1
|
Gehringer CK, Martin GP, Hyrich KL, Verstappen SM, Sergeant JC. Clinical prediction models for methotrexate treatment outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2022; 56:152076. [DOI: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2022.152076] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2022] [Revised: 07/22/2022] [Accepted: 07/26/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
|
2
|
Zhao JL, Liu X, Nan Li J, Ru Liu M, Rottier E, Zhao Y, Zeng XF. Implementation of the treat-to-target approach and treatment satisfaction in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: perspectives of Chinese rheumatologists. Clin Rheumatol 2022; 41:2659-2668. [PMID: 35579773 DOI: 10.1007/s10067-022-06187-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2022] [Revised: 03/30/2022] [Accepted: 04/24/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To investigate the implementation of treat-to-target (T2T) and treatment satisfaction from Chinese rheumatologists' perspectives. METHODS This retrospective analysis of a cross-sectional database collected from rheumatologists and their adult patients with RA in China using Adelphi Real World Disease Specific Programme™ methodology. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to evaluate factors associated with T2T use, achievement of T2T goals, and physician treatment satisfaction. RESULTS Sixty physicians provided data for 600 patients, of whom 39.0% (234/600) were being treated using T2T, and 64.9% (366/564) had achieved their T2T goal. Physicians were satisfied with treatment in 74.3% (445/599) of patients. Patients with a higher pain score were more likely to be managed using T2T (odds ratio (OR) 1.25; p = 0.017), but less likely to have achieved the T2T goal (OR 0.76; p = 0.004). T2T use was more likely if patients had a longer time since diagnosis (> 2 vs ≤ 2 years; OR 1.61; p = 0.031) or received targeted synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tsDMARDs or bDMARDs; OR 6.90; p < 0.001). T2T goal achievement was more likely for patients with higher body mass index (≥ 24 vs < 24 kg/m2; OR 2.73; p = 0.001) or full-time employment (OR 2.11; p = 0.005). Physician treatment satisfaction was more likely if the T2T goal was achieved (OR 4.78; p < 0.001) or tsDMARDs or bDMARDs were used (OR 2.58; p = 0.017), and less likely if pain scores were higher (OR 0.79; p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS T2T implementation in China is suboptimal. Our findings provide insight into T2T implementation and physician treatment satisfaction, supporting T2T use in Chinese RA clinical practice. Key Points • T2T implementation in China is currently suboptimal. • Patients with greater pain were more likely to be managed using T2T but were less likely to have achieved their T2T goals. • Physician treatment satisfaction was associated with T2T goal achievement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jiu Liang Zhao
- Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. .,National Clinical Research Center for Dermatologic and Immunologic Diseases (NCRC-DID), Ministry of Science & Technology, Beijing, China. .,State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH), Beijing, China. .,Key Laboratory of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Ministry of Education, Beijing, China.
| | - Xin Liu
- Lilly China Drug Development and Medical Affairs Center, Eli Lilly and Company, Shanghai, China
| | - Jin Nan Li
- Lilly China Drug Development and Medical Affairs Center, Eli Lilly and Company, Shanghai, China
| | - Meng Ru Liu
- Lilly China Drug Development and Medical Affairs Center, Eli Lilly and Company, Shanghai, China
| | - Elke Rottier
- Autoimmune Franchise, Adelphi Real World, Bollington, Cheshire, UK
| | - Yan Zhao
- Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.,National Clinical Research Center for Dermatologic and Immunologic Diseases (NCRC-DID), Ministry of Science & Technology, Beijing, China.,State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH), Beijing, China.,Key Laboratory of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Ministry of Education, Beijing, China
| | - Xiao Feng Zeng
- Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.,National Clinical Research Center for Dermatologic and Immunologic Diseases (NCRC-DID), Ministry of Science & Technology, Beijing, China.,State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH), Beijing, China.,Key Laboratory of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Ministry of Education, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Danila MI, Chen L, Ruderman EM, Owensby JK, O'Beirne R, Melnick JA, Harrold LR, Curtis D, Nowell WB, Curtis JR. Evaluation of an Intervention to Support Patient-Rheumatologist Conversations About Escalating Treatment in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Proof-of-Principle Study. ACR Open Rheumatol 2021; 4:279-287. [PMID: 34962093 PMCID: PMC8992469 DOI: 10.1002/acr2.11393] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2021] [Revised: 