What impact does written information about fatigue have on patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases? Findings from a qualitative study

Remotely delivered cognitive behavioural and personalised exercise interventions for fatigue severity and impact in inflammatory rheumatic diseases (LIFT): a multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label, parallel-group trial

Background

Chronic fatigue is a poorly managed problem in people with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Cognitive behavioural approaches (CBA) and personalised exercise programmes (PEP) can be effective, but they are not often implemented because their effectivenesses across the different inflammatory rheumatic diseases are unknown and regular face-to-face sessions are often undesirable, especially during a pandemic. We hypothesised that remotely delivered CBA and PEP would effectively alleviate fatigue severity and life impact across inflammatory rheumatic diseases.

Methods

LIFT is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label, parallel-group trial to assess usual care alongside telephone-delivered CBA or PEP against usual care alone in UK hospitals. Patients with any stable inflammatory rheumatic disease were eligible if they reported clinically significant, persistent fatigue. Treatment allocation was assigned by a web-based randomisation system. CBA and PEP sessions were delivered over 6 months by trained health professionals in rheumatology. Coprimary outcomes were fatigue severity (Chalder Fatigue Scale) and impact (Fatigue Severity Scale) at 56 weeks. The primary analysis was by full analysis set. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03248518).

Findings

From Sept 4, 2017, to Sept 30, 2019, we randomly assigned and treated 367 participants to PEP (n=124; one participant withdrew after being randomly assinged), CBA (n=121), or usual care alone (n=122), of whom 274 (75%) were women and 92 (25%) were men with an overall mean age of 57·5 (SD 12·7) years. Analyses for Chalder Fatigue Scale included 101 participants in the PEP group, 107 in the CBA group, and 107 in the usual care group and for Fatigue Severity Scale included 101 in PEP, 106 in CBA, and 107 in usual care groups. PEP and CBA significantly improved fatigue severity (Chalder Fatigue Scale; PEP: adjusted mean difference -3·03 [97·5% CI -5·05 to -1·02], p=0·0007; CBA: -2·36 [-4·28 to -0·44], p=0·0058) and fatigue impact (Fatigue Severity Scale; PEP: -0·64 [-0·95 to -0·33], p<0·0001; CBA: -0·58 [-0·87 to -0·28], p<0·0001); compared with usual care alone at 56 weeks. No trial-related serious adverse events were reported.

Interpretation

Telephone-delivered CBA and PEP produced and maintained statistically and clinically significant reductions in the severity and impact of fatigue in a variety of inflammatory rheumatic diseases. These interventions should be considered as a key component of inflammatory rheumatic disease management in routine clinical practice.

Funding

Versus Arthritis.

Group cognitive-behavioural programme to reduce the impact of rheumatoid arthritis fatigue: the RAFT RCT with economic and qualitative evaluations

BACKGROUND

Fatigue is a major problem in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There is evidence for the clinical effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) delivered by clinical psychologists, but few rheumatology units have psychologists.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a group CBT programme for RA fatigue [named RAFT, i.e. Reducing Arthritis Fatigue by clinical Teams using cognitive-behavioural (CB) approaches], delivered by the rheumatology team in addition to usual care (intervention), with usual care alone (control); and to evaluate tutors' experiences of the RAFT programme.

DESIGN

A randomised controlled trial. Central trials unit computerised randomisation in four consecutive cohorts within each of the seven centres. A nested qualitative evaluation was undertaken.

SETTING

Seven hospital rheumatology units in England and Wales.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with RA and fatigue severity of ≥ 6 [out of 10, as measured by the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Numerical Rating Scale (BRAF-NRS)] who had no recent changes in major RA medication/glucocorticoids.

INTERVENTIONS

RAFT - group CBT programme delivered by rheumatology tutor pairs (nurses/occupational therapists). Usual care - brief discussion of a RA fatigue self-management booklet with the research nurse.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary - fatigue impact (as measured by the BRAF-NRS) at 26 weeks. Secondary - fatigue severity/coping (as measured by the BRAF-NRS); broader fatigue impact [as measured by the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multidimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ)]; self-reported clinical status; quality of life; mood; self-efficacy; and satisfaction. All data were collected at weeks 0, 6, 26, 52, 78 and 104. In addition, fatigue data were collected at weeks 10 and 18. The intention-to-treat analysis conducted was blind to treatment allocation, and adjusted for baseline scores and centre. Cost-effectiveness was explored through the intervention and RA-related health and social care costs, allowing the calculation of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L). Tutor and focus group interviews were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 308 out of 333 patients completed 26 weeks (RAFT, n/N = 156/175; control, n/N = 152/158). At 26 weeks, the mean BRAF-NRS impact was reduced for the RAFT programme (-1.36 units; p < 0.001) and the control interventions (-0.88 units; p < 0.004). Regression analysis showed a difference between treatment arms in favour of the RAFT programme [adjusted mean difference -0.59 units, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.11 to -0.06 units; p = 0.03, effect size 0.36], and this was sustained over 2 years (-0.49 units, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.14 units; p = 0.01). At 26 weeks, further fatigue differences favoured the RAFT programme (BRAF-MDQ fatigue impact: adjusted mean difference -3.42 units, 95% CI -6.44 to - 0.39 units, p = 0.03; living with fatigue: adjusted mean difference -1.19 units, 95% CI -2.17 to -0.21 units, p = 0.02; and emotional fatigue: adjusted mean difference -0.91 units, 95% CI -1.58 to -0.23 units, p = 0.01), and these fatigue differences were sustained over 2 years. Self-efficacy favoured the RAFT programme at 26 weeks (Rheumatoid Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale: adjusted mean difference 3.05 units, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.6 units; p = 0.02), as did BRAF-NRS coping over 2 years (adjusted mean difference 0.42 units, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.77 units; p = 0.02). Fatigue severity and other clinical outcomes were not different between trial arms and no harms were reported. Satisfaction with the RAFT programme was high, with 89% of patients scoring ≥ 8 out of 10, compared with 54% of patients in the control arm rating the booklet (p < 0.0001); and 96% of patients and 68% of patients recommending the RAFT programme and the booklet, respectively, to others (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between arms for total societal costs including the RAFT programme training and delivery (mean difference £434, 95% CI -£389 to £1258), nor QALYs gained (mean difference 0.008, 95% CI -0.008 to 0.023). The probability of the RAFT programme being cost-effective was 28-35% at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's thresholds of £20,000-30,000 per QALY. Tutors felt that the RAFT programme's CB approaches challenged their usual problem-solving style, helped patients make life changes and improved tutors' wider clinical practice.

