Explore the vast range of titles available.

Effective healthcare professional-patient communication is essential for medication adherence. Conversations about patient's barriers to medication use, for example, could help to enhance adherence and consequently improve treatment outcomes. However, it is unclear whether and how barriers to medication use are discussed during routine rheumatology consultations. The aims of this study were to examine 1) the barriers and facilitators to medication use raised by patients during real-life rheumatology outpatient consultations, and whether the issue of medication (non)adherence was discussed (communication content); and 2) how rheumatologists responded to the barriers (communication process). A total of 134 audio-recordings of real-life outpatient rheumatology consultations were analysed. Barriers and facilitators for the current use of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs were identified and categorized using a previously adapted Theoretical Domains Framework. The way rheumatologists responded to the barriers brought up by the patients was analysed using relevant parts of the Roter Interaction Analysis System. In 58 of the 134 consultations, at least one barrier or facilitator to current medication use was brought up by the patient; in 31 out of 134 consultations, medication (non)adherence was addressed. Most facilitators were related to the quality of the needles, the use of an injection pen instead of a syringe, dose reduction because of low disease activity and timing of the medication. The majority of barriers were related to experiencing side effects and doubts about efficacy and resistance of (long-term use of) medication. Rheumatologists' responses to barriers related to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs were mostly a combination of instrumental (counselling) and affective (agreement) communication. Barriers to current disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs' use raised by patients and discussed during routine rheumatology consultations were primarily related to side effects and concerns about the efficacy and long-term use. Continuous attention of these barriers and tailored responses to patients' concerns are key to promote better adherence to treatment.

To update the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the role of the nurse in the management of chronic inflammatory arthritis (CIA) using the most up to date evidence. The EULAR standardised operating procedures were followed. A task force of rheumatologists, health professionals and patients, representing 17 European countries updated the recommendations, based on a systematic literature review and expert consensus. Higher level of evidence and new insights into nursing care for patients with CIA were added to the recommendation. Level of agreement was obtained by email voting. The search identified 2609 records, of which 51 (41 papers, 10 abstracts), mostly on rheumatoid arthritis, were included. Based on consensus, the task force formulated three overarching principles and eight recommendations. One recommendation remained unchanged, six were reworded, two were merged and one was reformulated as an overarching principle. Two additional overarching principles were formulated. The overarching principles emphasise the nurse’s role as part of a healthcare team, describe the importance of providing evidence-based care and endorse shared decision-making in the nursing consultation with the patient. The recommendations cover the contribution of rheumatology nursing in needs-based patient education, satisfaction with care, timely access to care, disease management, efficiency of care, psychosocial support and the promotion of self-management. The level of agreement among task force members was high (mean 9.7, range 9.6-10.0). The updated recommendations encompass three overarching principles and eight evidence-based and expert opinion-based recommendations for the role of the nurse in the management of CIA.

ObjectivesInforming an international task force updating the consensus statement on efficacy and safety of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) selectively targeting interleukin-6 (IL-6) pathway in the context of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.MethodsA systematic literature research of all publications on IL-6 axis inhibition with bDMARDs published between January 2012 and December 2020 was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in clinical trials including their long-term extensions and observational studies. Meeting abstracts from ACR, EULAR conferences and results on clinicaltrials.gov were taken into consideration.Results187 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Evidence for positive effect of IL-6 inhibition was available in various inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, giant cell arteritis, Takayasu arteritis, adult-onset Still’s disease, cytokine release syndrome due to chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy and systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial lung disease. Newcomers like satralizumab and anti-IL-6 ligand antibody siltuximab have expanded therapeutic approaches for Castleman’s disease and neuromyelitis optica, respectively. IL-6 inhibition did not provide therapeutic benefits in psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and certain connective tissue diseases. In COVID-19, tocilizumab (TCZ) has proven to be therapeutic in advanced disease. Safety outcomes did not differ from other bDMARDs, except higher risks of diverticulitis and lower gastrointestinal perforations. Inconsistent results were observed in several studies investigating the risk for infections when comparing TCZ to TNF-inhibitors.ConclusionIL-6 inhibition is effective for treatment of several inflammatory diseases with a safety profile that is widely comparable to other bDMARDs.