11/01/2021] [Accepted: 11/09/2021] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective This study’s objective was to test whether an online video intervention discussing appropriate treatment escalation improves willingness to change treatment in people living with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods We conducted a controlled, randomized trial among patients with RA enrolled in ArthritisPower, a United States patient registry. We recruited participants by email and surveyed their assessment of disease activity (patient global), satisfaction with disease control (patient acceptable symptom state), attitudes about RA medications, decisional conflict (decisional conflict scale), and willingness to modify RA treatment (choice predisposition scale, higher scores are better) if or when recommended by their rheumatologist. Intervention groups watched educational videos relevant to a treat‐to‐target (T2T) strategy, whereas control groups viewed vaccination‐related videos as an “attention control.” We compared the between‐group difference in patients’ willingness to modify RA treatment (primary outcome) and difference in decisional conflict about changing RA treatment (secondary outcome) after watching the videos using t tests. Results Participants with self‐reported RA (n = 208) were 90% White and 90% women, with a mean (standard deviation) age of 50 (11) years, and 52% reported familiarity with the RA T2T strategy. We found a significant improvement in between‐group difference in willingness to change RA treatment among intervention versus control participants (0.49 [95% confidence interval 0.09‐0.88], P = 0.02). The effect size (Glass’s delta) for the intervention was 0.48. Decisional conflict about treatment change decreased, but the between‐group difference was not significant. Conclusion This novel educational patient‐directed intervention discussing appropriate treatment escalation was associated with improved willingness to change RA treatment if or when recommended by a rheumatologist. Further studies should evaluate whether this change in patients’ predisposition translates into actual treatment escalation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria I Danila
- University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
| | - Lang Chen
- University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
| | | | | | - Ronan O'Beirne
- University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
| | | | - Leslie R Harrold
- University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts
| | - David Curtis
- Global Healthy Living Foundation, Upper Nyack, New York
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Abstract
Digitalization in medicine is of major interest since the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. This article tries to present the induced changes and technical solutions with respect to the different parts in the patient journey. Symptom checkers, new health applications, digital appointment management etc. are described. Apart from the technical and digital possibilities, the changes in the quality of communication additionally have to be mentioned. There is an urgent need for further technical standardization including the interfaces. In many cases further studies must confirm the equivalence of digital applications in comparison to analogue techniques.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Welcker
- MVZ für Rheumatologie Dr. M. Welcker GmbH, Bahnhofstr. 32, 82152, Planegg, Deutschland.
| | - F Mühlensiepen
- Zentrum für Versorgungsforschung, Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane, Rüdersdorf, Deutschland.,Fakultät für Gesundheitswissenschaften Brandenburg, Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane, Neuruppin, Deutschland
| | - J Knitza
- Medizinische Klinik 3 - Rheumatologie und Immunologie, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Deutschland
| | - F Popp
- MVZ für Rheumatologie Dr. M. Welcker GmbH, Bahnhofstr. 32, 82152, Planegg, Deutschland
| | - P Aries
- Rheumatologie am Struenseehaus, Hamburg, Deutschland
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Scott DL, Ibrahim F, Hill H, Tom B, Prothero L, Baggott RR, Bosworth A, Galloway JB, Georgopoulou S, Martin N, Neatrour I, Nikiphorou E, Sturt J, Wailoo A, Williams FMK, Williams R, Lempp H. Intensive therapy for moderate established rheumatoid arthritis: the TITRATE research programme. Programme Grants Appl Res 2021. [DOI: 10.3310/pgfar09080] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
Background
Rheumatoid arthritis is a major inflammatory disorder and causes substantial disability. Treatment goals span minimising disease activity, achieving remission and decreasing disability. In active rheumatoid arthritis, intensive management achieves these goals. As many patients with established rheumatoid arthritis have moderate disease activity, the TITRATE (Treatment Intensities and Targets in Rheumatoid Arthritis ThErapy) programme assessed the benefits of intensive management.
