Reducing arthritis fatigue impact: two-year randomised controlled trial of cognitive behavioural approaches by rheumatology teams (RAFT).

OBJECTIVES: To see if a group course delivered by rheumatology teams using cognitive-behavioural approaches, plus usual care, reduced RA fatigue impact more than usual care alone. METHODS: Multicentre, 2-year randomised controlled trial in RA adults (fatigue severity>6/10, no recent major medication changes). RAFT (Reducing Arthritis Fatigue: clinical Teams using CB approaches) comprises seven sessions, codelivered by pairs of trained rheumatology occupational therapists/nurses. Usual care was Arthritis Research UK fatigue booklet. Primary 26-week outcome fatigue impact (Bristol RA Fatigue Effect Numerical Rating Scale, BRAF-NRS 0-10). Intention-to-treat regression analysis adjusted for baseline scores and centre. RESULTS: 308/333 randomised patients completed 26 week data (156/175 RAFT, 152/158 Control). Mean baseline variables were similar. At 26 weeks, the adjusted difference between arms for fatigue impact change favoured RAFT (BRAF-NRS Effect -0.59, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.06), BRAF Multidimensional Questionnaire (MDQ) Total -3.42 (95% CI -6.44 to -0.39), Living with Fatigue -1.19 (95% CI -2.17 to -0.21), Emotional Fatigue -0.91 (95% CI -1.58 to -0.23); RA Self-Efficacy (RASE, +3.05, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.66) (14 secondary outcomes unchanged). Effects persisted at 2 years: BRAF-NRS Effect -0.49 (95% CI -0.83 to -0.14), BRAF MDQ Total -2.98 (95% CI -5.39 to -0.57), Living with Fatigue -0.93 (95% CI -1.75 to -0.10), Emotional Fatigue -0.90 (95% CI -1.44, to -0.37); BRAF-NRS Coping +0.42 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.77) (relevance of fatigue impact improvement uncertain). RAFT satisfaction: 89% scored > 8/10 vs 54% controls rating usual care booklet (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Multiple RA fatigue impacts can be improved for 2 years by rheumatology teams delivering a group programme using cognitive behavioural approaches. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN52709998.

Phrasing of the patient global assessment in the rheumatoid arthritis ACR/EULAR remission criteria: an analysis of 967 patients from two databases of early and established rheumatoid arthritis patients.

The ACR/EULAR Boolean remission criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) include a strict cutoff for patient global assessment (PGA, value ≤ 1/10). Near-remission corresponds to remission for joint counts and C-reactive protein but with PGA > 1. The objective was to explore whether the contribution of PGA to remission and near-remission varied according to the wording of the PGA and in relation to disease duration. In patients with early arthritis (N = 731, French ESPOIR cohort) or established RA (N = 236 patients from across Europe), frequency of remission versus near-remission was assessed according to the phrasing used for PGA (global health versus disease activity). In 967 patients (mean [standard deviation] age 49.7 [12.7] years, 76.7% women), remission was infrequent: range 12.9-16.7% (according to wording of PGA) in early RA and 6.8-7.2% in established RA. Near-remission was more frequent: 13.0-16.8% in early RA and 13.1-13.6% in established RA. The ratio of remission to near-remission was higher in the early arthritis cohort (0.8-1.3 versus 0.5-0.5 in established RA). Using the disease activity PGA led to more remission and less near-remission than the global health PGA in the early arthritis cohort (12.9 vs 16.7% near-remission, respectively, p = 0.047) but not in established RA. The proportion of patients who can be classified as remission or near-remission differs in early RA compared to establish RA and depends upon the formulation of the PGA question. PGA referring to disease activity and not global health may be preferred in early disease, if the objective is more alignment with inflammation assessment.

Outcome Measures in Polymyalgia Rheumatica. A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the instruments used to assess polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) in published studies. METHODS: A systematic literature review of clinical trials and longitudinal observational studies related to PMR, published from 1970 to 2014, was carried out. All outcome and assessment instruments were extracted and categorized according to core areas and domains, as defined by the OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) Filter 2.0. RESULTS: Thirty-five articles (3221 patients) were included: 12 randomized controlled trials (RCT); 3 nonrandomized trials; and 20 observational studies. More than 20 domains were identified, measured by 29 different instruments. The most frequently used measures were pain, morning stiffness, patient global assessment and physician global assessment, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein. The definition of outcomes varied considerably between studies. CONCLUSION: The outcome measures and instruments used in PMR are numerous and diversely defined. The establishment of a core set of validated and standardized outcome measurements is needed.