Measures of Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity in Australian Clinical Practice

Objectives. To investigate which rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity measures are being collected in patients receiving glucocorticoids, non-biologic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in Australian rheumatology practice. Methods. A retrospective audit of medical records was conducted from eight rheumatology practices around Australia. Each rheumatologist recruited 30 consecutive eligible patients into the review, 10 of whom must have been receiving a biological agent for rheumatoid arthritis. Disease activity measures and radiographic assessments were collected from each patient's last consultation. For biologic patients, disease activity measures were also collected from when the patient was first initiated on the biological agent. Results. At last consultation, the disease measures that were recorded most often were ESR (89.2%), haemoglobin (87.5%), and CRP (84.2%). DAS28 was infrequently recorded (16.3%). The rate of recording disease activity measures for patients receiving biologic DMARDs decreased over time (mean 27 months). Conclusion. This review has shown inconsistency of RA activity measures being recorded in Australian rheumatology clinical practice. An accurate assessment of the disease process is necessary to effectively target rheumatoid arthritis patients to treat in order to achieve optimal outcomes

Pilot study assessing the novel use of musculoskeletal ultrasound in patients with rheumatoid arthritis to improve patient attitudes and adherence to medication

Objective: To determine if showing patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) ultrasound (US) images of their inflamed joints: (i) increased belief in the necessity of medication; (ii) encouraged patient activation, that is, confidence and understanding in managing their health; and (iii) facilitated medication adherence. Method: Eighteen patients aged ≥ 18 years old with active RA (DAS28 [Disease Activity Score of 28 joints] > 2.6) requiring increased immunosuppression were included. The following questionnaires were administered at baseline (T1), 3 days post-US (T2) and 10 days post-US (T3): (i) Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) to measure the cost-benefit analysis made by patients regarding the necessity versus concern of medication; (ii) Patient Activation Measure (PAM-13) to assess patient activation; (iii) Compliance Questionnaire-Rheumatology (CQR) to measure medication adherence; and (iv) Routine Assessment of Patient Index-3 (RAPID3) to assess physical function, pain and global status. US of ≥ 1 clinically affected joints was performed on one occasion with an explanation of findings. Results: Patient cost-benefit decisions shifted positively following US, that is, favored belief in the necessity of medication with a mean ± SD cost-benefit ratio (possible range - 20 to + 20) at T1 of 1.17 ± 6.10 which increased to 2.54 ± 5.38 at T2 and 4.06 ± 5.76 at T3, P = 0.043 by analysis of variance (anova). PAM-13, CQR and RAPID3 scores remained stable (all P > 0.05 by anova). Conclusion: Showing patients with RA 'real-time' US images of clinically inflamed joints resulted in a more favorable cost-benefit analysis, that is, increased patient belief in the necessity of medication versus concern about taking medication. There was no change in patient activation, medication adherence or disease severity.7 page(s

Assessing the readability and patient comprehension of rheumatology medicine information sheets: a cross-sectional Health Literacy Study

Objectives: Patients are often provided with medicine information sheets (MIS). However, up to 60% of patients have low health literacy. The recommended readability level for health-related information is ≤grade 8. We sought to assess the readability of MIS given to patients by rheumatologists in Australia, the UK and Canada and to examine Australian patient comprehension of these documents.Design: Cross-sectional study.Setting: Community-based regional rheumatology practice.Participants: Random sample of patients attending the rheumatology practice.Outcome measures: Readability of MIS was assessed using readability formulae (Flesch Reading Ease formula, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook scale, FORCAST (named after the authors FORd, CAylor, STicht) and the Gunning Fog scale). Literal comprehension was assessed by asking patients to read various Australian MIS and immediately answer five simple multiple choice questions about the MIS.results: The mean (±SD) grade level for the MIS from Australia, the UK and Canada was 11.6±0.1, 11.8±0.1 and 9.7±0.1 respectively. The Flesch Reading Ease score for the Australian (50.8±0.6) and UK (48.5±1.5) MIS classified the documents as \u27fairly difficult\u27 to \u27difficult\u27. The Canadian MIS (66.1±1.0) were classified as \u27standard\u27. The five questions assessing comprehension were correctly answered by 9/21 patients for the adalimumab MIS, 7/11 for the methotrexate MIS, 6/28 for the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory MIS, 10/11 for the prednisone MIS and 13/24 for the abatacept MIS.Conclusions: The readability of MIS used by rheumatologists in Australia, the UK and Canada exceeds grade 8 level. This may explain why patient literal comprehension of these documents may be poor. Simpler, shorter MIS with pictures and infographics may improve patient comprehension. This may lead to improved medication adherence and better health outcomes