Objectives
To (1) define how to deliver intensive therapy in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis; (2) establish its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in a trial; and (3) evaluate evidence supporting intensive management in observational studies and completed trials.
Design
Observational studies, secondary analyses of completed trials and systematic reviews assessed existing evidence about intensive management. Qualitative research, patient workshops and systematic reviews defined how to deliver it. The trial assessed its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis.
Setting
Observational studies (in three London centres) involved 3167 patients. These were supplemented by secondary analyses of three previously completed trials (in centres across all English regions), involving 668 patients. Qualitative studies assessed expectations (nine patients in four London centres) and experiences of intensive management (15 patients in 10 centres across England). The main clinical trial enrolled 335 patients with diverse socioeconomic deprivation and ethnicity (in 39 centres across all English regions).
Participants
Patients with established moderately active rheumatoid arthritis receiving conventional disease-modifying drugs.
Interventions
Intensive management used combinations of conventional disease-modifying drugs, biologics (particularly tumour necrosis factor inhibitors) and depot steroid injections; nurses saw patients monthly, adjusted treatment and provided supportive person-centred psychoeducation. Control patients received standard care.
Main outcome measures
Disease Activity Score for 28 joints based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR)-categorised patients (active to remission). Remission (DAS28-ESR < 2.60) was the treatment target. Other outcomes included fatigue (measured on a 100-mm visual analogue scale), disability (as measured on the Health Assessment Questionnaire), harms and resource use for economic assessments.
Results
Evaluation of existing evidence for intensive rheumatoid arthritis management showed the following. First, in observational studies, DAS28-ESR scores decreased over 10–20 years, whereas remissions and treatment intensities increased. Second, in systematic reviews of published trials, all intensive management strategies increased remissions. Finally, patients with high disability scores had fewer remissions. Qualitative studies of rheumatoid arthritis patients, workshops and systematic reviews helped develop an intensive management pathway. A 2-day training session for rheumatology practitioners explained its use, including motivational interviewing techniques and patient handbooks. The trial screened 459 patients and randomised 335 patients (168 patients received intensive management and 167 patients received standard care). A total of 303 patients provided 12-month outcome data. Intention-to-treat analysis showed intensive management increased DAS28-ESR 12-month remissions, compared with standard care (32% vs. 18%, odds ratio 2.17, 95% confidence interval 1.28 to 3.68; p = 0.004), and reduced fatigue [mean difference –18, 95% confidence interval –24 to –11 (scale 0–100); p < 0.001]. Disability (as measured on the Health Assessment Questionnaire) decreased when intensive management patients achieved remission (difference –0.40, 95% confidence interval –0.57 to –0.22) and these differences were considered clinically relevant. However, in all intensive management patients reductions in the Health Assessment Questionnaire scores were less marked (difference –0.1, 95% confidence interval –0.2 to 0.0). The numbers of serious adverse events (intensive management n = 15 vs. standard care n = 11) and other adverse events (intensive management n = 114 vs. standard care n = 151) were similar. Economic analysis showed that the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £43,972 from NHS and Personal Social Services cost perspectives. The probability of meeting a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 was 17%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio decreased to £29,363 after including patients’ personal costs and lost working time, corresponding to a 50% probability that intensive management is cost-effective at English willingness-to-pay thresholds. Analysing trial baseline predictors showed that remission predictors comprised baseline DAS28-ESR, disability scores and body mass index. A 6-month extension study (involving 95 intensive management patients) showed fewer remissions by 18 months, although more sustained remissions were more likley to persist. Qualitative research in trial completers showed that intensive management was acceptable and treatment support from specialist nurses was beneficial.
Limitations
The main limitations comprised (1) using single time point remissions rather than sustained responses, (2) uncertainty about benefits of different aspects of intensive management and differences in its delivery across centres, (3) doubts about optimal treatment of patients unresponsive to intensive management and (4) the lack of formal international definitions of ‘intensive management’.
