Levels of satisfaction with rheumatoid arthritis treatment and associated alignment between physicians and patients across Latin America.

INTRODUCTION: Discordance (misalignment) regarding treatment satisfaction may exist in real-life clinical practice between patients and their physicians. We aimed to assess physician and patient treatment satisfaction levels and associated degree of misalignment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHOD: A point-in-time, multinational survey of patients and physicians was conducted in Latin America from December 2014 to October 2015. Physician- and patient-reported satisfaction levels with current RA treatment, alignment levels in satisfaction perception, and factors associated with satisfaction misalignment were assessed through bivariate and logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Participating physicians (N = 114) completed 555 patient record forms (PRFs); 372 patients completed self-complete questionnaires (PSC). A total of 346 physician-patient pairs were analyzed. Physicians reported satisfaction with current disease control in 270/346 (78.0%) PRFs; patients reported such satisfaction in 286/346 (82.7%) PSCs. Physician-patient alignment was observed in 78.6% of pairs. Compared with aligned patients, misaligned patients were younger, more likely to have moderate or severe disease (physician subjectively defined), deteriorating or unstable disease (physician subjectively defined), been exposed to a greater number of advanced therapy lines (biologic or Janus kinase inhibitor), greater current pain, a current acute episode, poorer health, and greater disability and impairment. Misaligned patients were less likely to be in remission. Logistic regression analysis revealed that misaligned patients were more likely to experience greater activity impairment. CONCLUSIONS: High treatment satisfaction and alignment were observed among RA patients and their physicians in Latin America. Misaligned patients were more likely to report more severe disease and were less likely to be in remission. Addressing misalignment may lead to improved RA disease control.Key Points• High treatment satisfaction was observed among RA patients and their treating physicians in Latin America.• One-fifth of physician-patient pairs were misaligned in treatment satisfaction.• Patients misaligned with their physicians reported higher disease activity, lower quality of life, and greater disability than those who were aligned with their physicians.• Understanding and addressing misalignment in treatment satisfaction may improve outcomes in this patient population.

Physician-patient alignment in satisfaction with psoriatic arthritis treatment in Latin America.

INTRODUCTION: Physician-patient misalignment may exist in real-life clinical practice. We aimed to assess physician and patient treatment satisfaction levels and associated degree of misalignment in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHOD: Data from a cross-sectional survey of patients and their physicians conducted in Latin America were analyzed. Physician-reported and patient-reported satisfaction levels with current PsA treatment, alignment in satisfaction levels, and factors associated with satisfaction misalignment were assessed through bivariable and multivariable regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 179 physician-patient pairs were analyzed. Physicians reported satisfaction with current disease control in 87.7% (n = 157) of cases; patients reported satisfaction in 91.1% (n = 163 of cases). A total of 82.1% of physician-patient pairs were aligned. Compared with aligned patients, misaligned patients were older and more likely to have moderate or severe disease, deteriorating or unstable disease, a past hospital procedure, current or past psoriasis symptoms, greater current pain, a current acute episode, poorer health and quality of life, greater impairment, poorer medication compliance, to consider PsA a major daily burden, and to believe that PsA treatments were ineffective. Misaligned patients were less likely to be in remission. Logistic regression analysis revealed that misaligned patients were older, and more likely to consider PsA a major daily burden and PsA treatments as ineffective. CONCLUSIONS: High levels of treatment satisfaction and alignment were observed among PsA patients and their physicians in Latin America. Patients in this study nevertheless experienced a considerable clinical and quality-of-life burden, especially the misaligned patients. Addressing misalignment may lead to improved PsA disease control.Key points• High treatment satisfaction was observed among PsA patients and their treating physicians in Latin America.• Patients experienced a considerable clinical and quality-of-life burden, especially the misaligned patients.• One-fifth of physician-patient pairs were misaligned regarding satisfaction.• Understanding and addressing misalignment may improve outcomes in this patient population.

Skin Involvement in Psoriatic Arthritis Worsens Overall Disease Activity, Patient-Reported Outcomes, and Increases Healthcare Resource Utilization: An Observational, Cross-Sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is an inflammatory arthropathy that exhibits heterogeneity in clinical presentation and severity of skin and joint symptoms. This heterogeneity results in an incomplete understanding of the relationship between the skin and joint components of PsA, and their relative impact on PsA disease activity and patient-reported outcomes. The objective of the study was to Investigate the clinical presentation of joint and active skin symptom involvement and the associated impact on physician- and patient-reported outcomes [patient global assessment (PtGA), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and physical function), and healthcare resource burden in patients with PsA. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of the Adelphi 2015 PsA Disease Specific Programme, a real-world, cross-sectional survey of rheumatologists and their consulting PsA patients from the USA and Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and UK). The sample included data collected during the fourth quarter of 2015, on 1201 patients from 410 rheumatologists. Physician-reported joint and active skin symptom involvement were investigated for associations with clinical outcomes, patient/physician-reported outcomes, and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU). RESULTS: The majority of patients with PsA with documented skin involvement had both joint and active skin involvement (80.9%, njoint+skin = 515, njoint only = 122, noverall = 637). Patients with skin involvement possessed a more severe global clinical profile, and the PsA clinical symptom severity profile positively correlated with skin severity. Physician global assessment scores were not significantly different in patients with joint-only involvement vs. joint with active skin involvement. Patients with skin involvement in PsA possessed significantly worse PtGA scores and increased HCRU. CONCLUSION: Patients with PsA involving both joint and active skin symptoms exhibit a more severe overall disease state, worse patient-reported outcomes, and increased HCRU relative to patients with joint-only involvement in PsA. These results indicate that treating skin involvement should be considered along with treating joint involvement in patients with PsA. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Patient- and Physician-reported Satisfaction With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Treatment in US Clinical Practice.

