The impact of four dynamic, goal-steered treatment strategies on the 5-year outcomes of rheumatoid arthritis patients in the BeSt study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical and radiological outcomes of four dynamic treatment strategies in recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after 5 years follow-up. METHODS: 508 patients with recent-onset RA were randomly assigned into four treatment strategies: sequential monotherapy; step-up combination therapy; initial combination with prednisone; initial combination with infliximab. Treatment adjustments were made based on 3-monthly disease activity score (DAS) measurements (if DAS >2.4 next treatment step; if DAS ≤ 2.4 during ≥ 6 months taper to maintenance dose; if DAS <1.6 during ≥ 6 months stop antirheumatic treatment). Primary and secondary outcomes were functional ability, joint damage progression, health-related quality of life and (drug-free) remission percentages. RESULTS: After 5 years, 48% of patients were in clinical remission (DAS <1.6) and 14% in drug-free remission, irrespective of initial treatment. After an earlier improvement in functional ability and quality of life with initial combination therapy, from 1 year onwards clinical outcomes were comparable across the groups and stable during 5 years. The initial combination groups showed less joint damage in year 1. In years 2-5 annual progression was comparable across the groups. After 5 years, initial combination therapy resulted in significantly less joint damage progression, reflecting the earlier clinical response. CONCLUSION: Irrespective of initial treatment, an impressive improvement in clinical and radiological outcomes of RA patients can be achieved with dynamic treatment aimed at reducing disease activity, leading to 48% remission, 14% drug-free remission and sustained functional improvement. Starting with combination therapy resulted in earlier clinical improvement and less joint damage without more toxicity.

A prospective observational study assessing home parenteral nutrition in patients with gastrointestinal cancer: benefits for quality of life.

CONTEXT: Patients with gastrointestinal cancer are at high risk for deterioration of nutrition. Home parenteral nutrition (HPN) could improve nutritional status and quality of life (QoL). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was 1) to evaluate the impact of HPN on QoL, 2) to assess changes in nutritional status, and 3) to assess proxy perception of patient well-being. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational, and a multicenter study. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with gastrointestinal cancer, for whom HPN was indicated and prescribed for at least 14 days. The physician, the patient, and a family member completed questionnaires at inclusion and 28 days later. The QoL was assessed by the patients using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General questionnaire, at inclusion and 28 days later. RESULTS: The study included 370 patients with gastrointestinal cancer. The HPN was indicated for cancer-related undernutrition in 89% of the patients and was used as a complement to oral intake in 84%. After 28 days of parenteral intake, global QoL was significantly increased (48.9 at inclusion vs. 50.3, P=0.007). The patients' weight improved significantly by 2.7% (P<0.001). The nutrition risk screening also decreased significantly (3.2±1.1 vs. 2.8±1.3, P=0.003). CONCLUSION: HPN could provide benefit for malnourished patients with gastrointestinal cancer. However, randomized controlled studies are required to confirm this benefit and the safety profile.

[Home parenteral nutrition in elderly patients with cancer: an observational prospective study]. / Nutrition parentérale à domicile chez la personne âgée atteinte d'un cancer: une étude observationnelle prospective.

Malnutrition is a bad prognostic factor that reduces the quality of life (QoL) in patients with cancer. The objective was to assess the impact of home parenteral nutrition (HPN) on the QoL of elderly malnourished patients with cancer. This French prospective observational study included patients, aged 70 years or older, with cancer, for whom HPN was prescribed for at least 14 days. The patient, the physician and a family member or home caregiver had to fill in a questionnaire at inclusion and 28 days later. Included patients (n = 221) were mainly suffering from a digestive cancer. After HPN intake, improved weight was noticed in 68% and 14% of patients had reached the target weight. Improved global QoL was reported in 59% of patients. Physicians noticed a significant improvement for the same compounds. These results suggest a benefit of the HPN on the nutritional status and QoL in elderly patients with cancer. Further controlled randomised trials are needed to prove the benefit of HPN in the routine management of these patients.

Patient preferences for treatment: report from a randomised comparison of treatment strategies in early rheumatoid arthritis (BeSt trial).

OBJECTIVE: To determine treatment preferences among patients with recent onset rheumatoid arthritis participating in a randomised controlled trial comparing four therapeutic strategies. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all 508 participants of the BeSt trial, treated for an average of 2.2 years with either sequential monotherapy (group 1), step-up combination therapy (group 2), initial combination therapy with tapered high-dose prednisone (group 3), or initial combination therapy with infliximab (group 4). Treatment adjustments were made every 3 months to achieve low disease activity (DAS < or =2.4). The questionnaire explored patients' preferences or dislikes for the initial therapy. RESULTS: In total, 440 patients (87%) completed the questionnaire. Despite virtually equal study outcomes at 2 years, more patients in group 4 reported much or very much improvement of general health: 50%, 56%, 46% and 74% in groups 1-4, respectively (overall, P<0.001). Almost half of the patients expressed no preference or aversion for a particular treatment group, 33% had hoped for assignment to group 4 and 38% had hoped against assignment to group 3. This negative perception was much less prominent in patients actually in group 3. Nevertheless, 50% of patients in group 3 disliked having to take prednisone, while only 8% in group 4 disliked going to the hospital for intravenous treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of our retrospective study, patients clearly preferred initial combination therapy with infliximab and disliked taking prednisone. After actual exposure, this preference remained, but the perception of prednisone improved. Patient perceptions need to be addressed when administering treatment.