Cost-effectiveness of a multicomponent-adherence intervention in fracture liaison services.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to assess the lifetime cost-effectiveness of a multi-component adherence intervention (MCAI), including a patient decision aid and motivational interviewing, compared to usual care in patients with a recent fracture attending fracture liaison services (FLS) and eligible for anti-osteoporosis medication (AOM). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data on AOM initiation and one-year persistence were collected from a quasi-experimental study conducted between 2019 and 2023 in two Dutch FLS centers. An individual level, state-transition Markov model was used to simulate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with a societal perspective of MCAI vs usual care. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted including variation in additional FLS and MCAI costs (no MCAI cost in baseline). RESULTS: MCAI was associated with gain in QALYs (0.0012) and reduction in costs (-€16) and is therefore dominant. At the Dutch willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000/QALY, MCAI remained cost-effective when increasing costs of the FLS visit or the yearly maintenance cost for MCAI up to +€60. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated MCAI to be dominant in 54% of the simulations and cost-effective in 87% with a threshold of €50,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: A MCAI implemented in FLS centers may lead to cost-effective allocation of resources in FLS care, depending on extra costs.

Improved physical functioning, sleep, work productivity and overall health-related quality of life with bimekizumab in patients with axial spondyloarthritis: results from two phase 3 studies.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of bimekizumab on physical functioning, sleep, work productivity and overall health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with non-radiographic (nr-) and radiographic (r-) axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in the phase 3 studies BE MOBILE 1 and 2. METHODS: Patients were randomised to subcutaneous bimekizumab 160 mg or placebo every 4 weeks; from Week 16, all patients received bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks. We report the following outcomes to Week 52: Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI), Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale Revised (MOS-Sleep-R) Index II, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment: axSpA (WPAI:axSpA), Short Form-36 Physical and Mental Component Summary (SF-36 PCS/MCS) and Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL). RESULTS: At Week 16, bimekizumab-randomised patients demonstrated significantly greater improvement from baseline versus placebo in BASFI, SF-36 PCS and ASQoL (p<0.001), and numerically greater improvements in MOS-Sleep-R Index II and WPAI:axSpA scores. Higher proportions of bimekizumab-randomised versus placebo-randomised patients at Week 16 achieved increasingly stringent thresholds for improvements in BASFI (0 to ≤4), and thresholds for meaningful improvements in SF-36 PCS (≥5-point increase from baseline) and ASQoL (≥4-point decrease from baseline). Responses were sustained or further improved to Week 52, where 60%-70% of bimekizumab-treated patients achieved BASFI ≤4 and meaningful improvements in SF-36 PCS and ASQoL, regardless of whether originally randomised to bimekizumab or placebo. CONCLUSION: Bimekizumab treatment led to early improvements in physical function, sleep, work productivity and overall HRQoL at Week 16 in patients across the full axSpA disease spectrum. Improvements were sustained to Week 52. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03928704; NCT03928743.

A Mixed-Methods Process Evaluation of the Maastricht Work-Related Support Intervention for Healthcare Professionals in Clinical Care.

PURPOSE: To perform the process evaluation of an intervention that aims to facilitate clinical healthcare professionals (HCP) to provide Maastricht Work-Related Support (WRS) to working patients with a chronic disease. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was applied to address reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM framework) as well as context of the Maastricht WRS intervention. Qualitative data included interviews with HCPs (N = 10), patients at two time points (N = 10 and N = 9), and field notes. Quantitative data included screening logbooks of HCPs, patient screening forms, and a questionnaire for patients. Content analysis or computation of frequencies was applied where applicable. RESULTS: Twenty-eight HCPs participated in the intervention (reach). They had a low attitude toward providing Maastricht WRS themselves (adoption). During clinical consultations, they addressed work for 770 of 1,624 (47%) persons of working age. Only 57% (437/770) had paid work, of which 10% (44/437) acknowledged a current need for support. Discussing work during clinical consultations by HCPs was hindered by other medical priorities and patients not disclosing problems (implementation). Over time, Maastricht WRS was less consistently provided (maintenance). Patients reported a positive impact of the intervention, such as fitness for work (efficacy). Context (e.g., lack of urgency, priority, time, and management support) played a pivotal role in the implementation. CONCLUSION: This evaluation showed that HCPs had a positive attitude toward WRS in general, but their attitude toward provide Maastricht WRS themselves in daily clinical care was low. Recommendations include improving HCPs' attitude, addressing WRS as a key policy point, and facilitating time.