PURPOSE: This two-part study comprised two descriptive, cross-sectional surveys to evaluate treatment satisfaction among patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and their physicians from US clinical practices. The Lupus Plus Project (LPP; part one) involved belimumab-containing regimens; the Disease Specific Program (DSP; part two) included all treatments and was designed to build on the body of evidence from part one. METHODS: The LPP recruited patients receiving belimumab, and comprised 2 paper questionnaires: a patient self-completion questionnaire (PSC) and a patient record form (PRF) completed by the physician. The DSP enrolled patients with SLE receiving any treatment and comprised four parts: a PSC, a PRF completed by the physician after patient consultation, face-to-face physician interviews, and a workload form completed by the physicians to indicate their total SLE patient workload. The key objective of this study was to assess physician and patient satisfaction with current treatment. FINDINGS: From the PSCs, data regarding patient-reported satisfaction with current treatment were available for 263 patients who were receiving belimumab combination therapy (LPP) and 250 patients who were receiving non-belimumab treatment (DSP). The majority of patients (belimumab, 86.3% [227/263]; non-belimumab, 78.4% [196/250]) responded positively (at least "somewhat satisfied") when asked about current treatment satisfaction, as did physicians (belimumab, 82.9% [311/375]; non-belimumab, 74.3% [326/439]). In multivariate analysis, factors most strongly associated with patient-reported satisfaction for patients receiving belimumab were patient-reported improvements in leisure activities since taking belimumab (odds ratio [OR] = 4.66), physician-reported improvements in fatigue (OR = 3.72), patient-reported improvements in general symptoms (OR = 3.02), and pain/achiness (OR = 2.71). Physician satisfaction was associated with clinical outcome such as improvements in pain/achiness (OR = 6.16), fatigue (OR = 3.76), and patient-reported satisfaction with treatment frequency (OR = 3.91). In patients receiving other SLE treatments, dosing frequency of current treatment (OR = 3.64) and a reduction in fatigue severity (OR = 3.61) were most strongly associated with patient-reported satisfaction; physician satisfaction was most strongly associated with a reduction in fatigue (OR = 6.22) and current remission status (OR = 6.05). IMPLICATIONS: When considering SLE treatment satisfaction patients tend to consider impact on daily functioning, whereas physicians take into account a wider range of clinical outcomes; however, both strongly consider improvements in fatigue. These surveys provide insights into treatment satisfaction among prescribers and patients with SLE. GSK-ClinicalStudyRegister.com identifiers: GSK study 202146 [HO 15-15509] and 205086 [HO 15-16709].

Satisfaction with control of systemic lupus erythematosus and lupus nephritis: physician and patient perspectives.

PURPOSE: Patient satisfaction with disease control of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an important component of medical management. This analysis evaluated patient and physician satisfaction with disease control of SLE, factors associated with satisfaction/dissatisfaction, and the degree of physician-patient concordance of these parameters. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were extracted from the US Adelphi Real World Lupus Disease Specific Programme®, a cross-sectional survey of 50 rheumatologists, 25 nephrologists, and their patients with non-nephritis SLE (NNSLE) or lupus nephritis (LN). RESULTS: Physicians reported moderate or severe disease activity in 25.0% of patients with NNSLE and in 50.5% of patients with LN, and were satisfied with disease control in 78.6% (132/168) and 73.8% (152/206) of patients, respectively. For patients, 75.8% (75/99) with NNSLE were satisfied with their current treatment, compared with 65.5% (74/113) with LN. Physician-patient agreement (70.7%) on the level of satisfaction was "slight" (kappa =0.1445) for NNSLE; patients were more frequently dissatisfied than physicians with regard to joint tenderness, fatigue, anxiety, pain on movement, malar rash, and photosensitivity. Physician-patient agreement (71.4%) on the level of satisfaction was "fair" (kappa =0.3695) for LN; patients expressed greater dissatisfaction than physicians for headache, photosensitivity, and anxiety, whereas physicians were more dissatisfied with regard to joint swelling, kidney function, and blood pressure control. In general, patients with NNSLE or LN who were dissatisfied (or whose physicians were dissatisfied) were more likely to have joint swelling, joint stiffness, malar rash, hair loss, depression, and fatigue, have moderate or severe disease, or to be currently experiencing disease flare. CONCLUSION: These data highlight the patient and physician dissatisfaction with real-world disease control of SLE.

