Coalition for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE)-a protocol for a global cross-sectional survey of health and gender equity in rheumatology.

Objectives: The primary aim of the CHANGE survey is to determine the current state of gender equity within rheumatology, and secondarily, to review the physician perspective on bullying, harassment and equipoise of opportunities within rheumatology. Methods: The CHANGE e-survey is a cross-sectional self-reported questionnaire adapted from EULAR's gender equity in academic rheumatology task force. The survey was launched in January 2023; it is available in six languages and distributed widely via rheumatology organizations and social media. Eligible participants include rheumatologist physicians and rheumatology health-care professionals. Survey responses will undergo descriptive analysis and inter-group comparison aiming to explore gender-based discrimination using logistic regression, with subgroup analyses for country/continent variations. Conclusion: This e-survey represents a comprehensive global initiative led by an international consortium, aimed at exploring and investigating the gender-related disparities and obstacles encountered by rheumatologists and rheumatology health-care professionals across diverse communities and health-care environments. By pursuing this initiative, we aim to take the broader rheumatology community a step closer to understanding the underlying origins of inequities and their determinants. Such insights are pivotal in identifying viable interventions and strategies to foster gender equity within the field. Ultimately, our collective objective is to ensure equitable access to opportunities for every individual, irrespective of gender, thereby promoting inclusivity and fairness across the entire spectrum of professional practice and career development.

Embracing unity at OMERACT: Valuing equity, promoting diversity, fostering inclusivity.

OBJECTIVE: To increase awareness and understanding of the principles of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusivity (EDI) within Outcome Measures in Rheumatology's (OMERACT) members. For this, we aimed to obtain ideas on how to promote and foster these principles within the organization and determine the diversity of the current membership in order to focus future efforts. METHODS: We held a plenary workshop session at OMERACT 2023 with roundtable discussions on barriers and solutions to increased diversity within OMERACT. We conducted an anonymous, web-based survey of members to record characteristics including population group, gender identity, education level, age, and ability. RESULTS: The workshop generated ideas to increase diversity of participants across the themes of building relationships [12 topics], materials and methods [5 topics], and conference-specific [6 topics]. Four hundred and seven people responded to the survey (25 % response rate). The majority of respondents were White (75 %), female (61 %), university-educated (94 %), Christian (42 %), spoke English at home (60 %), aged 35 to 55 years (50 %), and did not report a disability (64 %). CONCLUSION: OMERACT is committed to improving its diversity. Next steps include strategic recruitment of members to the EDI working group, drafting an EDI mission statement centering equity and inclusivity in the organization, and developing guidance for the OMERACT Handbook to help all working groups create actionable plans for promoting EDI principles.

Patient-reported outcomes of upadacitinib versus abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 12- and 24-week results of a phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In previous clinical trials, patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with upadacitinib (UPA) have improved patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This post hoc analysis of SELECT-CHOICE, a phase 3 clinical trial, evaluated the impact of UPA vs abatacept (ABA) with background conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) on PROs in patients with RA with inadequate response or intolerance to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD-IR). METHODS: Patients in SELECT-CHOICE received UPA (oral 15 mg/day) or ABA (intravenous). PROs evaluated included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA) by visual analog scale (VAS), patient's assessment of pain by VAS, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), morning stiffness duration and severity, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI), and EQ-5D 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) index score. Least squares mean (LSM) changes from baseline to weeks 12 and 24 were based on an analysis of covariance model. Proportions of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimal clinically important differences (MCID) were compared using chi-square tests. RESULTS: Data from 612 patients were analyzed (UPA, n=303; ABA, n=309). Mean age was 56 years and mean disease duration was 12 years. One-third received ≥2 prior bDMARDs and 72% received concomitant methotrexate at baseline. At week 12, UPA- vs ABA-treated patients had significantly greater improvements in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, morning stiffness severity, EQ-5D-5L, 2/4 WPAI domains, and 3/8 SF-36 domains and Physical Component Summary (PCS) scores (P<0.05); significant differences persisted at week 24 for HAQ-DI, morning stiffness severity, SF-36 PCS and bodily pain domain, and WPAI activity impairment domain. At week 12, significantly more UPA- vs ABA-treated patients reported improvements ≥MCID in HAQ-DI (74% vs 64%) and SF-36 PCS (79% vs 66%) and 4/8 domain scores (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: At week 12, UPA vs ABA treatment elicited greater improvements in key domains of physical functioning, pain, and general health and earlier improvements in HAQ-DI. Overall, more UPA- vs ABA-treated patients achieved ≥MCID in most PROs at all timepoints; however, not all differences were statistically significant. These data, however, highlight the faster response to UPA treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03086343 , March 22, 2017.

Understanding differences between men and women with axial spondyloarthritis.

Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is a chronic inflammatory immune-mediated disease resulting in inflammatory low back pain and other inflammatory manifestations in peripheral joints and entheses. AxSpA encompasses both ankylosing spondylitis (AS), in which patients present with definitive sacroiliitis visible on radiographic imaging, as well as nonradiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA), in which such changes may not be discernable. Emerging evidence suggests that women and men experience axSpA differently. Although the prevalence of AS is approximately 2- to 3- fold higher in men than in women, nr-axSpA occurs with roughly equal frequency in women and men. The goal of this review is to increase awareness of sex differences in axSpA by exploring the distinct manifestations of disease and disease characteristics in women, the overall clinical burden, recommendations for diagnosis, and potential treatment options. We summarize and contextualize the results of recent studies that illuminate sex differences in nr-axSpA and AS, including differences in disease manifestation and progression. It is important that sex differences in axSpA are understood and considered when diagnosing and treating the spectrum of axSpA, including AS and nr-axSpA.

The potential impact of monitoring disease activity biomarkers on rheumatoid arthritis outcomes and costs.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management requires monitoring of disease activity to determine course of treatment. Global assessments are used in clinical practice to determine RA disease activity. Monitoring disease activity via biomarkers may also help providers optimize biologic and nonbiologic drug use while decreasing overall drug spend by delaying use of expensive biologic therapies. By testing multiple biologic domains at the same time, a multibiomarker disease activity test may have utility in RA patient management, through improved intra- and inter-rater reliability. This report provides a comprehensive review of studies of objective measures, single biomarkers and multibiomarker disease activity tests as disease activity measures to decrease uncertainty in treatment decisions, and of biomarkers' potential impact on economic and clinical outcomes of treatment choices.

Patient Expectations and Perceptions of Goal-setting Strategies for Disease Management in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify how patients perceive the broad effect of active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on their daily lives and indicate how RA disease management could benefit from the inclusion of individual goal-setting strategies. METHODS: Two multinational surveys were completed by patients with RA. The "Good Days Fast" survey was conducted to explore the effect of disease on the daily lives and relationships of women with RA. The "Getting to Your Destination Faster" survey examined RA patients' treatment expectations and goal-setting practices. RESULTS: Respondents from all countries agreed that RA had a substantial negative effect on many aspects of their lives (work productivity, daily routines, participation in social and leisure activities) and emotional well-being (loss of self-confidence, feelings of detachment, isolation). Daily pain was a paramount issue, and being pain- and fatigue-free was considered the main indicator of a "good day." Setting personal, social, and treatment goals, as well as monitoring disease progress to achieve these, was considered very beneficial by patients with RA, but discussion of treatment goals seldom appeared to be a part of medical appointments. CONCLUSION: Many patients with RA feel unable to communicate their disease burden and treatment goals, which are critically important to them, to their healthcare provider (HCP). Insights gained from these 2 surveys should help to guide patients and HCP to better focus upon mutually defined goals for continued improvement of management and achievement of optimal care in RA.