LIMITATIONS

Primary outcome data were missing for 25 patients; the EQ-5D-5L might not capture fatigue change; and 30% of the 2-year economic data were missing.

CONCLUSIONS

The RAFT programme improves RA fatigue impact beyond usual care alone; this was sustained for 2 years with high patient satisfaction, enhanced team skills and no harms. The RAFT programme is < 50% likely to be cost-effective; however, NHS costs were similar between treatment arms.

FUTURE WORK

Given the paucity of RA fatigue interventions, rheumatology teams might investigate the pragmatic implementation of the RAFT programme, which is low cost.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52709998.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 57. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Fatigue in inflammatory arthritis

Fatigue is highly prevalent in inflammatory arthritis, and people living with the symptom have described it as overwhelming and a challenge to manage. In this article, we explore the experience, impact and non-pharmacological management of fatigue from a multi-disciplinary perspective. We start by presenting qualitative evidence from people living with fatigue, including the physical, cognitive and emotional nature of the symptom and its impact on daily life. This is followed by discussion of current conceptual models of mechanisms and factors that may cause and maintain fatigue, within and between individuals. We then address the issue of fatigue measurement and modes of assessment, which is an integral aspect of management and evaluating support provision. This leads to a review of the research evidence for non-pharmacological interventions to reduce fatigue severity and impact. Finally, we consider implementation of this evidence in clinical practice and we introduce some key practical tools and techniques.

Reducing arthritis fatigue impact: two-year randomised controlled trial of cognitive behavioural approaches by rheumatology teams (RAFT)

OBJECTIVES

To see if a group course delivered by rheumatology teams using cognitive-behavioural approaches, plus usual care, reduced RA fatigue impact more than usual care alone.

METHODS

Multicentre, 2-year randomised controlled trial in RA adults (fatigue severity>6/10, no recent major medication changes). RAFT (Reducing Arthritis Fatigue: clinical Teams using CB approaches) comprises seven sessions, codelivered by pairs of trained rheumatology occupational therapists/nurses. Usual care was Arthritis Research UK fatigue booklet. Primary 26-week outcome fatigue impact (Bristol RA Fatigue Effect Numerical Rating Scale, BRAF-NRS 0-10). Intention-to-treat regression analysis adjusted for baseline scores and centre.

RESULTS

308/333 randomised patients completed 26 week data (156/175 RAFT, 152/158 Control). Mean baseline variables were similar. At 26 weeks, the adjusted difference between arms for fatigue impact change favoured RAFT (BRAF-NRS Effect -0.59, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.06), BRAF Multidimensional Questionnaire (MDQ) Total -3.42 (95% CI -6.44 to -0.39), Living with Fatigue -1.19 (95% CI -2.17 to -0.21), Emotional Fatigue -0.91 (95% CI -1.58 to -0.23); RA Self-Efficacy (RASE, +3.05, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.66) (14 secondary outcomes unchanged). Effects persisted at 2 years: BRAF-NRS Effect -0.49 (95% CI -0.83 to -0.14), BRAF MDQ Total -2.98 (95% CI -5.39 to -0.57), Living with Fatigue -0.93 (95% CI -1.75 to -0.10), Emotional Fatigue -0.90 (95% CI -1.44, to -0.37); BRAF-NRS Coping +0.42 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.77) (relevance of fatigue impact improvement uncertain). RAFT satisfaction: 89% scored > 8/10 vs 54% controls rating usual care booklet (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Multiple RA fatigue impacts can be improved for 2 years by rheumatology teams delivering a group programme using cognitive behavioural approaches.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN52709998.

What impact does written information about fatigue have on patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases? Findings from a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Although fatigue is a common symptom for people with rheumatic diseases, limited support is available. This study explored the impact of written information about fatigue, focusing on a booklet, Fatigue and arthritis.

METHODS

Thirteen patients with rheumatic disease and fatigue were recruited purposively from a rheumatology outpatient service. They were interviewed before and after receiving the fatigue booklet. Two patients, plus six professionals with relevant interests, participated in a focus group. Transcripts were analysed thematically and a descriptive summary was produced.

RESULTS

Interviewees consistently reported that fatigue made life more challenging, and none had previously received any support to manage it. Reflecting on the booklet, most said that it had made a difference to how they thought about fatigue, and that this had been valuable. Around half also said that it had affected, or would affect, how they managed fatigue. No one reported any impact on fatigue itself. Comments from interviewees and focus group members alike suggested that the research process may have contributed to the changes in thought and behaviour reported. Its key contributions appear to have been: clarifying the booklet's relevance; prompting reflection on current management; and introducing accountability.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicated that written information can make a difference to how people think about fatigue and may also prompt behaviour change. However, context appeared to be important: it seems likely that the research process played a part and that the impact of the booklet may have been less if read in isolation. Aspects of the research appearing to facilitate impact could be integrated into routine care, providing a pragmatic (relatively low-cost) response to an unmet need.