Effectiveness of Telemedicine Compared with Standard Care for Patients with Rheumatic Diseases: A Systematic Review.

Objective: The aim of this study was to systematically review the evidence on the effectiveness of telemedicine compared to standard care for patients with rheumatic diseases. Methods: A search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; for the gray literature, GREYNET databases and a snowball search were used. MeSH or Emtree terms. Three authors independently selected systematic reviews, randomized controlled trail (RCTs), or non-RCTs with patients with autoimmune or inflammatory rheumatic diseases, where telemedicine was compared with standard care. Effectiveness was measured in terms of disease activity, quality of life, and functional activity. The patients' satisfaction was also measured. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane collaboration tool for RCTs and AMSTAR II for systematic reviews. Results: Four RCTs, one cross-out study, and five systematic reviews were included. The studies were conducted with rheumatoid arthritis patients, and one study involved patients with systematic lupus erythematosus. The interventions mainly involved teleconsultation and telemonitoring, with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) being compared with standard care. Four studies measured the effectiveness of telemedicine using PROs, in which three of the RCTs did not find differences in the clinical outcomes, and one found that telemedicine improved the remission of diseases, functional impairment, and radiographic joint damage progression. Two studies measured patient satisfaction with telemedicine and standard care without a significant difference between the groups. Conclusions: Despite heterogeneity between studies, the findings were remarkably consistent in demonstrating that there was no significant difference between the telemedicine group and the control group in terms of PROs and patient satisfaction. Patients should be offered the option of telemedicine to manage their diseases as part of health-care support. Further research is needed on the effectiveness of telemedicine in the long term for patients with rheumatic diseases.

Impact of access to treatment on patient-reported outcomes among rheumatoid arthritis patients with tDMARDs and bDMARDS in two Latin-American countries: A prospective observational study.

Background and Aims: A noninterventional prospective study was performed in Colombia and Peru. The aim was to describe the impact of access to treatment on Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in patients with Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after failure to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in real-life conditions. Methods: The impact of access to treatment was measured by access barriers, time to supply (TtS) and interruption evaluating their effect in changes of PROs between baseline and 6-month follow-up between February 2017 and November 2019. The association of access to care with disease activity, functional status, health-related quality of life was assessed using bivariate and multivariable analysis. Results are expressed in least mean difference; TtS in mean number of days for delivery of treatment at baseline. Variability measures were standard deviation and standard error. Results: One hundred seventy patients were recruited, 70 treated with tofacitinib and 100 with biological DMARDs. Thirty-nine patients reported access barriers. The mean of TtS was 23 ± 38.83 days. The difference from baseline to 6-month visit in PROs were affected by access barriers and interruptions. There was not statistically significant difference in the of PRO's score among visits in patients that reported delay of supply of more than 23 days compared to patients with less days of delay. Conclusion: This study suggested the access to treatment can affect the response to the treatment at 6 months of follow-up. There seems to be no effect in the PROs for delay of TtS during the studied period.

Cost Effectiveness of Tofacitinib for the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Active Ulcerative Colitis in Colombia.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of tofacitinib versus other treatment options currently available in Colombia in naïve to biologics (first-line) and exposed to biologics (second-line) patients with moderate to severe active ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: A Markov model was constructed with 8-week cycles, simulating a cohort of patients in a 5-year time horizon. The health states included remission, treatment response, active UC, and colectomy. The transition probabilities for the induction and maintenance phase were obtained from a network meta-analysis, and effectiveness was measured using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Unit costs were derived from official national sources. RESULTS: For first line, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY was $883 for tofacitinib and $3619 for infliximab, compared with adalimumab. Sensitivity analysis showed that tofacitinib is cost effective in 45% of the iterations, adalimumab in 5%, and infliximab in 50%. Meanwhile, the ICER of adalimumab was $14,927 compared with tofacitinib in second-line treatment. In the sensitivity analysis, tofacitinib was cost effective in 64% of the iterations, followed by adalimumab in 36%. Infliximab and golimumab were not included due to data limitations in the network meta-analysis of second-line treatment. CONCLUSION: The analysis suggests that in Colombia, treatment with tofacitinib for patients with moderate-to-severe UC is a cost-effective option in both lines compared with other treatment options.