28 scores between both cohorts at 6 months (P = 0.04), but not at 12 months (P = 0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

The initial combination strategy resulted in a comparable remission rate after 1 year but a significantly shorter time until remission. At 6 months, mean DAS28 scores were lower in patients with initial combination treatment than in those with step-up therapy. At 12 months, no significant differences remained in mean DAS28 scores or the proportion of patients in remission.

A general practice perspective on early rheumatoid arthritis management: A qualitative study from Flanders

BACKGROUND

General practitioners (GPs) may play a crucial role in early recognition, rapid referral and intensive treatment follow-up of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). To improve early RA management, perceived barriers in general practice must be addressed. However, the general practice perspective on early RA management remains understudied.

OBJECTIVE

To explore GPs' experiences, beliefs and attitudes regarding detection, referral, and intensive treatment for early RA.

METHODS

In 2014, a qualitative study was conducted by means of individual, in depth, face-to-face interviews of a purposive sample of 13 Flemish GPs. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded using the constant comparative method.

RESULTS

GPs applied multiple assessment techniques for early RA detection and regularly prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs if they suspected early RA. However, GPs felt unconfident about their detection skills because early RA symptoms are often unclear, diagnostic tests could provide inconclusive results and the incidence is low in general practice. GPs mentioned various approaches and multiple factors determining their referral decision. Perceived referral barriers included limited availability of rheumatology services and long waiting times. GPs considered intensive treatment initiation to be the expertise of rheumatologists. Reported key barriers to intensive treatment included patients' resistance and non-adherence, lack of GP involvement and unsatisfactory collaboration with rheumatology services.

CONCLUSION

GPs acknowledge the importance of an early and intensive treatment, but experience various barriers in the management of early RA. GPs should enhance their skills to detect early RA and should actively be involved in early RA care.

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.

Patients lacking classical poor prognostic markers might also benefit from a step-down glucocorticoid bridging scheme in early rheumatoid arthritis: week 16 results from the randomized multicenter CareRA trial

Introduction

Considering a lack of efficacy data in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (eRA) presenting without classical markers of poor prognosis, we compared methotrexate (MTX) with or without step-down glucocorticoids in the CareRA trial.

Methods

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug–naïve patients with eRA were stratified into a low-risk group based on prognostic markers that included non-erosiveness, anti–citrullinated protein antibodies and rheumatoid factor negativity and low disease activity (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on C-reactive protein (DAS28(CRP)) ≤3.2). Patients were randomized to 15 mg of MTX weekly (MTX with tight step-up (MTX-TSU)) or 15 mg of MTX weekly with prednisone bridging, starting at 30 mg and tapered to 5 mg daily from week 6 (COmbinatie therapie bij Reumatoïde Artritis (COBRA Slim)). A TSU approach was applied. Outcomes assessed were DAS28(CRP)-determined remission, cumulative disease activity, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores and adverse events (AEs) after 16 treatment weeks.

Results

We analyzed 43 COBRA Slim and 47 MTX-TSU patients and found that 65.1% in the COBRA Slim group and 46.8% in the MTX-TSU group reached remission (P = 0.081). Mean ± standard deviation area under the curve values of DAS28(CRP) were 13.84 ± 4.58 and 11.18 ± 4.25 for the MTX-TSU and COBRA Slim patients, respectively (P = 0.006). More COBRA Slim patients had an HAQ score of 0 (51.2% versus 23.4%, P = 0.006) at week 16. Therapy-related AEs between groups did not differ.

Conclusion

In patients with low-risk eRA, MTX with step-down glucocorticoid bridging seems more efficacious than MTX step-up monotherapy, with a comparable number of AEs observed over the first 16 treatment weeks.

Trial registration

EU Clinical Trials Register Identifier: EudraCT number 2008-007225-39. Registered 5 November 2008.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-015-0611-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

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.

Factors influencing rheumatologists' prescription of biological treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: an interview study

Background

The introduction of biological drugs involved a fundamental change in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The extent to which biological drugs are prescribed to RA patients in different regions in Sweden varies greatly. Previous research has indicated that differences in health care practice at the regional level might obscure differences at the individual level. The objective of this study is to explore what influences individual rheumatologists’ decisions when prescribing biological drugs.

Method

Semi-structured interviews, utilizing closed- and open-ended questions, were conducted with senior rheumatologists, selected through a mix of random and purposive sampling. The interview questions consisted of two parts, with a “parallel mixed method” approach. In the first and main part, open-ended exploratory questions were posed about factors influencing prescription. In the second part, the rheumatologists were asked to rate predefined factors that might influence their prescription decisions. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used as a conceptual framework for data collection and analysis.

Results

Twenty-six rheumatologists were interviewed. A constellation of various factors and their interaction influenced rheumatologists’ prescribing decisions, including the individual rheumatologist’s experiences and perceptions of the evidence, the structure of the department including responsibility for costs, peer pressure, political and administrative influences, and participation in clinical trials. The patient as an actor emerged as an important factor. Hence, factors both at organizational and individual levels influenced the prescribing of biological drugs. The factors should not be seen as individual influences but were described as influencing prescription in an interactive, nonlinear way.

Conclusions

Potential factors explaining differences in prescription practice are experience and perception of the evidence on the individual level and the structure of the department and participation in clinical trials on the organizational level. The influence of patient attitudes and preferences and interpretation of scientific evidence seemed to be somewhat contradictory in the qualitative responses as compared to the quantitative rating, and this needs further exploration. An implication of the present study is that in addition to scientific knowledge, attempts to influence prescription behavior need to be multifactorial and account for interactions of factors between different actors.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0153-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.