Comparing longitudinal patient-reported outcome measures between Swedish patients with recent-onset systemic lupus erythematosus and early rheumatoid arthritis

Lupus Low Disease Activity State and organ damage in relation to quality of life in systemic lupus erythematosus: a cohort study with up to 11 years of follow-up

OBJECTIVES

Beyond prevention of organ damage, treatment goals in SLE include optimization of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS) has received increasing attention as a goal whenever remission cannot be achieved. How SLE disease activity, organ damage and LLDAS attainment relate to patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is not fully explored, which formed the scope of this investigation.

METHODS

We included 327 patients with SLE from a tertiary referral centre. Longitudinal registrations of disease activity using SLEDAI-2K and physician global assessment (PhGA), organ damage using the SLICC/ACR damage index (SDI), pharmacotherapies, EQ-5D-3L data, as well as visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for fatigue, pain and overall SLE-related health state over a median follow-up time of 8.5 years were analysed.

RESULTS

In the overall population, as well as subgroups of patients with recent-onset SLE and those with clinically active, autoantibody-positive disease, LLDAS attainment, lower PhGA and lower clinical SLEDAI-2K scores were associated with favourable HRQoL by EQ-5D-3L and VAS assessments, while increasing SDI scores were associated with poor PROs except for fatigue in the overall population. PROs were further enhanced by being in LLDAS sustainedly. In fully adjusted models of the entire study population, LLDAS attainment and lower disease activity were associated with favourable PROs, irrespective of SDI.

CONCLUSION

In one of the longest observational studies to date, we demonstrated that low disease activity and being sustainedly in LLDAS were coupled with favourable HRQoL, pain, fatigue and overall health experience, irrespective of organ damage.

Development of the American College of Rheumatology Patient-Reported Outcome Quality Measures for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

OBJECTIVE

As part of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-funded American College of Rheumatology (ACR) initiative, we sought to develop quality measures related to Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) use for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) clinical care.

METHODS

An expert workgroup composed of physician, patient, and researcher representatives convened to identify patient-reported outcome (PRO) domains of greatest importance to people with SLE. A patient advisory panel separately ranked domains. PROMs assessing priority domains were identified through structured literature review, and detailed psychometric reviews were conducted for each PROM. In a Delphi process, the expert workgroup rated PROMs on content validity, psychometric quality, feasibility of implementation, and importance for guiding patient self-management. The patient advisory panel reviewed PROMs in parallel and contributed to the final recommendations.

RESULTS

Among relevant PRO domains, the workgroup and patient partners ranked depression, physical function, pain, cognition, and fatigue as high-priority domains. The workgroup recommended at least once yearly measurement for (1) assessment of depression using the Patient Health Questionnaire or Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression scales; (2) assessment of physical function using PROMIS physical function scales or the Multi-Dimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire; and (3) optional assessments of fatigue and cognition. Pain scales evaluated were not found to be sufficiently superior to what is already assessed in most SLE clinic visits.

CONCLUSION

Expert workgroup members and patient partners recommend that clinicians assess depression and physical function at least once yearly in all people with SLE. Additional PROMs addressing cognition and fatigue can also be assessed. Next steps are to incorporate PROM-based quality measures into the ACR The Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness registry.

Response rates in clinical quality registries and databases that collect patient reported outcome measures: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are being increasingly introduced in clinical registries, providing a personal perspective on the expectations and impact of treatment. The aim of this study was to describe response rates (RR) to PROMs in clinical registries and databases and to examine the trends over time, and how they change with the registry type, region and disease or condition captured.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping literature review of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, in addition to Google Scholar and grey literature. All English studies on clinical registries capturing PROMs at one or more time points were included. Follow up time points were defined as follows: baseline (if available), < 1 year, 1 to < 2 years, 2 to < 5 years, 5 to < 10 years and 10 + years. Registries were grouped according to regions of the world and health conditions. Subgroup analyses were conducted to identify trends in RRs over time. These included calculating average RRs, standard deviation and change in RRs according to total follow up time.