Societal costs before and up to 1 year after the first fracture liaison service visit in patients requiring anti-osteoporosis treatments.

This study aimed to estimate societal and healthcare costs incurred before and 1 year after the first fracture liaison services (FLS) visit and to explore differences in fracture type. All costs after 1 year significantly decreased compared to costs preceding the first visit. Fracture type did not significantly affect costs. INTRODUCTION: Limited literature is available on resource utilization and costs of patients visiting fracture liaison services (FLS). This study aimed to estimate the societal and healthcare costs incurred by patients with a recent fracture requiring anti-osteoporosis medication before and 1 year after the first FLS visit and to explore differences according to fracture type. METHODS: Resource utilization was collected through a self-reported questionnaire with a 4-month recall on health resource utilization and productivity losses immediately following the first FLS visit, and 4 and 12 months later. Unit costs derived from the national Dutch guideline for economic evaluations were used to compute societal and healthcare costs. Linear mixed-effect models, adjusted for confounders, were used to analyze societal and healthcare costs over time as well as the effect of fracture type on societal and healthcare costs. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients from two Dutch FLS centers were included, of whom 72 sustained a major fracture (hip, vertebral, humerus, or radius). Societal costs in the 4 months prior to the first visit (€2911) were significantly higher compared to societal costs 4 months (€711, p-value = 0.009) and 12 months later (€581, p-value = 0.001). Fracture type did not have a significant effect on total societal or healthcare costs. All costs 12 months after the initial visit were numerically lower for major fractures compared to others. CONCLUSION: Societal and healthcare costs in the year following the first FLS visit significantly decreased compared to those costs preceding the first visit.

Work participation and the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational study in people with inflammatory rheumatic diseases and population controls.

Objective: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis, people with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (iRDs) might have been more vulnerable for adverse work outcomes (AWOs) and restrictions in work ability and work performance. Our objectives were to compare AWOs during the pandemic and current work ability between iRD patients and controls, understand which patients are most vulnerable for these outcomes and (3) explore the role of work characteristics on work performance while working remotely. Methods: Patients and population controls in a Dutch COVID-19 cohort study provided information in March 2022 on work participation in March 2020 (pre-pandemic, retrospective) and March 2022 (current). AWOs comprised withdrawal from paid work, working hours reduction or long-term sick leave. Multivariable logistic/linear regression analyses compared outcomes (AWOs/work ability) between groups (patients/controls) and within patients. Results: Of the pre-pandemic working participants, 227/977 (23%) patients and 79/430 (18%) controls experienced AWOs following pandemic onset. A minority of AWOs (15%) were attributed to COVID-19. Patients were more likely to experience any-cause AWOs (odds ratio range 1.63-3.34) but not COVID-related AWOs, with female patients and patients with comorbidities or physically demanding jobs being most vulnerable. Current work ability was lower in female patients compared with controls [ß = -0.66 (95% CI -0.92 to -0.40)]. In both groups, when working remotely, care for children and absence of colleagues had varying effects on work performance (positive 19% and 24%, negative 34% and 57%, respectively), while employer support and reduced commuting had mainly positive effects (83% and 86%, respectively). Conclusion: During the pandemic, people with iRDs remained at increased risk of AWOs. COVID-related AWOs, however, were infrequent.

Defining domains: developing consensus-based definitions for foundational domains in OMERACT core outcome sets.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a set of detailed definitions for foundational domains commonly used in OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) core domain sets. METHODS: We identified candidate domain definitions from prior OMERACT publications and websites and publications of major organizations involved in outcomes research for six domains commonly used in OMERACT Core Domain Sets: pain intensity, pain interference, physical function, fatigue, patient global assessment, and health-related quality of life. We conducted a two-round survey of OMERACT working groups, patient research partners, and then the OMERACT Technical Advisory Group to establish their preferred domain definitions. Results were presented at the OMERACT 2023 Methodology Workshop, where participants discussed their relevant lived experience and identified potential sources of variability giving the needed detail in our domain definitions. RESULTS: One-hundred four people responded to both rounds of the survey, and a preferred definition was established for each of the domains except for patient global assessment for which no agreement was reached. Seventy-five participants at the OMERACT 2023 Methodology Workshop provided lived experience examples, which were used to contextualise domain definition reports for each of the five domains. CONCLUSION: Using a consensus-based approach, we have created a detailed definition for five of the foundational domains in OMERACT core domain sets; patient global assessment requires further research. These definitions, although not mandatory for working groups to use, may facilitate the initial domain-match assessment step of instrument selection, and reduce the time and resources required by future OMERACT groups when developing core outcome sets.