There is increasing emphasis on patient-centred research to support the development, approval and reimbursement of health interventions that best meet patients’ needs. However, there is currently little guidance on how meaningful patient engagement may be achieved. An expert working group, representing a wide range of stakeholders and disciplines, was convened by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Through a structured, collaborative process the group generated practical guidance to facilitate optimal patient engagement in clinical development and regulatory decisions. Patient engagement is a relational process. The principles outlined in this report were based on lessons learned through applied experience and on an extensive dialogue among the expert participants. This practice guidance forms a starting point from which tailoring of the approach to suit different chronic diseases may be undertaken.

BackgroundGuidelines suggest treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to target remission, in close consultation with the patient. Our recent qualitative study of the patients' perspective on remission in RA identified 26 domains. The current study aimed to identify a short list of the most important aspects to inform future research.MethodsPatients with RA from the Netherlands, the UK, Austria, Denmark, France and the USA completed a survey that contained all domains identified in our qualitative study. They rated domains for importance (‘not important’, ‘important’ or ‘essential’ to characterise a period of remission) and if important or essential, whether this domain needs to be ‘less’, ‘almost gone’ or ‘gone’ to reflect remission. Respondents were also asked to determine their personal top 3 most important/essential domains. Frequency of specific domains in the top 3 was calculated, and domains were sorted on the percentage of patients that evaluated a particular domain as ‘essential’.ResultsOf 274 respondents, 75% were female, mean (SD) age 57(13) years, disease duration 12(9) years. The top 3 were as follows: pain (67%), fatigue (33%) and independence (19%); domains most frequently rated as ‘essential’ were as follows: pain (60%), being mobile (52%), physical function (51%), being independent (47%) and fatigue (41%). Pain needed to be less (13%), almost gone (42%) or gone (45%) to reflect remission. Similar patterns were seen for fatigue, independence, mobility and physical functioning.ConclusionPatients identified pain, fatigue and independence as the most important domains of RA disease activity that need to be improved to reflect remission.

ObjectivesTo update the evidence for the efficacy of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to inform European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Task Force treatment recommendations.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for phase III or IV (or phase II, if these studies were lacking) randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 2013 and February 2016. Abstracts from the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR conferences were obtained.ResultsThe RCTs confirmed greater efficacy with a bDMARD+conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) versus a csDMARDs alone (level 1A evidence). Using a treat-to-target strategy approach, commencing and escalating csDMARD therapy and adding a bDMARD in cases of non-response, is an effective approach (1B). If a bDMARD had failed, improvements in clinical response were seen on switching to another bDMARD (1A), but no clear advantage was seen for switching to an agent with another mode of action. Maintenance of clinical response in patients in remission or low disease activity was best when continuing rather than stopping a bDMARD, but bDMARD dose reduction or ‘spacing’ was possible, with a substantial proportion of patients achieving bDMARD-free remission (2B). RCTs have also demonstrated efficacy of several new bDMARDs and biosimilar DMARDs (1B).ConclusionsThis systematic literature review consistently confirmed the previously reported efficacy of bDMARDs in RA and provided additional information on bDMARD switching and dose reduction.

ObjectivesTo assess the safety of synthetic (s) and biological (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to inform the European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the management of RA.MethodsSystematic literature review (SLR) of observational studies comparing any DMARD with another intervention for the management of patients with RA. All safety outcomes were included. A comparator group was required for the study to be included. Risk of bias was assessed with the Hayden's tool.ResultsTwenty-six observational studies addressing diverse safety outcomes of therapy with bDMARDs met eligibility criteria (15 on serious infections, 4 on malignancies). Substantial heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Together with the evidence from the 2013 SLR, based on 15 studies, 7 at low risk of bias, patients on bDMARDs compared with patients on conventional sDMARDs had a higher risk of serious infections (adjusted HR (aHR) 1.1 to 1.8)—without differences across bDMARDs—a higher risk of tuberculosis (aHR 2.7 to 12.5), but no increased risk of infection by herpes zoster. Patients on bDMARDs did not have an increased risk of malignancies in general, lymphoma or non-melanoma skin cancer, but the risk of melanoma may be slightly increased (aHR 1.5).ConclusionsThese findings confirm the known safety pattern of bDMARDs, including both tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor (TNFi) and non-TNFi, for the treatment of RA.

