Cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioural and personalized exercise interventions for reducing fatigue in inflammatory rheumatic diseases.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of a cognitive behavioural approach (CBA) or a personalized exercise programme (PEP), alongside usual care (UC), in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases who report chronic, moderate to severe fatigue. METHODS: A within-trial cost-utility analysis was conducted using individual patient data collected within a multicentre, three-arm randomized controlled trial over a 56-week period. The primary economic analysis was conducted from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Uncertainty was explored using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Complete-case analysis showed that, compared with UC, both PEP and CBA were more expensive [adjusted mean cost difference: PEP £569 (95% CI: £464, £665); CBA £845 (95% CI: £717, £993)] and, in the case of PEP, significantly more effective [adjusted mean quality-adjusted life year (QALY) difference: PEP 0.043 (95% CI: 0.019, 0.068); CBA 0.001 (95% CI: -0.022, 0.022)]. These led to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £13 159 for PEP vs UC, and £793 777 for CBA vs UC. Non-parametric bootstrapping showed that, at a threshold value of £20 000 per QALY gained, PEP had a probability of 88% of being cost-effective. In multiple imputation analysis, PEP was associated with significant incremental costs of £428 (95% CI: £324, £511) and a non-significant QALY gain of 0.016 (95% CI: -0.003, 0.035), leading to an ICER of £26 822 vs UC. The estimates from sensitivity analyses were consistent with these results. CONCLUSION: The addition of a PEP alongside UC is likely to provide a cost-effective use of health care resources.

Informal caregiver training for people with chronic pain in musculoskeletal services (JOINT SUPPORT): protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic musculoskeletal (bone, joint or muscle) pain is disabling. People with it frequently have difficulties in managing everyday activities. Individuals may rely on family members or friends to support them. These people are known as informal caregivers. No interventions have previously addressed the health needs of people with chronic musculoskeletal pain and their caregivers. In response, the JOINT SUPPORT programme was developed. In this study, we will assess the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the JOINT SUPPORT programme to support these individuals. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This will be a mixed-methods feasibility RCT. We will recruit 80 patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain with their informal caregivers. Patients will be randomised to usual National Health Service (NHS) care OR usual NHS care plus a caregiver-patient dyad training programme (JOINT SUPPORT). This programme comprises of five, 1-hour, group-based sessions for patients and caregivers, delivered by trained physiotherapists or occupational therapists. It includes developing skills in: understanding pain, pacing, graded activity, fear avoidance and goal-setting, understanding benefits of physical activity and skills in medication management. This will be re-enforced with a workbook. After the group-based sessions, patients and caregivers will be supported through three telephone sessions with a therapist. Data collected at baseline and 3 months will include: screening logs, intervention logs, fidelity checklists and clinical outcomes on quality of life, physical and emotional outcomes, adverse events and resource use. Qualitative research with 24 patient-caregiver dyads and 12 healthcare professionals will explore the acceptability of trial processes. Stop-go criteria will inform the progression to a full trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained on 22 February 2022 (National Research Ethics Committee Number: 22/NW/0015). Results will be reported at conferences, peer-review publications and across social media channels. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN78169443.

Health professionals' perspectives on psychological distress and meeting patients' support needs in rheumatology care settings: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRDs) face challenges including pain, fatigue and disease flares. Evidence suggests their levels of anxiety and depression are higher compared to the general population. Rheumatology teams report psychologically distressed patients have additional support needs and require more clinical time. Little is currently known about models of support and their integration into care pathways. AIM: To understand rheumatology health professionals' perspectives on patients' psychological distress and ways to meet support needs. METHODS: The study used a qualitative design, with data collected in telephone semi-structured interviews. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Fifteen interviews were conducted. Two main themes with sub-themes represent the data: Theme 1: 'No one shoe fits all'-the many manifestations of distress in patients (sub-themes: recognising distress, dealing with distress, dealing with life events alongside an IRD) and Theme 2: 'If rheumatology could be interwoven with psychological principles'-the need to attend to the psychological impact of IRDs, alongside the physical impact (sub-themes: priority given to physical health, working together to help patients in distress, how should patient distress be measured?, the need for extra time and resources). CONCLUSION: Distress can be obvious or hidden, cause issues for patients and health professionals and lead to poor engagement with care provision. Health professionals described the powerful link between physical and mental distress. This study suggests psychological support provision should be embedded within the rheumatology team and that patients' emotional wellbeing should be given equal priority to their physical wellbeing.

