Diagnosing and characterizing inflammatory myopathies at an Australian tertiary public hospital: Resource utilization and direct healthcare costs.

AIM: To determine the direct health service costs and resource utilization associated with diagnosing and characterizing idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs), and to assess for limitations and diagnostic delay in current practice. METHODS: A retrospective, single-center cohort analysis of all patients diagnosed with IIMs between January 2012 and December 2021 in a large tertiary public hospital was conducted. Demographics, resource utilization and costs associated with diagnosing IIM and characterizing disease manifestations were identified using the hospital's electronic medical record and Health Intelligence Unit, and the Medicare Benefits Schedule. RESULTS: Thirty-eight IIM patients were identified. IIM subtypes included dermatomyositis (34.2%), inclusion body myositis (18.4%), immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (18.4%), polymyositis (15.8%), and anti-synthetase syndrome (13.2%). The median time from symptom onset to diagnosis was 212 days (IQR: 118-722), while the median time from hospital presentation to diagnosis was 30 days (8-120). Seventy-six percent of patients required emergent hospitalization during their diagnosis, with a median length of stay of 8 days (4-15). The average total cost of diagnosing IIM was $15 618 AUD (STD: 11331) per patient. Fifty percent of patients underwent both MRI and EMG to identify affected muscles, 10% underwent both pan-CT and PET-CT for malignancy detection, and 5% underwent both open surgical and percutaneous muscle biopsies. Autoimmune serology was unnecessarily repeated in 37% of patients. CONCLUSION: The diagnosis of IIMs requires substantial and costly resource use; however, our study has identified potential limitations in current practice and highlighted the need for streamlined diagnostic algorithms to improve patient outcomes and reduce healthcare-related economic burden.

Comparative effectiveness of etanercept originator and biosimilar for treating rheumatoid arthritis: implications for cost-savings.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This study aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of the etanercept (ETN) originator (Enbrel) and ETN biosimilar SB4 (Brenzys) as first-line treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), while also exploring the potential cost-savings associated with this approach in Australia. METHODS: Clinical data were obtained from the Optimising Patient outcomes in rheumatoLogy Australian real-world data set. Adult patients with RA who had initiated treatment with the ETN originator or biosimilar as their first-recorded biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug between 1 April 2017 and 31 December 2020 were included. Treatment persistence was analysed using survival analysis. Cost-savings were estimated based on data reported by the Australian National Prescribing Service MedicineWise. RESULTS: Propensity score matching followed by inverse probability of treatment weighting selected patients taking originator (n = 209) or biosimilar (n = 141) with similar baseline characteristics and eliminated small differences in baseline disease activity. The median time for 50% of the patients to stop treatment was 19.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.7-36.4 months) for the originator and 22.4 months (95% CI, 15.0-33.1 months) for the biosimilar (P = 0.95). As a result of pricing policies established by the Australian Government, introduction of the ETN biosimilar would have resulted in a cost-savings of over AU$9.5 million for 1 year of treatment for the patients reported in this study. CONCLUSION: Treatment persistence using either ETN originator or biosimilar was similar. The cost of all brands of ETN markedly reduced upon listing of the ETN biosimilar, resulting in significant savings for the Australian Government.

Burden of disease and real-world treatment patterns of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus in the Australian OPAL dataset.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the demographics, disease burden and real-world management of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in Australian community practice. METHODS: Patients with a physician diagnosis of SLE and at least 1 visit between 1 January 2009 and 31 March 2021 were identified in the OPAL dataset, an aggregated collection of data extracted from the electronic medical records of patients managed by 112 Australian rheumatologists. Demographics, basic clinical features and prescribed medications were described, with medication combinations used as a surrogate of disease severity. RESULTS: Of 5133 patients with a diagnosis of lupus, 4260 (83%) had SLE. Of these SLE patients, almost 90% of patients were female, with a median age of 49 years [IQR 37-61] at first-recorded visit. Of the 2285 SLE patients whose most recent visit was between 1 January 2019 and 31 March 2021, 52.5% had mild disease, 29.9% had moderate-severe disease and 7.4% had very severe disease. Visit frequency increased with disease severity. Most patients (85.8%) were treated with hydroxychloroquine, typically prescribed as first line-of-therapy. CONCLUSION: In this large real-world Australian cohort of patients with SLE, a substantial burden of disease was identified, with a significant proportion (almost one-third of patients) considered to have moderate to severe disease based on medication use. This study provides a greater understanding of the path from symptom onset to treatment and the heterogeneous presentation of patients with SLE who are treated in community practice in Australia. Key messages • Most published studies describing patients with SLE are derived from specialist lupus centres, typically in the hospital setting, therefore little is known about the characteristics of patients with SLE who are receiving routine care in community clinics. • The OPAL dataset is a large collection of clinical data from the electronic medical records of rheumatologists predominantly practising in private community clinics, which is where the majority (73-80%) of adult rheumatology services are conducted in Australia [1-3] . Since data from community care has not been widely available for SLE research, this study contributes important insight into this large and under-reported patient population. • To improve access to care and effective treatments, and reduce the burden of SLE in Australia, a greater understanding of the characteristics and unmet needs of patients with SLE managed in the community setting is required.

Health literacy: what is it and why is it important to measure?

This report summarizes the proceedings of the first Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) Health Literacy Special Interest Group workshop at the OMERACT 10 conference. Health literacy refers to an individual's capacity to seek, understand, and use health information. Discussion centered on the relevance of health literacy to the rheumatology field; whether measures of health literacy were important in the context of clinical trials and routine care; and, if so, whether disease-specific measures were required. A nominal group process involving 27 workshop participants, comprising a patient group (n = 12) and a healthcare professional and researcher group (n = 15), confirmed that health literacy encompasses a broad range of concepts and skills that existing scales do not measure. It identified the importance and relevance of patient abilities and characteristics, but also health professional factors and broader contextual factors. Sixteen themes were identified: access to information; cognitive capacity; disease; expression/communication; finances; health professionals; health system; information; literacy/numeracy; management skills; medication; patient approach; dealing with problems; psychological characteristics; social supports; and time. Each of these was divided further into subthemes of one or more of the following: knowledge, attitude, attribute, relationship, skill, action, or context. There were virtually no musculoskeletal-specific statements, suggesting that a generic health literacy tool in rheumatology is justified. The detailed concepts across themes provided new and systematic insight into what needs to be done to improve health literacy and consequently reduce health inequalities. These data will be used to derive a more comprehensive measure of health literacy.