ObjectiveA systematic literature review (SLR; 2009–2014) to compare a target-oriented approach with routine management in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to allow an update of the treat-to-target recommendations.MethodsTwo SLRs focused on clinical trials employing a treatment approach targeting a specific clinical outcome were performed. In addition to testing clinical, functional and/or structural changes as endpoints, comorbidities, cardiovascular risk, work productivity and education as well as patient self-assessment were investigated. The searches covered MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases and Clinicaltrial.gov for the period between 2009 and 2012 and separately for the period of 2012 to May of 2014.ResultsOf 8442 citations retrieved in the two SLRs, 176 articles underwent full-text review. According to predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria, six articles were included of which five showed superiority of a targeted treatment approach aiming at least at low-disease activity versus routine care; in addition, publications providing supportive evidence were also incorporated that aside from expanding the evidence provided by the above six publications allowed concluding that a target-oriented approach leads to less comorbidities and cardiovascular risk and better work productivity than conventional care.ConclusionsThe current study expands the evidence that targeting low-disease activity or remission in the management of RA conveys better outcomes than routine care.

The aim of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment is remission. As treatment should be targeted at outcomes relevant to patients, it is important to understand how patients perceive remission, and to assess whether the current definition of remission adequately reflects these perceptions. The objective of this study is to explore the patient perspective on remission in RA. Nine focus-group discussions in Austria, The Netherlands and UK were conducted, including patients in American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/ European League of Rheumatology (EULAR) remission, self-declared remission and in moderate/high disease activity. Moderators employed a prespecified interview guide helped to engage patients in a discussion on their experience with remission. Inductive thematic analysis was performed within each country, and identified themes were discussed across countries. 47 RA patients (66% women, disease duration 9 years) participated. Three major themes of patient-perceived remission emerged: (1) symptoms would either be absent or strongly reduced, (2) impact of the disease on daily life would diminish by increased independence, ability to do valued activities, improved mood and ability to cope; (3) leading to a return to normality, including work, family role and perception of others. Patients felt the concept of remission was influenced by ageing, side effects of medication, comorbidities, accrued damage to joints and disease duration. Opinions on duration of state, the role of medication and measurement instruments varied widely. Patients characterise remission by the absence or reduction of symptoms, but more directly by decreased daily impact of their condition and the feeling of a return to normality. The next step is to study whether an additional patient-perceived measure of remission may add value to the ACR/EULAR definition of remission.

ObjectiveTo analyse how non-adherence to prescribed treatments might be prevented, screened, assessed and managed in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).MethodsAn overview of systematic reviews (SR) was performed in four bibliographic databases. Research questions focused on: (1) effective interventions or strategies, (2) associated factors, (3) impact of shared decision making and effective communication, (4) practical things to prevent non-adherence, (5) effect of non-adherence on outcome, (6) screening and assessment tools and (7) responsible healthcare providers. The methodological quality of the reviews was assessed using AMSTAR-2. The qualitative synthesis focused on results and on the level of evidence attained from the studies included in the reviews.ResultsAfter reviewing 9908 titles, the overview included 38 SR on medication, 29 on non-pharmacological interventions and 28 on assessment. Content and quality of the included SR was very heterogeneous. The number of factors that may influence adherence exceed 700. Among 53 intervention studies, 54.7% showed a small statistically significant effect on adherence, and all three multicomponent interventions, including different modes of patient education and delivered by a variety of healthcare providers, showed a positive result in adherence to medication. No single assessment provided a comprehensive measure of adherence to either medication or exercise.ConclusionsThe results underscore the complexity of non-adherence, its changing pattern and dependence on multi-level factors, the need to involve all stakeholders in all steps, the absence of a gold standard for screening and the requirement of multi-component interventions to manage it.