2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      THE CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS OF INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT IN MODERATE ESTABLISHED RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: THE TITRATE TRIAL

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          Many trials have shown that intensive management is effective in patients with early active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). But its benefits are unproven for the large number of RA patients seen in routine care who have established, moderately active RA and are already taking conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). The TITRATE trial studied whether these patients also benefit from intensive management and, in particular, achieve more remissions.

          Methods

          A 12-month multicentre individually randomised trial compared standard care with monthly intensive management appointments which was delivered by specially trained healthcare professionals and incorporated monthly clinical assessments, medication titration and psychosocial support. The primary outcome was 12-month remission assessed using the Disease Activity Score for 28 joints using ESR (DAS28-ESR). Secondary outcomes included fatigue, disability, harms and healthcare costs. Intention-to-treat multivariable logistic- and linear regression analyses compared treatment arms with multiple imputation used for missing data.

          Results

          459 patients were screened and 335 were randomised (168 intensive management; 167 standard care); 303 (90%) patients provided 12-month outcomes. Intensive management increased DAS28-ESR 12-month remissions compared to standard care (32% vs 18%, p=0.004). Intensive management also significantly increased remissions using a range of alternative remission criteria and increased patients with DAS28-ESR low disease activity scores. (48% vs 32%, p=0.005). In addition it substantially reduced fatigue (mean difference -18; 95% CI: -24, -11, p<0.001). There was no evidence that serious adverse events (intensive management =15 vs standard care =11) or other adverse events (114 vs 151) significantly increase with intensive management.

          Interpretation

          The trial shows that intensive management incorporating psychosocial support delivered by specially trained healthcare professions is effective in moderately active established RA. More patients achieve remissions, there were greater improvements in fatigue, and there were no more harms.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Motivational Interviewing with Problem Drinkers

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire: a review of its history, issues, progress, and documentation.

            Over the last 2 decades, assessment of patient health status has undergone a dramatic paradigm shift, evolving from a predominant reliance on biochemical and physical measurements to an emphasis upon health outcomes based on the patient's personal appreciation of their illness. The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), published in 1980, was among the first instruments based on patient centered dimensions. The HAQ was designed to represent a model of patient oriented outcome assessment and has played a major role in diverse areas such as prediction of successful aging, inversion of the therapeutic pyramid in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), quantification of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug gastropathy, development of risk factor models for osteoarthrosis, and examination of mortality risks in RA. The HAQ has established itself as a valuable, effective, and sensitive tool for measurement of health status. It has increased the credibility and use of validated self-report measurement techniques as a quantifiable set of hard data endpoints and has contributed to a new appreciation of outcome assessment. We review the development, content, and dissemination of the HAQ and provide reference sources for its uses, translations, and validations. We discuss contemporary issues regarding outcome assessment instruments relative to the HAQ's identity and utility. These include: (1) the issue of labeling instruments as generic versus disease-specific; (2) floor and ceiling effects in scales such as "disability"; (3) distances between values on scales; and (4) the continuing introduction of new measurement instruments and their potential effects.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Remission and active disease in rheumatoid arthritis: defining criteria for disease activity states.

              Several composite scores are available to assess the activity of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Criteria for remission and active RA based on these continuous scores are important for use in clinical practice and clinical trials. We aimed to reevaluate or to define such criteria for the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) and the Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI). We sampled patient profiles from an observational RA database that included clinical and laboratory variables. Thirty-five rheumatology experts classified these profiles into 1 of 4 categories: remission, low, moderate, or high disease activity. Cutoff values were estimated by mapping scores on the DAS28 and SDAI to these ratings, and analyses of agreement (kappa statistics) and a diagnostic testing approach (receiver operating characteristic curves) were used to validate the estimates. The final criteria were validated using 2 observational cohorts (a routine cohort of 767 patients and an inception cohort of 91 patients). Results from the 3 analyses were very similar and were integrated. The criteria for separating remission, low, moderate, and high disease activity based on the SDAI were scores of 3.3, 11, and 26, respectively; those based on the DAS28 were scores of 2.4, 3.6, 5.5, respectively. In the routine cohort, these cutoff values showed substantial agreement (weighed kappa = 0.70) and discriminated between groups of patients with clearly different functional capacities (P < 0.001). In the inception cohort, these cutoff scores differentiated responders (those with a 20% response on the American College of Rheumatology improvement criteria) from nonresponders (P < 0.01), as well as patients with and without radiologic progression (P < 0.05). New criteria for levels of RA disease activity were determined and internally validated. These criteria, which are based on current and explicit expert judgment, are valuable in this era of rapidly advancing therapeutic approaches.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Semin Arthritis Rheum
                Semin. Arthritis Rheum
                Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism
                Published by Elsevier Inc.
                0049-0172
                1532-866X
                30 July 2020
                30 July 2020
                Affiliations
                [a ]Centre for Rheumatic Diseases, Department of Inflammation Biology, School of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London Cutcombe Road, London, SE5 9RJ, UK
                [b ]ScHARR Health Economics and Decision Science, The University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK
                [c ]MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK
                [d ]National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society (NRAS), Switchback Office Park, Gardner Rd, Maidenhead, SL6 7RJ, UK
                [e ]Department Of Adult Nursing, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, James Clerk Maxwell Building, 57 Waterloo Road, London SE1 8WA, UK
                [f ]Twin Research & Genetic Epidemiology, School of Life Course Sciences, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London SE1 7EH, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding Author. fowzia.ibrahim@ 123456kcl.ac.uk
                Article
                S0049-0172(20)30216-X
                10.1016/j.semarthrit.2020.07.014
                7390769
                32931984
                e2d074e2-8c79-490d-b2f4-3f4aee295be3
                © 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                Categories
                Article

                intensive management,rheumatoid arthritis,clinical trial,anti-rheumatic agents,person-centred care,psychosocial support

                Comments

                Comment on this article