RESULTS

The search strategy yielded 1,767 publications. Combined with 20 reports and four websites, a total of 141 sources were used in the data extraction and analysis process. Following the data extraction, 121 registries capturing PROMs were identified. The overall average RR at baseline started at 71% and decreased to 56% at 10 + year at follow up. The highest average baseline RR of 99% was observed in Asian registries and in registries capturing data on chronic conditions (85%). Overall, the average RR declined as follow up time increased.

CONCLUSION

A large variation and downward trend in PROMs RRs was observed in most of the registries identified in our review. Formal recommendations are required for consistent collection, follow up and reporting of PROMs data in a registry setting to improve patient care and clinical practice. Further research studies are needed to determine acceptable RRs for PROMs captured in clinical registries.

Fighting Fatigue in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Experience of Dehydroepiandrosterone on Clinical Parameters and Patient-Reported Outcomes

Manifestations related to ongoing inflammation in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are often adequately managed, but patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) support that fatigue and low quality of life (QoL) in the absence of raised disease activity remain major burdens. The adrenal hormone dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) has shown potential as a pharmacological agent for managing fatigue in mild SLE. We retrospectively evaluated data on dosage, disease activity, corticosteroid doses, concomitant antirheumatic drugs, and PROMs regarding pain intensity, fatigue, and well-being (visual analogue scales), QoL (EQ-5D-3L) and functional disability. A total of 15 patients with SLE were exposed to DHEA and 15 sex- and age-matched non-exposed SLE patients served as comparators. At baseline, 83% of the DHEA-exposed patients had subnormal DHEA concentration. The 15 subjects prescribed DHEA were exposed during a median time of 12 months (IQR 16.5) [range 3–81] and used a median daily dose of 50 mg of DHEA (IQR 25.0) [range 25–200]. Neither disease activity, nor damage accrual, changed significantly over time among patients using DHEA, and no severe adverse events were observed. Numerical improvements of all evaluated PROMs were seen in the DHEA-treated group, but none reached statistical significance. For DHEA-exposed patients, a non-significant trend was found regarding fatigue comparing baseline and 36 months (p = 0.068). In relation to SLE controls, the DHEA-exposed group initially reported significantly worse fatigue, pain, and well-being, but the differences diminished over time. In conclusion, DHEA was safe, but evidence for efficacy of DHEA supplementation in relation to PROMs were not found. Still, certain individuals with mild SLE, plagued by fatigue and absence of increased disease activity, appear to benefit from DHEA in terms of improved fatigue and QoL. Testing of DHEA concentration in blood should be performed before initiation, and investigation of other conditions, or reasons responsible for fatigue, must always be considered first.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Can Lupus Patients Take the Driver's Seat in Their Disease Monitoring?

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic autoimmune disorder that has detrimental effects on patient’s health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Owing to its immense heterogeneity of symptoms and its complexity regarding comorbidity burden, management of SLE necessitates interdisciplinary care, with the goal being the best possible HRQoL and long-term outcomes. Current definitions of remission, low disease activity, and response to treatment do not incorporate self-reported patient evaluation, while it has been argued that the physician’s global assessment should capture the patient’s perspective. However, even the judgment of a very well-trained physician might not replace a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), not only owing to the multidimensionality of self-perceived health experience but also since this notion would constitute a direct contradiction to the definition of PROMs. The proper use of PROMs is not only an important conceptual issue but also an opportunity to build bridges in the partnership between patients and physicians. These points of consideration adhere to the overall framework that there will seldom be one single best marker that helps interpret the activity, severity, and impact of SLE at the same time. For optimal outcomes, we not only stress the importance of the use of PROMs but also emphasize the urgency of adoption of the conception of forming alliances with patients and facilitating patient participation in surveillance and management processes. Nevertheless, this should not be misinterpreted as a transfer of responsibility from healthcare professionals to patients but rather a step towards shared decision-making.