Optimizing the Maastricht Work-Related Support intervention in clinical patient care: the value of integrating action research into intervention mapping.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) are increasingly recommended to play an important role in supporting people with chronic disease in work participation. An intervention for HCPs to provide work-related support to their patients in clinical care was developed with intervention mapping (Maastricht Work-Related Support; Maastricht WRS). Action research proposes 'combining research and practice', which allows us to incorporate experiences of HCPs while implementing and to realize intervention's full potential. Therefore, the aim of this study is to explore, by integrating action research into an intervention mapping approach, how experiences of HCPs with early implementation can be used to optimize the Maastricht WRS in clinical care. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were held with nine HCPs (response rate 82%), involved in care for people with inflammatory arthritis, knee problems or inflammatory bowel disease. Some of them were not yet trained in the Maastricht WRS while others had received the training and were providing the Maastricht WRS. RESULTS: All participants regarded WRS an important part of clinical care. Untrained HCPs indicated a lack of knowledge and skills in providing the Maastricht WRS, and a need for tools. Trained HCPs were satisfied with the training and tools, but stressed that practical limitations hindered providing the Maastricht WRS. Action research showed that the intervention meets the needs of HCPs, but need some optimizations: (1) organizing 'intervision' for HCPs, (2) inform and activate patients to discuss work with their HCP, (3) update initial tools and (4) including patients' work status in the electronic patient system. CONCLUSIONS: Action research integrated into intervention mapping proved to improve the Maastricht WRS intervention. By involving HCPs, the intervention could be optimized to provide to support people with chronic diseases in clinical care in healthy and sustainable work participation.

Consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the OMERACT Core Outcome Set for shared decision making interventions in rheumatology trials.

OBJECTIVE: To gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set for rheumatology trials evaluating shared decision making (SDM) interventions. METHODS: Following the OMERACT Handbook methods, our Working Group (WG), comprised of 90 members, including 17 patient research partners (PRPs) and 73 clinicians and researchers, had six virtual meetings in addition to email exchanges to develop draft definitions and descriptions. The WG then conducted an international survey of its members to gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions. Finally, the WG members had virtual meetings and e-mail exchanges to review survey results and finalize names, definitions and descriptions of the domains. RESULTS: WG members contributed to developing the definitions. Fifty-two members representing four continents and 13 countries completed the survey, including 15 PRPs, 33 clinicians and 37 researchers. PRPs and clinicians/researchers agreed with all definitions and descriptions with agreements ranging from 87% to 100%. Respondents suggested wording changes to the names, definitions and descriptions to better reflect the domains. Discussions led to further simplification and clarification to address common questions/concerns about the domains. CONCLUSION: Our WG reached consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the core domain set for rheumatology trials of SDM interventions. This step is crucial to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The current study provides consensus-based definitions and descriptions for the domains of the OMERACT core domain set for shared decision making interventions from patients/caregivers, clinicians and researchers. This is a crucial step to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set for trials of SDM interventions.

OMERACT Core outcome measurement set for shared decision making in rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions: a scoping review to identify candidate instruments.

OBJECTIVES: Shared decision making (SDM) is a central tenet in rheumatic and musculoskeletal care. The lack of standardization regarding SDM instruments and outcomes in clinical trials threatens the comparative effectiveness of interventions. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) SDM Working Group is developing a Core Outcome Set for trials of SDM interventions in rheumatology and musculoskeletal health. The working group reached consensus on a Core Outcome Domain Set in 2020. The next step is to develop a Core Outcome Measurement Set through the OMERACT Filter 2.2. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) to identify candidate instruments for the OMERACT Filter 2.2 We systematically reviewed five databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Web of Science). An information specialist designed search strategies to identify all measurement instruments used in SDM studies in adults or children living with rheumatic or musculoskeletal diseases or their important others. Paired reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text articles. We extracted characteristics of all candidate instruments (e.g., measured construct, measurement properties). We classified candidate instruments and summarized evidence gaps with an adapted version of the Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) table. RESULTS: We found 14,464 citations, read 239 full text articles, and included 99 eligible studies. We identified 220 potential candidate instruments. The five most used measurement instruments were the Decisional Conflict Scale (traditional and low literacy versions) (n=38), the Hip/Knee-Decision Quality Instrument (n=20), the Decision Regret Scale (n=9), the Preparation for Decision Making Scale (n=8), and the CollaboRATE (n=8). Only 44 candidate instruments (20%) had any measurement properties reported by the included studies. Of these instruments, only 57% matched with at least one of the 7-criteria adapted SOMP table. CONCLUSION: We identified 220 candidate instruments used in the SDM literature amongst people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Our classification of instruments showed evidence gaps and inconsistent reporting of measurement properties. The next steps for the OMERACT SDM Working Group are to match candidate instruments with Core Domains, assess feasibility and review validation studies of measurement instruments in rheumatic diseases or other conditions. Development and validation of new instruments may be required for some Core Domains.