Conclusion
The benefits of intensive management need to be set against its additional costs. These were relatively high. Not all patients benefited. Patients with high pretreatment physical disability or who were substantially overweight usually did not achieve remission.
Future work
Further research should (1) identify the most effective components of the intervention, (2) consider its most cost-effective delivery and (3) identify alternative strategies for patients not responding to intensive management.
Trial registration
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70160382.
Funding
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David L Scott
- Centre for Rheumatic Diseases, Department of Inflammation Biology, School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK
| | - Fowzia Ibrahim
- Centre for Rheumatic Diseases, Department of Inflammation Biology, School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK
| | - Harry Hill
- ScHARR Health Economics and Decision Science, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Brian Tom
- MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Louise Prothero
- Centre for Rheumatic Diseases, Department of Inflammation Biology, School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK
| | - Rhiannon R Baggott
- Centre for Rheumatic Diseases, Department of Inflammation Biology, School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK
| | | | - James B Galloway
- Centre for Rheumatic Diseases, Department of Inflammation Biology, School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK
| | - Sofia Georgopoulou
- Centre for Rheumatic Diseases, Department of Inflammation Biology, School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK
| | - Naomi Martin
- Centre for Rheumatic Diseases, Department of Inflammation Biology, School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK
| | - Isabel Neatrour
- Centre for Rheumatic Diseases, Department of Inflammation Biology, School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK
| | - Elena Nikiphorou
- Centre for Rheumatic Diseases, Department of Inflammation Biology, School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK
| | - Jackie Sturt
- Department of Adult Nursing, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King’s College London, London, UK
| | - Allan Wailoo
- ScHARR Health Economics and Decision Science, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Frances MK Williams
- Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology, School of Life Course Sciences, King’s College London, St Thomas’ Hospital, London, UK
| | - Ruth Williams
- Centre for Rheumatic Diseases, Department of Inflammation Biology, School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK
| | - Heidi Lempp
- Centre for Rheumatic Diseases, Department of Inflammation Biology, School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Shelton J, Casey S, Puhl N, Buckingham J, Yacyshyn E. Electronic patient-reported outcome measures using mobile health technology in rheumatology: A scoping review. PLoS One 2021; 16:e0253615. [PMID: 34292955 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253615] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2020] [Accepted: 06/08/2021] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This scoping review aims to characterize the current literature on electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in rheumatology and assess the feasibility and utility of ePROMs and mobile health technology in the management of rheumatic disease. INTRODUCTION Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly used in rheumatology as they are important markers of disease activity and overall function, encourage shared decision-making, and are associated with high rates of patient satisfaction. With the widespread use of mobile devices, there is increasing interest in the use of mobile health technology to collect electronic PROMs (ePROM). INCLUSION CRITERIA All primary studies that involve the collection of ePROMs using mobile devices by individuals with a rheumatic disease were included. Articles were excluded if ePROMs were measured during clinic appointments. METHODS A scoping review was performed using Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL with index terms and key words related to "patient-reported outcome measures", "rheumatic diseases", and "mobile health technology". RESULTS A total of 462 records were identified after duplicates were removed. Of the 70 studies selected for review, 43% were conference proceedings and 57% were journal articles, with the majority published in 2016 or later. Inflammatory arthritis was the most common rheumatic disease studied. Generic ePROMs were used over three times more often than disease-specific ePROMs. A total of 39 (56%) studies directly evaluated the feasibility of ePROMs in clinical practice, 19 (27%) were clinical trials that used ePROMs as study endpoints, 9 (13%) were focus groups or surveys on smartphone application development, and 3 (4%) did not fit into one defined category. CONCLUSION The use of ePROMs in rheumatology is a growing area of research and shows significant utility in clinical practice, particularly in inflammatory arthritis. Further research is needed to better characterize the feasibility of ePROMs in rheumatology and their impact on patient outcomes.
