Correlation of patient-reported routine assessment of patient index data with clinical measures of disease activity in psoriatic arthritis.

AIM: A treat-to-target strategy is recommended for management of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), although there is lack of agreement regarding the best measure of disease activity to target. Physician assessments included in traditional indices can be complex and time consuming to complete and cannot be readily conducted by telehealth. This study compares the routine assessment of patient index data 3 (RAPID3), an efficient tool comprising patient self-assessment, with traditional clinician-led composite measures in the PsA clinic setting. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively from July 2016 to March 2020 in 2 dedicated PsA clinics in Sydney, Australia. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was created for comparison of RAPID3 score with composite scores minimal disease activity (MDA), very low disease activity (VLDA) and disease activity in psoriatic arthritis (DAPSA) in low disease activity or remission. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients had simultaneous collection of RAPID3 and MDA measures. Mean (SD) age was 49.9 (13.5) years, 50.5% were male and 23 (24.7%) had erosive disease at baseline. RAPID3 scores ≤3.2 and ≤2.7 (range 0-30) had high sensitivity and specificity for VLDA and DAPSA remission respectively, with ROC curve area under the curve (95% CI) of 0.94 (0.91-0.97) and 0.96 (0.93-0.99). CONCLUSION: RAPID3 has good agreement with physician-led composite scores of MDA, VLDA and DAPSA, and provides a viable alternative to composite scores. This is particularly helpful in settings that do not allow for clinical examination, for example telehealth.

Preferences for Biologic Treatment in Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess patient preferences for the characteristics and outcomes of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to manage psoriatic arthritis. METHODS: We conducted a discrete choice experiment in patients with psoriatic arthritis from 3 rheumatology centers in Sydney, Australia. We assessed preferences for different attributes of biologic medications. The route and frequency of medications had a range of 5 levels, and the following 7 attributes had a range of 3 levels: the ability to attend to normal activities, improvements in joint pain, enthesitis and skin disease, chance of disease remission, risk of infection, and risk of severe adverse events. Multinomial logit models including a latent class model were used to calculate preferences. RESULTS: Of the 150 participants, 58.3% were female, with a median age of 53.5 years. The attributes in order of preference using the ß coefficient in absolute values (95% confidence interval [95% CI]) were as follows: oral route compared to subcutaneous and intravenous routes (ß coefficient 1.00 [fixed parameter]), avoiding severe side effects (ß coefficient 0.72 [95% CI 0.50, 0.95]), increasing ability to attend to normal activities (ß coefficient 0.66 [95% CI 0.36, 0.96]), avoiding infections (ß coefficient 0.38 [95% CI 0.23, 0.53]), improvement in enthesitis pain (ß coefficient 0.28 [95% CI 0.20, 0.36]), improvement in psoriasis (ß coefficient 0.28 [95% CI 0.20, 0.36]), increasing chance of remission (ß coefficient 0.27 [95% CI 0.19, 0.36]), and improvement in joint pain (ß coefficient 0.26 [95% CI 0.00, 0.52]). CONCLUSION: When choosing biologic medications, patients with psoriatic arthritis preferred oral medications. Patients prioritized avoiding severe complications, maintaining the ability to attend to work and normal activities, and avoiding infection over clinical measures of efficacy.

Patients' Perspectives on Shared Decision-Making About Medications in Psoriatic Arthritis: An Interview Study.

OBJECTIVE: Decision-making regarding medications to manage psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is complex because of multiple disease manifestations and comorbidities. Fear of side effects from systemic medications and misalignment in priorities between patients with PsA and rheumatologists makes shared decision-making challenging. We aimed to describe the perspectives of patients with PsA on shared decision-making regarding medication taking. METHODS: Face-to-face semistructured interviews were conducted with 25 adult patients with PsA in Australia. Transcripts were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Five themes were identified: lacking agency in decision-making (denied choice, knowledge asymmetry, desperation and necessity, restricted by unfair eligibility criteria, automated approach); overwhelmed by potential harms (daunted by aggressive therapy, anticipating lifestyle disruption from side effects, jeopardizing fertility and pregnancy, avoiding relapse); gaining confidence (discernible benefit in function and mental health, sharpening knowledge over time, expertise of family and peers, empowered by information); opting for alternatives (pursuing normality, suspicion of over-medicalization, seeking comprehensive solutions); and developing trust and fortifying collaboration (assurance through a personable approach, seeking consistency, supported in decisional power, resolution through respectful negotiation). CONCLUSION: Patients with PsA lack agency in making treatment decisions and are overwhelmed by the potential harms of systemic medication. Improving knowledge and trust with medical teams in a supportive and collaborative environment, and strategies for managing risks and side effects may improve decision-making about pharmacologic management of PsA.

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 'fairly difficult' to 'difficult'. The Canadian MIS (66.1±1.0) were classified as 'standard'. 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.

An evaluation of two novel capillaroscopy techniques in suspected scleroderma-spectrum disorders: A single-centre cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: The primary aim was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of digital photographs taken with a smartphone camera using both a lens attachment and, separately, a dermatoscope. The secondary aims were to assess the influence of prior capillaroscopy experience and familiarity with the novel techniques on diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: All patients referred for capillaroscopy between May 2016 and January 2017 were eligible for inclusion. Nailfolds were classified by widefield microscopy before proceeding double-blinded to nailfold photography using both novel techniques. Randomised photographs were assessed by three independent investigators and results were compared to widefield microscopy. Sensitivity, specificity, inter- and intra-observer variability were calculated. RESULTS: Sixty-five participants contributed over 1000 digital photographs for assessment. The 'smartphone-lens' technique performed with moderate sensitivity (65%; 58-72) and high specificity (90%; 84-96). The 'smartphone-dermatoscope' technique performed with higher sensitivity (74%; 66-82) and excellent specificity (95%; 88-100) and was used more accurately by a novice. Prior assessor experience with nailfold capillaroscopy in general and prior experience with the novel techniques positively modulated the diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSION: New technologies, in this case utilising a smartphone camera, could help to improve accessibility to nailfold capillaroscopy, an important diagnostic tool and putative biomarker in scleroderma-spectrum disorders, whilst retaining accurate results.