How well do patients understand written instructions?: health literacy assessment in rural and urban rheumatology outpatients

The aim of this study was to assess health literacy (word recognition and comprehension) in patients at a rural rheumatology practice and to compare this to health literacy levels in patients from an urban rheumatology practice. Inclusion criteria for this cross-sectional study were as follows: ≥18-year-old patients at a rural rheumatology practice (Mid-North Coast Arthritis Clinic, Coffs Harbour, Australia) and an urban Sydney rheumatology practice (Combined Rheumatology Practice, Kogarah, Australia). Exclusion criteria were as follows: ill-health precluding participation; poor vision/hearing, non-English primary language. Word recognition was assessed using the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM). Comprehension was assessed using the Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (TOFHLA). Practical comprehension and numeracy were assessed by asking patients to follow prescribing instructions for 5 common rheumatology medications. At the rural practice (Mid-North Coast Arthritis Clinic), 124/160 patients agreed to participate (F:M 83:41, mean age 60.3 ± 12.2) whereas the corresponding number at the urban practice (Combined Rheumatology Practice) was 99/119 (F:M 69:30, mean age 60.7 ± 17.5). Urban patients were more likely to be born overseas, speak another language at home, and be employed. There was no difference in REALM or TOFHLA scores between the 2 sites, and so data were pooled. REALM scores indicated 15% (33/223) of patients had a reading level ≤Grade 8 whereas 8% (18/223) had marginal or inadequate functional health literacy as assessed by the TOFHLA. Dosing instructions for ibuprofen and methotrexate were incorrectly understood by 32% (72/223) and 21% (46/223) of patients, respectively. Up to 15% of rural and urban patients had low health literacy and \u3c1/3 of patients incorrectly followed dosing instructions for common rheumatology drugs. There was no significant difference in word recognition, functional health literacy, and numeracy between rural and urban rheumatology patients

A Practical Approach to the Use of Conventional Synthetic, Biologic and Targeted Synthetic Disease Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs for the Treatment of Inflammatory Arthritis in Patients with a History of Malignancy

Purpose of Review: Conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) have been used in the treatment of inflammatory arthritis (IA) for many years. More recently, biologic (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic (tsDMARDs) DMARDs have further improved treatment. Due to increased patient longevity and effective oncology treatment, rheumatologists often encounter patients with IA and previous malignancy. The immunosuppressive effect of DMARDs causes concern regarding impaired tumour surveillance with a potential increased risk of malignancy. We reviewed the literature regarding the risk of malignancy in patients on cs-/b-/tsDMARDS and sought to provide practical advice regarding use of these drugs in patients with previous malignancy. Recent Findings: Data from randomised controlled trials is limited as patients with pre-existing malignancy are often excluded. Reassuringly, an increasing range of real world data from various national b/tsDMARD registries has not provided a convincing signal that these drugs increase tumour recurrence. Nevertheless, awareness of, and adherence to, national screening guidelines for malignancy is important. Summary: Given the improvement in quality of life achieved with these novel and well-tolerated therapeutic agents, the benefit/risk profile remains overwhelmingly favourable in most patients

A practical approach to the use of conventional synthetic, biologic and targeted synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for the treatment of inflammatory arthritis in patients with a history of malignancy

Conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) have been used in the treatment of inflammatory arthritis (IA) for many years. More recently, biologic (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic (tsDMARDs) DMARDs have further improved treatment. Due to increased patient longevity and effective oncology treatment, rheumatologists often encounter patients with IA and previous malignancy. The immunosuppressive effect of DMARDs causes concern regarding impaired tumour surveillance with a potential increased risk of malignancy. We reviewed the literature regarding the risk of malignancy in patients on cs-/b-/tsDMARDS and sought to provide practical advice regarding use of these drugs in patients with previous malignancy.Data from randomised controlled trials is limited as patients with pre-existing malignancy are often excluded. Reassuringly, an increasing range of "real world" data from various national b/tsDMARD registries has not provided a convincing signal that these drugs increase tumour recurrence. Nevertheless, awareness of, and adherence to, national screening guidelines for malignancy is important. Given the improvement in quality of life achieved with these novel and well-tolerated therapeutic agents, the benefit/risk profile remains overwhelmingly favourable in most patients