Relationship between self-reported low-back pain severity and other patient-reported outcomes: results from an observational study.

STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional observational study of physicians and patients with chronic low-back pain (CLBP) in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of patient-reported CLBP severity with other patient-reported outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Appropriate management of patients with CLBP can be enhanced by understanding how patients perceive the severity of their CLBP. METHODS: Data were from the 2009 Adelphi Disease Specific Programme. Patients reported the severity of their CLBP condition by answering the question Please rate how your chronic lower back pain condition is today with responses of mild, moderate, and severe. Patient-reported severity was evaluated with respect to scores on standard patient self-report measures of pain, pain interference, health status, functional disability, work productivity, and questions addressing satisfaction with medications for treating CLBP. RESULTS: Of 1860 subjects in the CLBP database, 1363 (73.3%) agreed to complete the survey. This sample was similarly distributed between males (49%) and females (51%), with mean age 54.8 years: 52% were employed at least part-time. CLBP severity was rated as mild, moderate and severe by 28.6%, 53.3%, and 18.2% of patients, respectively. With increasing CLBP severity, significant differences were observed in increased pain (P<0.0001), pain interference with function (P<0.0001), and impairment while working due to CLBP (P<0.01), mainly due to presenteeism. Increased work impairment resulted in higher costs related to lost work productivity; annual lost productivity costs were estimated at $7080, $16,616, and $25,032 per patient for mild, moderate, and severe CLBP, respectively (P<0.0001 for pairwise comparisons). Patient satisfaction with pain-related medication was inversely associated with CLBP severity. CONCLUSIONS: The association between patient-reported CLBP severity and other patient-reported outcomes demonstrates that in the clinical setting, patient-reported CLBP severity provides an accurate and suitable indicator of patient-reported health status. This indicator may be useful for guiding management strategies for CLBP patients.

Relationship between patient-reported chronic low back pain severity and medication resources.

BACKGROUND: Characterization of chronic low back pain (CLBP) severity from a patient's perspective can provide a context within which management strategies may be determined and therapeutic outcomes evaluated. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to evaluate the association between patient-rated CLBP severity and medication resources. METHODS: Data were drawn from the Adelphi CLPB Disease Specific Programmme, a cross-sectional study of patients undertaken between September and November 2009. Patients reported the severity of their CLBP by answering the statement "Please rate how your chronic lower back pain condition is today" with responses of "mild," "moderate," or "severe." Severity was evaluated relative to physician-reported use of medications for the relief of CLBP and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief and medications. RESULTS: Data from 170 physicians and 1363 patients (mean age 55 years; 52.3% female) were analyzed. CLBP severity was rated as mild, moderate, and severe by 28.3%, 52.8%, and 18.0% of patients, respectively. Physician-reported analgesia requirements increased with CLBP severity (P < 0.05). Opioids, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, and muscle relaxants were the most commonly prescribed medications for CLBP. Opioid prescriptions increased with increasing severity (P < 0.05), and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug prescriptions declined. Purchase of over-the-counter medications was similar across severity categories (23%-26% of patients), but the monthly amount spent on over-the-counter drugs was more than twice as high in patients with severe CLBP ($29.90) than in other severity categories. Patient and physician satisfaction with pain-related medication was inversely associated with CLBP severity; inadequate response was the primary reason for physician dissatisfaction. Factors limiting generalizability include potential differences between participants and those who refused to participate; potential misdiagnosis of CLBP in a proportion of patients; and an inability for cause-and-effect imputation due to the cross-sectional nature of the study. CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between patient-reported CLBP severity and medication prescribing patterns suggests that this rapid assessment may be of value for informing decisions regarding treatment options. The data also suggest that despite greater use of medications at greater CLBP severity, current options remain less than optimal in providing analgesic efficacy.

Psoriasis treatment patterns: results of a cross-sectional survey of dermatologists.

OBJECTIVE: The study evaluated community physician prescribing patterns for patients with psoriasis. METHODS: US dermatologists actively practicing general dermatology and treating 10 or more patients with psoriasis/mo were interviewed (n = 90) in April and June 2006 and they recruited 8 to 10 consecutive patients for record review (n = 895, mean age = 46 years, 51% men). Proportion of patients treated with systemic, biologic, or topical therapy as reported by the dermatologist and recorded in the records was assessed by psoriasis severity. RESULTS: Among patients with severe psoriasis (body surface area affected > 10%), 56% to 63% received systemic therapy (including biologics) or phototherapy and 37% to 44% received topical therapy only. Dermatologists reported prescribing biologics to 41% of patients with severe disease compared with patient records where 27% to 34% of body surface area = 11% to 40% and 36% of body surface area greater than 40% patients received biologics. LIMITATIONS: Because of the small sample, eligibility criteria, and voluntary interview, selection bias may have occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Some dermatologists are prescribing systemic therapy for the majority of their patients with severe psoriasis but a gap in treatment remains for about 40% who received topical therapy alone.