Does Including Pain, Fatigue, and Physical Function When Assessing Patients with Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Provide a Comprehensive Picture of Disease Burden?

OBJECTIVE: To explore the possibility of integrating patient-important outcomes like pain, fatigue, and physical function into the evaluation of disease status in early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA) without compromising correct disease activity measurement. METHODS: Patients from the 2-year Care in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis (CareRA) trial were included. Pain and fatigue (visual analog scales), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), standard components of disease activity [swollen/tender joint counts (SJC/TJC), C-reactive protein (CRP) or erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), physician (PhGH) and patient (PaGH) global health] were recorded at every visit (n = 10). Pearson correlation and exploratory factor analyses (EFA), using multiple imputation (15×) and outputation (1000×), were performed per timepoint and overall, on standard components of disease activity scores with and without pain, fatigue, and HAQ. Each of the 15,000 datasets was analyzed using EFA with principal component extraction and oblimin rotation to determine which variables belong together. RESULTS: We included 379 patients. EFA on standard composite score components extracted 2 factors with no substantial cross-loadings. Still, pain (0.83), fatigue (0.65), and HAQ (0.59) were strongly correlated with PaGH. When rerunning the EFA with the inclusion of pain, fatigue, and HAQ, the 2-factor model had substantial cross-loadings between factors. However, a 3-factor model was optimal, with Factor 1: patient assessment, Factor 2: clinical assessment (PhGH, SJC, and TJC), and Factor 3: laboratory assessment (ESR/CRP). CONCLUSION: PaGH, pain, fatigue, and physical function represent a separate aspect of the disease burden of patients with ERA, which could be further explored as a target for care apart from disease activity. [ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01172639].

Two-year cost-effectiveness of different COBRA-like intensive remission induction schemes in early rheumatoid arthritis: a piggyback study on the pragmatic randomised controlled CareRA trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treat-to-target strategies among recently diagnosed patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using methotrexate (MTX) and a step-down glucocorticoid (GC) scheme (COBRA Slim) compared with (1) this combination with either sulphasalazine (COBRA Classic) or leflunomide (COBRA Avant-Garde) in high-risk patients and (2) MTX without GCs (Tight-Step-Up, TSU) in low-risk patients. METHODS: The incremental cost-utility was calculated from a healthcare perspective in the intention-to-treat population (n=379) of the 2-year open-label pragmatic randomised controlled Care in early RA trial. Healthcare costs were collected prospectively through electronic trial records. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using mapping algorithms for EuroQoL-5 Dimension. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data and bootstrapping to calculate CIs. Robustness was tested with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs at biosimilar prices. RESULTS: In the high-risk group, Classic (∆k€1.464, 95% CI -0.198 to 3.127) and Avant-Garde (∆k€0.636, 95% CI -0.987 to 2.258) were more expensive compared with Slim and QALYs were slightly worse for Classic (∆-0.002, 95% CI -0.086 to 0.082) and Avant-Garde (∆-0.009, 95% CI -0.102 to 0.084). This resulted in the domination of Classic and Avant-Garde by Slim. In the low-risk group, Slim was cheaper (∆k€-0.617, 95% CI -2.799 to 1.566) and QALYs were higher (∆0.141, 95% CI 0.008 to 0.274) compared with TSU, indicating Slim dominated. Results were robust against the price of biosimilars. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of MTX with a GC bridging scheme is less expensive with comparable health utility than more intensive step-down combination strategies or a conventional step-up approach 2 years after initial treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01172639.