Collapse
|
7
|
Gulácsi L, Zrubka Z, Brodszky V, Rencz F, Alten R, Szekanecz Z, Péntek M. Long-Term Efficacy of Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors for the Treatment of Methotrexate-Naïve Rheumatoid Arthritis: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis. Adv Ther 2019; 36:721-45. [PMID: 30637590 DOI: 10.1007/s12325-018-0869-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/01/2018] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Synthesis of evidence on the long-term use of first-line biologic therapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is required. We compared the efficacy of up to 5 years' treatment with first-line tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) versus other treatment strategies in this population. METHODS Previous systematic reviews, PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving treatment of methotrexate-naïve RA patients with first-line TNFis. Literature was synthesized qualitatively, and a meta-analysis conducted to evaluate American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses, clinical remission defined by any standard measure, and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ) at Years 2 and/or 5. RESULTS Ten RCTs involving 4306 patients [first-line TNFi, n = 2234; other treatment strategies (control), n = 2072] were included in the meta-analysis. Three studies were double-blind for the first 2 years, while seven were partly/completely open label during this period. Five studies reported data at Year 5; all were open label at this time point. At Year 2, ACR50 response, ACR70 response and remission rates were significantly improved with first-line TNFi versus control in double-blind RCTs [log-odds ratio (OR) 0.32 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02, 0.62; p = 0.035], log-OR 0.48 (95% CI 0.20, 0.77; p = 0.001), and log-OR 0.44 (95% CI 0.13, 0.74; p = 0.005), respectively], but not in open-label studies. No significant between-group differences were observed in mean HAQ at Year 2 in double-blind or open-label RCTs or in ACR response or remission outcomes at Year 5. CONCLUSION In double-blind studies, 2-year efficacy outcomes were significantly improved with first-line TNFi versus other treatment strategies in patients with MTX-naïve RA. No significant differences in these outcomes were observed when data from open-label RCTs were considered on their own. Further data on the efficacy of TNFi therapy over ≥ 2 years in patients with methotrexate-naïve RA are required. Plain language summary available for this article.
Collapse
|
8
|
Fautrel B, Alten R, Kirkham B, de la Torre I, Durand F, Barry J, Holzkaemper T, Fakhouri W, Taylor PC. Call for action: how to improve use of patient-reported outcomes to guide clinical decision making in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatol Int 2018; 38:935-947. [PMID: 29564549 PMCID: PMC5953992 DOI: 10.1007/s00296-018-4005-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 59] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/03/2017] [Accepted: 03/03/2018] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
Current guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) recommend early treatment and a treat-to-target goal of remission or low disease activity. Over the past decade, this approach has been extremely successful in reducing disease activity and joint damage in patients with RA. At the same time, however, overall patient perception of well-being appears to have decreased with respect to outcome measures considered important by patients themselves, such as pain, fatigue, physical function and quality of life. The timely and effective use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) could encourage physicians to focus more on the impact of RA on patients and how patients are feeling. This in turn would facilitate shared decision making between patients and physicians, ultimately leading to a more patient-centered approach and improved patient care. Indeed, PROs provide information about individual patients that complements information provided by physical assessment and composite scores, and can also be used to guide patient care, such as determining whether a clinic visit is needed or whether treatment modifications are necessary. This is particularly important for patients who do not achieve the aspirational target of remission or low disease activity with pharmacological treatment. A number of validated PRO questionnaires are available, but how and which PROs should be incorporated into rheumatology clinical practice as part of the decision-making process is still controversial. Combining PROs with technology, such as computer adaptive tests, electronic PRO systems, web-based platforms and patient dashboards, could further aid PRO integration into daily rheumatology clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bruno Fautrel
- Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Universitaire Paris 06, Paris, France
- Department of Rheumatology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
| | - Rieke Alten
- Schlosspark-Klinik University Medicine, 14059, Berlin, Germany
| | - Bruce Kirkham
- Department of Rheumatology, Guys and St Thomas' NHS Trust, Great Maze Pond, London, SE1 9RT, UK
| | | | | | - Jane Barry
- Eli Lilly and Company, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK
| | | | - Walid Fakhouri
- Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA
- Eli Lilly and Company, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK
| | - Peter C Taylor
- Botnar Research Centre, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| |
Collapse
|