Patient perceptions of health-related quality of life in giant cell arteritis: international development of a disease-specific patient-reported outcome measure.

OBJECTIVES: GCA is a large vessel vasculitis (LVV) presenting with headache, jaw claudication, musculoskeletal and visual involvement. Current treatment is glucocorticoids and anti-IL-6 tocilizumab in refractory disease. The objective of this study was to explore the impact of GCA and its treatment on people's health-related quality of life (HRQoL), to inform the development of a disease-specific patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for use in clinical trials and practice. METHODS: Participants from the UK and Australia, with biopsy- or imaging-confirmed GCA, were interviewed to identify salient aspects of HRQoL in relation to GCA and its treatment. Purposive sampling included a range of demographic and disease features (cranial, LVV-GCA and visual involvement). Inductive analysis identified individual themes of importance, then domains. Candidate questionnaire items were developed from the individual themes, refined by piloting, cognitive interviews and a linguistic translatability assessment. RESULTS: Thirty-six interviews were conducted to saturation with participants with GCA from the UK (25) and Australia (11). Mean age was 74 years, 23 (63.9%) were female, 13 (36.1%) had visual loss and 5 (13.9%) had LVV-GCA. Thirty-nine individual themes within five domains were identified: physical symptoms; activity of daily living and function; participation; psychological impact; and impact on sense of self and perception of health. Sixty-nine candidate items were developed from individual themes; piloting and refinement resulted in a 40-item draft questionnaire. CONCLUSION: This international qualitative study underpins the development of candidate items for a disease-specific PROM for GCA. The draft questionnaire is now ready for psychometric testing.

2020 EULAR points to consider for the prevention, screening, assessment and management of non-adherence to treatment in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases for use in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Non-adherence to treatment could preclude reaching an optimal outcome. Thirty to 80% of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) do not adhere to the agreed treatment. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to establish points to consider (PtCs) for the prevention, screening, assessment and management of non-adherence to (non-)pharmacological treatments in people with RMDs. METHODS: An EULAR task force (TF) was established, and the EULAR standardised operating procedures for the development of PtCs were followed. The TF included healthcare providers (HCPs), comprising rheumatologists, nurses, pharmacists, psychologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and patient-representatives from 12 European countries. A review of systematic reviews was conducted in advance to support the TF in formulating the PtCs. The level of agreement among the TF was established by anonymous online voting. RESULTS: Four overarching principles and nine PtCs were formulated. The PtCs reflect the phases of action on non-adherence. HCPs should assess and discuss adherence with patients on a regular basis and support patients to treatment adherence. As adherence is an agreed behaviour, the treatment has to be tailored to the patients' needs. The level of agreement ranged from 9.5 to 9.9 out of 10. CONCLUSIONS: These PtCs can help HCPs to support people with RMDs to be more adherent to the agreed treatment plan. The basic scheme being prevent non-adherence by bonding with the patient and building trust, overcoming structural barriers, assessing in a blame-free environment and tailoring the solution to the problem.

Treat-to-target in PsA: methods and necessity.

With increasing recognition of the high burden and impact of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and the growing number of therapeutic options, there has been an intensifying focus on treatment strategy in recent years. In 2015, the Tight Control of Psoriatic Arthritis study confirmed the clinical benefit of using a treat-to-target approach in PsA. This randomised controlled trial found benefits in both arthritis and psoriasis disease activity as well as lower disease impact reported by patients, although participants allocated to tight control experienced a higher rate of serious adverse events. European and international recommendations support the use of a treat-to-target approach in PsA and have offered specific advice on how to do this using outcomes such as the minimal disease activity criteria. However, implementation of this approach in routine practice is low, with real-world data highlighting undertreatment as a result. Recent qualitative work with physicians in the UK has helped researchers to understand the barriers to implementation of treat-to-target in PsA. We now need to address these barriers, provide education and support to non-specialist clinicians in routine practice, and aid the translation of optimal care to the clinic.

