Use of rheumatology-specific patient navigators to understand and reduce barriers to medication adherence: Analysis of qualitative findings.

OBJECTIVE: Adherence to medications among patients with rheumatic diseases is often suboptimal. Patient navigators, individuals trained in care coordination, motivational interviewing and basic rheumatology and pharmacology, have not been employed to explore and address this issue. We piloted a single-site, single arm intervention to determine the feasibility and acceptability of using rheumatology-specific navigators to understand and reduce barriers to adherence to oral disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). We analyzed our qualitative findings from navigator-patient interactions as well as patient satisfaction with the intervention. METHODS: We recruited patients ≥18 years with a systemic rheumatic disease who initiated an oral DMARD within the prior 6 months. Navigators conducted baseline needs assessments and 2-4 week follow-up calls to understand and address issues related to medication adherence. We analyzed patient-navigator encounters qualitatively using content analysis to identify key themes related to barriers to adherence and navigator actions performed in response to the barriers described. We also categorized intentional and unintentional nonadherent behavior and assessed satisfaction with the navigator experience (range 0-5, 5 = most satisfied). RESULTS: 107 rheumatology patients were followed for up to 6 months. Mean patient age was 55 years (+17) and 93% were female; 36% described one or more episode of intentional or unintentional nonadherence. The three most common themes identified as barriers to adherence were fear of adverse events (raised by 54%), concerns about medication effectiveness (43%), and challenges with medication acquisition (32%). 86% of participants described at least one adherence-related barrier. Frequent navigator actions included facilitation of patient-doctor communication (38%), medication and diagnosis education (27%), and development of individualized strategies to improve adherence (16%). Patients were satisfied with the navigator experience (mean 4.4 + 0.9). CONCLUSION: Navigators uncovered and addressed a number of medication adherence-related concerns and patients were satisfied with the services provided.

Asymptomatic hyperuricemia and coronary flow reserve in patients with metabolic syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metabolic syndrome (MetS) are at increased risk of asymptomatic hyperuricemia (i.e., elevated serum uric acid (SUA) level without gout) and cardiovascular disease. We conducted a cross-sectional study to examine associations between SUA levels and coronary flow reserve and urate deposits in carotid arteries in patients with asymptomatic hyperuricemia and MetS. METHODS: Adults aged ≥40 years with MetS and SUA levels ≥6.5 mg/dl, but no gout, were eligible. Using a stress myocardial perfusion positron emission tomography (PET), we assessed myocardial blood flow (MBF) at rest and stress and calculated coronary flow reserve (CFR). CFR < 2.0 is considered abnormal and associated with increased cardiovascular risk. We also measured insulin resistance by homeostatic model assessment (HOMA-IR) method and urate deposits using dual-energy CT (DECT) of the neck for the carotid arteries. RESULTS: Forty-four patients with the median age of 63.5 years underwent a blood test, cardiac PET and neck DECT scans. Median (IQR) SUA was 7.8 (7.1-8.4) mg/dL. The median (IQR) CFR was abnormally low at 1.9 (1.7-2.4) and the median (IQR) stress MBF was 1.7 (1.3-2.2) ml/min/g. None had urate deposits in the carotid arteries detected by DECT. In multivariable linear regression analyses, SUA had no association with CFR (ß = - 0.12, p = 0.78) or stress MBF (ß = - 0.52, p = 0.28). Among non-diabetic patients (n = 25), SUA was not associated with HOMA-IR (ß = 2.08, p = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Among MetS patients with asymptomatic hyperuricemia, we found no relationship between SUA and CFR, stress MBF, and insulin resistance. No patients had any DECT detectable subclinical urate deposition in the carotid arteries.

Identification of monosodium urate crystal deposits in patients with asymptomatic hyperuricemia using dual-energy CT.

OBJECTIVES: Dual-energy CT (DECT) scan is a sensitive and specific tool used to visualise and quantify monosodium urate (MSU) crystal deposits in the joints. Few studies have examined MSU crystal deposits in patients with asymptomatic hyperuricemia (ie, hyperuricemia in the absence of gout) using DECT. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, non-interventional cross-sectional study to detect MSU crystal deposits on DECT scans among patients with asymptomatic hyperuricemia. We also examined patient factors associated with subclinical MSU crystal deposits. Out of 130 subjects aged ≥40 years with metabolic syndrome screened for serum uric acid (sUA) levels ≥6.5 mg/dL, 46 underwent a foot/ankle DECT scan. RESULTS: The mean age of the study participants was 62 (±8) years, 41% were men and the mean sUA level was 7.8 (±1.0) mg/dL. Seven (15%) of 46 patients had MSU crystal deposits on DECT with a mean total volume of 0.13 (±0.14) cm3. In the univariable logistic regression analysis, older age had a significant association with presence of MSU crystal deposits (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.39), but sUA did not (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.95). In the univariable analysis, sUA levels showed a trend towards a modest linear association (ß=0.11, P=0.09) with total volume of MSU crystal deposits. CONCLUSIONS: Fifteen per cent of patients with asymptomatic hyperuricemia had subclinical MSU crystal deposits on foot/ankle DECT scans. Older age, but not sUA, was significantly associated with presence of subclinical MSU crystal deposits among patients with asymptomatic hyperuricemia. Clinical significance of these subclinical MSU crystal deposits needs to be determined.

Can Patient Navigators Improve Adherence to Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs? Quantitative Findings From a Six-Month Single-Arm Pilot Intervention.

OBJECTIVE: Nonadherence to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) is common, worsens during the treatment course, and results in adverse outcomes. We studied whether patient navigators (laypersons trained in care coordination, motivational interviewing, basic pharmacology, and disease management) improved oral DMARD adherence. METHODS: We enrolled 107 patients ages ≥18 years with systemic rheumatic diseases who initiated an oral DMARD within 6 months. Navigators interacted with patients up to 2-4 times per week for 6 months. Patients completed validated surveys (Morisky Medication Adherence Scale [MMAS-8], Mental Health Inventory [MHI-5], Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire, and Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire) at baseline and at 6 months. We used paired t-tests to compare baseline and 6-month outcomes. We examined the association of age, race/ethnicity, insurance, and MHI-5 with change in MMAS-8 score using multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: Among 107 patients enrolled, 69 (64%) completed baseline and 6-month MMAS-8 surveys. Mean ± SD age was 55 ± 16 years and 93% were female. The mean ± SD baseline MMAS-8 score was 6.7 ± 1.3 (indicating borderline adherence), and the mean ± SD MHI-5 score was 60.8 ± 9.1 (<68 suggests any depressive symptoms). After 6 months, there were no significant changes in MMAS-8 (P = 0.09) or MHI-5 (P = 0.83). Patients described fewer medication concerns (P = 0.03), but a more threatening perception of illness (P = 0.01). Our multivariable model demonstrated a small change in MMAS-8 for each 5-year increase in age (ß = 0.14, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Our intervention resulted in no significant change in adherence from baseline. A multicenter, randomized controlled trial is needed to determine whether patient navigators are effective in maintaining adherence to DMARDs over time.