Exploring discordance between Health Literacy Questionnaire scores of people with RMDs and assessment by treating health professionals

OBJECTIVES: We studied discordance between health literacy of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and assessment of health literacy by their treating health professionals, and explored whether discordance is associated with the patients' socioeconomic background. METHODS: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA), or gout from three Dutch outpatient rheumatology clinics completed the nine-domain Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). Treating health professionals assessed their patients on each HLQ domain. Discordance per domain was defined as a ≥ 2-point difference on a 0-10 scale (except if both scores were below three or above seven), leading to three categories: "negative discordance" (i.e. professional scored lower), "probably the same", or "positive discordance" (i.e. professional scored higher). We used multivariable multilevel multinomial regression models with patients clustered by health professionals to test associations with socioeconomic factors (age, gender, education level, migration background, employment, disability for work, living alone). RESULTS: We observed considerable discordance (21-40% of patients) across HLQ domains. Most discordance occurred for "Critically appraising information" (40.5%, domain 5). Comparatively, positive discordance occurred more frequently. Negative discordance was more frequently and strongly associated with socioeconomic factors, specifically lower education level and non-Western migration background (for five HLQ domains). Associations between socioeconomic factors and positive discordance were less consistent. CONCLUSION: Frequent discordance between patients' scores and professionals' estimations indicates there may be hidden challenges in communication and care, which differ between socioeconomic groups. Successfully addressing patients' health literacy needs cannot solely depend on health professionals' estimations but will require measurement and dialogue

Fatigue assessment in RA Personal non-commercial use only

ABSTRACT. Objective. To compare the psychometric functioning of multidimensional disease-specific, multiitem generic, and single-item measures of fatigue in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and longitudinal item response theory (IRT) modeling were used to evaluate the measurement structure and local reliability of the Bristol RA Fatigue Multi-Dimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ), the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36) vitality scale, and the BRAF Numerical Rating Scales (BRAF-NRS) in a sample of 588 patients with RA. Results. A 1-factor CFA model yielded a similar fit to a 5-factor model with subscale-specific dimensions, and the items from the different instruments adequately fit the IRT model, suggesting essential unidimensionality in measurement. The SF-36 vitality scale outperformed the BRAF-MDQ at lower levels of fatigue, but was less precise at moderate to higher levels of fatigue. At these levels of fatigue, the living, cognition, and emotion subscales of the BRAF-MDQ provide additional precision. The BRAF-NRS showed a limited measurement range with its highest precision centered on average levels of fatigue. Conclusion. The different instruments appear to access a common underlying domain of fatigue severity, but differ considerably in their measurement precision along the continuum. The SF-36 vitality scale can be used to measure fatigue severity in samples with relatively mild fatigue. For samples expected to have higher levels of fatigue, the multidimensional BRAF-MDQ appears to be a better choice. The BRAF-NRS are not recommended if precise assessment is required, for instance in longitudinal settings. (J Rheumatol First Release Jan 15 2015

Personal non-commercial use only

ABSTRACT. Objective. To compare the psychometric functioning of multidimensional disease-specific, multiitem generic, and single-item measures of fatigue in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and longitudinal item response theory (IRT) modeling were used to evaluate the measurement structure and local reliability of the Bristol RA Fatigue Multi-Dimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ), the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36) vitality scale, and the BRAF Numerical Rating Scales (BRAF-NRS) in a sample of 588 patients with RA. Results. A 1-factor CFA model yielded a similar fit to a 5-factor model with subscale-specific dimensions, and the items from the different instruments adequately fit the IRT model, suggesting essential unidimensionality in measurement. The SF-36 vitality scale outperformed the BRAF-MDQ at lower levels of fatigue, but was less precise at moderate to higher levels of fatigue. At these levels of fatigue, the living, cognition, and emotion subscales of the BRAF-MDQ provide additional precision. The BRAF-NRS showed a limited measurement range with its highest precision centered on average levels of fatigue. Conclusion. The different instruments appear to access a common underlying domain of fatigue severity, but differ considerably in their measurement precision along the continuum. The SF-36 vitality scale can be used to measure fatigue severity in samples with relatively mild fatigue. For samples expected to have higher levels of fatigue, the multidimensional BRAF-MDQ appears to be a better choice. The BRAF-NRS are not recommended if precise assessment is required, for instance in longitudina