Group cognitive-behavioural programme to reduce the impact of rheumatoid arthritis fatigue: the RAFT RCT with economic and qualitative evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is a major problem in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There is evidence for the clinical effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) delivered by clinical psychologists, but few rheumatology units have psychologists. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a group CBT programme for RA fatigue [named RAFT, i.e. Reducing Arthritis Fatigue by clinical Teams using cognitive-behavioural (CB) approaches], delivered by the rheumatology team in addition to usual care (intervention), with usual care alone (control); and to evaluate tutors' experiences of the RAFT programme. DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial. Central trials unit computerised randomisation in four consecutive cohorts within each of the seven centres. A nested qualitative evaluation was undertaken. SETTING: Seven hospital rheumatology units in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with RA and fatigue severity of ≥ 6 [out of 10, as measured by the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Numerical Rating Scale (BRAF-NRS)] who had no recent changes in major RA medication/glucocorticoids. INTERVENTIONS: RAFT - group CBT programme delivered by rheumatology tutor pairs (nurses/occupational therapists). Usual care - brief discussion of a RA fatigue self-management booklet with the research nurse. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary - fatigue impact (as measured by the BRAF-NRS) at 26 weeks. Secondary - fatigue severity/coping (as measured by the BRAF-NRS); broader fatigue impact [as measured by the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multidimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ)]; self-reported clinical status; quality of life; mood; self-efficacy; and satisfaction. All data were collected at weeks 0, 6, 26, 52, 78 and 104. In addition, fatigue data were collected at weeks 10 and 18. The intention-to-treat analysis conducted was blind to treatment allocation, and adjusted for baseline scores and centre. Cost-effectiveness was explored through the intervention and RA-related health and social care costs, allowing the calculation of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L). Tutor and focus group interviews were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 308 out of 333 patients completed 26 weeks (RAFT, n/N = 156/175; control, n/N = 152/158). At 26 weeks, the mean BRAF-NRS impact was reduced for the RAFT programme (-1.36 units; p < 0.001) and the control interventions (-0.88 units; p < 0.004). Regression analysis showed a difference between treatment arms in favour of the RAFT programme [adjusted mean difference -0.59 units, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.11 to -0.06 units; p = 0.03, effect size 0.36], and this was sustained over 2 years (-0.49 units, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.14 units; p = 0.01). At 26 weeks, further fatigue differences favoured the RAFT programme (BRAF-MDQ fatigue impact: adjusted mean difference -3.42 units, 95% CI -6.44 to - 0.39 units, p = 0.03; living with fatigue: adjusted mean difference -1.19 units, 95% CI -2.17 to -0.21 units, p = 0.02; and emotional fatigue: adjusted mean difference -0.91 units, 95% CI -1.58 to -0.23 units, p = 0.01), and these fatigue differences were sustained over 2 years. Self-efficacy favoured the RAFT programme at 26 weeks (Rheumatoid Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale: adjusted mean difference 3.05 units, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.6 units; p = 0.02), as did BRAF-NRS coping over 2 years (adjusted mean difference 0.42 units, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.77 units; p = 0.02). Fatigue severity and other clinical outcomes were not different between trial arms and no harms were reported. Satisfaction with the RAFT programme was high, with 89% of patients scoring ≥ 8 out of 10, compared with 54% of patients in the control arm rating the booklet (p < 0.0001); and 96% of patients and 68% of patients recommending the RAFT programme and the booklet, respectively, to others (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between arms for total societal costs including the RAFT programme training and delivery (mean difference £434, 95% CI -£389 to £1258), nor QALYs gained (mean difference 0.008, 95% CI -0.008 to 0.023). The probability of the RAFT programme being cost-effective was 28-35% at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's thresholds of £20,000-30,000 per QALY. Tutors felt that the RAFT programme's CB approaches challenged their usual problem-solving style, helped patients make life changes and improved tutors' wider clinical practice. LIMITATIONS: Primary outcome data were missing for 25 patients; the EQ-5D-5L might not capture fatigue change; and 30% of the 2-year economic data were missing. CONCLUSIONS: The RAFT programme improves RA fatigue impact beyond usual care alone; this was sustained for 2 years with high patient satisfaction, enhanced team skills and no harms. The RAFT programme is < 50% likely to be cost-effective; however, NHS costs were similar between treatment arms. FUTURE WORK: Given the paucity of RA fatigue interventions, rheumatology teams might investigate the pragmatic implementation of the RAFT programme, which is low cost. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52709998. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 57. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a lifelong inflammatory condition affecting multiple joints, with fatigue as a major consequence. Cognitive­behavioural therapy (CBT) helps patients work out links between symptoms, behaviours and thoughts driving those behaviours (e.g. why someone pushes on when exhausted), and understanding these links helps patients make changes. A CBT programme for groups of RA patients, facilitated by a psychologist, reduces fatigue impact. However, few rheumatology teams have psychologists. The study tested whether or not rheumatology nurses and occupational therapists (OTs) could facilitate the programme [named RAFT, i.e. Reducing Arthritis Fatigue by clinical Teams using cognitive­behavioural (CB) approaches] after brief training. The study compared the RAFT programme with usual care for RA fatigue (i.e. a short discussion of an arthritis fatigue booklet). All 333 patients received usual care, and then half of the patients were allocated (by chance) to also attend the seven-session RAFT programme. The study compared the RAFT programme with usual care for effects on fatigue, quality of life, cost and value for money. In addition, the rheumatology nurse and OT RAFT tutors were interviewed for their views on the RAFT programme. The study found that patients' fatigue impact was reduced by both the RAFT programme and usual care at 6 months and 2 years, but patients undertaking the RAFT programme improved significantly more than those receiving usual care alone. Differences were seen for improvements in fatigue impact, fatigue coping, emotional fatigue and living with fatigue. Patients were very satisfied with the RAFT programme and attended most of the sessions. The study found no significant difference between the NHS costs of the RAFT programme and usual care. Neither the RAFT programme nor usual care changed quality of life; therefore, standard value-for-money tests showed no difference between them. Tutors found that the CB questioning approach of the RAFT programme was different from their usual problem-solving style, but helped patients make life changes, and the new CB skills improved tutors' wider clinical practice. In conclusion, the trial has shown that the RAFT programme has a small to medium effect on reducing fatigue impact in patients with RA and is a potentially low-cost intervention that can be delivered by rheumatology nurses and OTs rather than a psychologist.

Protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled parallel-group trial to compare the effectiveness of remotely delivered cognitive-behavioural and graded exercise interventions with usual care alone to lessen the impact of fatigue in inflammatory rheumatic diseases (LIFT).

INTRODUCTION: Fatigue remains pervasive, disabling and challenging to manage across all inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRDs). Non-pharmacological interventions, specifically cognitive-behavioural approaches (CBAs) and graded exercise programmes designed to support and increase exercise, are valuable treatments which help patients with IRD to manage their fatigue. Yet, healthcare systems have encountered substantial barriers to the implementation of these therapeutic options. Lessening the Impact of Fatigue in Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases: a Randomised Trial (LIFT) is designed to give insights into the effectiveness of a remotely delivered standardised intervention for a range of patients with IRD. It will also enable the exploration of putative moderating factors which may allow for the future triage of patients and to investigate the precise mediators of treatment effect in IRD-related fatigue. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: LIFT is a pragmatic, multicentre, three-arm randomised, controlled trial, which will test whether adapted CBA and personalised exercise programme interventions can individually reduce the impact and severity of fatigue. This will be conducted with up to 375 eligible patients diagnosed with IRD and interventions will be delivered by rheumatology healthcare professionals, using the telephone or internet-based audio/video calls. ETHICS APPROVAL AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by Wales REC 7 (17/WA/0065). Results of this study will be disseminated through presentation at scientific conferences and in scientific journal. A lay summary of the results will be sent to participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03248518; Pre-results.

The revised Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue measures and the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease scale: validation in six countries.