Low omega-6 vs. low omega-6 plus high omega-3 dietary intervention for Chronic Daily Headache: Protocol for a randomized clinical trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Targeted analgesic dietary interventions are a promising strategy for alleviating pain and improving quality of life in patients with persistent pain syndromes, such as chronic daily headache (CDH). High intakes of the omega-6 (n-6) polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), linoleic acid (LA) and arachidonic acid (AA) may promote physical pain by increasing the abundance, and subsequent metabolism, of LA and AA in immune and nervous system tissues. Here we describe methodology for an ongoing randomized clinical trial comparing the metabolic and clinical effects of a low n-6, average n-3 PUFA diet, to the effects of a low n-6 plus high n-3 PUFA diet, in patients with CDH. Our primary aim is to determine if: A) both diets reduce n-6 PUFAs in plasma and erythrocyte lipid pools, compared to baseline; and B) the low n-6 plus high n-3 diet produces a greater decline in n-6 PUFAs, compared to the low n-6 diet alone. Secondary clinical outcomes include headache-specific quality-of-life, and headache frequency and intensity.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Adults meeting the International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria for CDH are included. After a 6-week baseline phase, participants are randomized to a low n-6 diet, or a low n-6 plus high n-3 diet, for 12 weeks. Foods meeting nutrient intake targets are provided for 2 meals and 2 snacks per day. A research dietitian provides intensive dietary counseling at 2-week intervals. Web-based intervention materials complement dietitian advice. Blood and clinical outcome data are collected every 4 weeks.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Subject recruitment and retention has been excellent; 35 of 40 randomized participants completed the 12-week intervention. Preliminary blinded analysis of composite data from the first 20 participants found significant reductions in erythrocyte n-6 LA, AA and %n-6 in HUFA, and increases in n-3 EPA, DHA and the omega-3 index, indicating adherence.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/(NCT01157208)">(NCT01157208)</a></p

Association between pain phenotype and disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis patients: a non-interventional, longitudinal cohort study

BACKGROUND In well-controlled rheumatoid arthritis (RA) without significant joint damage, a substantial proportion of patients complain of persistent pain. Previous studies have identified different pain phenotypes in RA, in which non-nociceptive pain phenotypes are associated with higher concurrent disease activity scores. In this longitudinal study, we explored associations between pain phenotypes and long-term disease activity outcome in RA patients. Secondly, we explored whether pain phenotype is associated with comorbid conditions. METHODS One hundred eighty established RA patients were classified with a nociceptive (61%) or a non-nociceptive (39%) pain phenotype, based on their responses to the painDETECT-questionnaire. Two years of clinical follow-up data on disease activity outcomes were collected. Information on comorbid diseases was derived from electronic patient files. RESULTS Patients with a non-nociceptive pain phenotype showed higher mean disease activity scores (DAS28, 2.57; 95% CI, 2.37-2.77 vs. 2.11; 95% CI, 1.94-2.27; p textless 0.001) and a twofold lower chance of achieving sustained DAS28 remission (OR = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.26-0.92; p = 0.020). Only the tender joint count and patient global health significantly differed between the pain phenotype groups. Patients with a non-nociceptive pain phenotype had more often been diagnosed with concurrent fibromyalgia (9.9% vs. 0.9%; p = 0.007) and other pain-associated comorbid diseases (52.1% vs. 35.8%; p = 0.030) compared with patients with a nociceptive pain phenotype. CONCLUSION This longitudinal study showed consistently worse long-term disease activity outcomes in RA patients with a non-nociceptive pain phenotype which appeared to be mainly due to differences in the subjective components of the disease activity score. TRIAL REGISTRATION The DREAM cohort study is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register: NTR578

Cost-effectiveness of different treat-to-target strategies in rheumatoid arthritis: results from the DREAM registry

Abstract Background Adjusting medication of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) until predefined disease activity targets are met, i.e. Treat-to-Target (T2T), is the currently recommended treatment approach. However, not much is known about long-term cost-effectiveness of different T2T strategies. We model the 5-year costs and effects of a step-up approach (MTX mono - > MTX + csDMARD combination - > Adalimumab - > second anti-TNF) and an initial combination therapy approach (MTX + csDMARD - > MTX + csDMARD higher dose - > anti-TNFs) from the healthcare and societal perspectives, by adapting a previously validated Markov model. Methods We constructed a Markov model in which 3-monthly transitions between DAS28-defined health states of remission (≤2.6), low (2.6  5.1) were simulated. Modelled patients proceeded to subsequent treatments in case of non-remission at each (3-month) cycle start. In case of remission for two consecutive cycles medication was tapered, until medication-free remission was achieved. Transition probabilities for individual treatment steps were estimated using data of Dutch Rheumatology Monitoring registry Remission Induction Cohort I (step-up) and II (initial combination). Expected costs, utility, and ICER after 5 years were compared between the two strategies. To account for parameter uncertainty, probabilistic sensitivity analysis was employed through Gamma, Normal, and Dirichlet distributions. All utilities, costs, and transition probabilities were replaced by fitted distributions. Results Over a 5-year timespan, initial combination therapy was less costly and more effective than step-up therapy. Initial combination therapy accrued €16,226.3 and 3.552 QALY vs €20,183.3 and 3.517 QALYs for step-up therapy. This resulted in a negative ICER, indicating that initial combination therapy was both less costly and more effective in terms of utility gained. This can be explained by higher (±5%) remission percentages in initial combination strategy at all time points. More patients in remission generates less healthcare and productivity loss costs and higher utility. Additionally, higher remission percentages caused less bDMARD use in the initial combination strategy, lowering overall costs. Conclusion Initial combination therapy was found favourable over step-up therapy in the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis, when considering cost-effectiveness. Initial combination therapy resulted in more utility at a lower cost over 5 years