Objective: To evaluate the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multidimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ), the revised Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Numerical Rating Scales (BRAF-NRS V2) and the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) scale in six countries. Methods: We surveyed RA patients in France, Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK, including the HAQ, 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and potential revisions of the BRAF-NRS coping and Spanish RAID coping items. Factor structure and internal consistency were examined by factor analysis and Cronbach's α and construct validity by Spearman's correlation. Results: A total of 1276 patients participated (76% female, 25% with a disease duration <5 years, median HAQ 1.0). The original BRAF-MDQ four-factor structure and RAID single-factor structure were confirmed in every country with ⩾66% of variation in items explained by each factor and all item factor loadings of 0.71-0.98. Internal consistency for the BRAF-MDQ total and subscales was a Cronbach's α of 0.75-0.96 and for RAID, 0.93-0.96. Fatigue construct validity was shown for the BRAF-MDQ and BRAF-NRS severity and effect scales, correlated internally with SF-36 vitality and with RAID fatigue (r = 0.63-0.93). Broader construct validity for the BRAFs and RAID was shown by correlation with each other, HAQ and SF-36 domains (r = 0.46-0.82), with similar patterns in individual countries. The revised BRAF-NRS V2 Coping item had stronger validity than the original in all analyses. The revised Spanish RAID coping item performed as well as the original. Conclusion: Across six European countries, the BRAF-MDQ identifies the same four aspects of fatigue, and along with the RAID, shows strong factor structure and internal consistency and moderate-good construct validity. The revised BRAF-NRS V2 shows improved construct validity and replaces the original.

The experience of foot problems and decisions to access foot care in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Although foot problems are common in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the consequences of foot problems from the patient perspective have not been fully explored. The aims of this study were to explore the experience of foot problems and decisions to access foot care services or not in patients with RA. METHODS: Semi structured, one-to-one interviews with patients recruited from 2 UK rheumatology units, purposively sampled for self-reported foot problems and a range of personal/disease characteristics. Inductive thematic analysis was used, with rigour provided by multiple independent analysers. Emerging themes were discussed and agreed by all authors. RESULTS: Twelve patients participated: 7 female; mean age 56 years (29-72); mean disease duration 12 years (2-27), 5 had accessed foot care services. The 'Impact' of foot problems was substantial and formed the underpinning theme, comprising three organising themes: 'Foot symptoms'; 'Consequences'; and 'Cost'. Foot symptoms such as pain and numbness required self-management, and affected daily life (walking, working) leading to social and emotional costs. The global theme, 'Decision to access foot care or not', also comprised three organising themes: 'Access perceived unnecessary' (no problem, can cope); 'Access hindered by patients' perception'; and 'Access supported by patient and clinician'. Decisions to access foot care or not were complex and influenced by patient beliefs regarding possible treatments and how to access these, and hindered by patient perceptions that their feet were ignored by rheumatology clinicians. Positive experience of foot care encouraged continued utilisation but negative experiences contributed to patients' decisions to discontinue foot care services. CONCLUSIONS: Foot problems are important issues for patients and impact on many aspects of their physical, social and emotional lives. Patients who had accessed foot care services prioritised their foot problems as an important health care need. However, for others who would like foot care services, personal knowledge and values, and perceived barriers in clinical practice, appear to interact to inhibit foot care access. The extent which these interactions affect overall access to foot care in RA patients in general now needs to be quantified to help to inform and improve the effectiveness of the organisation and delivery of foot care.

Patient preferences for psychological support in inflammatory arthritis: a multicentre survey.

OBJECTIVES: Inflammatory arthritis (IA) can lead to anxiety, depression, pain and fatigue. Psychological support can improve quality of life and self-management; and European and American guidelines recommend support be offered. This study examined patient views on psychological support for their IA. METHODS: A questionnaire designed by researchers, patient partners and clinicians was administered to 2280 patients with IA. RESULTS: 1210 patients responded (53%): 74% women; mean age 59 years (SD 12.7); patient global 5 (2.3); disease duration <5 years (41%), 5-10 (20%), >10 (39%). Only 23% reported routinely being asked about social and emotional issues by a rheumatology professional, but 46% would like the opportunity to discuss psychological impact. If offered, 66% of patients reported they would use a self-management/coping clinic (63% pain management, 60% occupational therapy, 48% peer support groups, 46% patient education, 46% psychology/counselling). Patients want support with managing the impact of pain and fatigue (82%), managing emotions (57%), work and leisure (52%), relationships (37%) and depression (34%). Preferences are for support to be delivered by the rheumatology team (nurse 74%, doctor 55%) and general practitioners (GPs) (51%). Only 6% of patients stated that social and emotional issues were not relevant. CONCLUSIONS: Demand for psychological support is high; however, less than a quarter of patients reported being asked about social and emotional issues, suggesting a gap between needs and provision. The preference is for delivery from rheumatology clinicians and GPs, and research should establish whether they have the skills and resources to meet patients' needs.