Comparison of the ASAS Health Index in patients classified as radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) or non-radiographic axSpA in the ASAS Health Index international validation study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if there were differences in the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society Health Index (ASAS HI) scores between patients classified as radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA) and non-radiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA), and to identify factors associated with higher ASAS HI scores in both disease phenotypes. METHODS: This study was an ancillary analysis of the ASAS HI international validation project performed in 23 countries. Patients were included if they were ≥18 years of age and diagnosed with axSpA. Univariable and multivariable analysis were performed to determine if ASAS HI scores differed between the axSpA phenotypes, and to identify other variables associated with ASAS HI scores. We also tested for potential interactions between the axSpA phenotype and significant variables identified through the multivariable regression. RESULTS: A total of 976 patients were included, with 703 having r-axSpA and 273 nr-axSpA. Patients with r-axSpA reported higher (worse) ASAS HI scores compared with those with nr-axSpA (6.8 (4.4) vs 6.0 (4.0), p=0.02), but the axSpA phenotype was not associated with ASAS HI scores in the multivariable regression (ß: -0.19, 95% CI: -0.56 to 0.19). Female gender, having worse physical function (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index), disease activity (Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score) and anxiety and depressive symptoms (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) were associated with higher ASAS HI scores. No interactions were found to be significant. CONCLUSION: Overall health and functioning are similarly affected in patients with r-axSpA and nr-axSpA. Female patients, having worse physical function, disease activity, anxiety and depressive symptoms were independently associated with higher ASAS HI scores.

Thresholds for unacceptable work state in radiographic axial Spondyloarthritis of four presenteeism and two clinical outcome measurement instruments.

OBJECTIVES: To a) identify threshold values of presenteeism measurement instruments that reflect unacceptable work state in employed r-axSpA patients; b) determine whether those thresholds accurately predict future adverse work outcomes (AWO) (sick leave or short/long-term disability); c) evaluate the performance of traditional health-outcomes for r-axSpA; d) explore whether thresholds are stable across contextual factors. METHODS: Data from the multinational AS-PROSE study was used. Thresholds to determine whether patients consider themselves in an 'unacceptable work state' were calculated at baseline for four instruments assessing presenteeism and two health-outcomes specific for r-axSpA. Different approaches derived from the receiver operating characteristic methodology were used. Validity of the optimal thresholds was tested across contextual factors and for predicting future AWO over 12 months. RESULTS: Of 366 working patients, 15% reported an unacceptable work state; 6% experienced at least one AWO in 12 months. Optimal thresholds were: WPAI-presenteeism ≥40 (AUC 0.85), QQ-method <97 (0.76), WALS ≥0.75 (AUC 0.87), WLQ-25 ≥ 29 (AUC 0.85). BASDAI and BASFI performed similarly to the presenteeism instruments: ≥4.7 (AUC 0.82) and ≥3.5 (AUC 0.79), respectively. Thresholds for WALS and WLQ-25 were stable across contextual factors, while for all other instruments they overestimated unacceptable work state in lower educated persons. Proposed thresholds could also predict future AWO, although with lower performance, especially for QQ-method, BASDAI and BASFI. CONCLUSIONS: Thresholds of measurement instruments for presenteeism and health status to identify unacceptable work state have been established. These thresholds can help in daily clinical practice to provide work related support to r-axSpA patients at risk for AWO.

Generating a list of potentially important contextual factors covering randomized trials, cohorts, and measurement property studies: An OMERACT initiative.

OBJECTIVES: To generate candidates for contextual factors (CFs) for each CF type (i.e., Effect Modifying Contextual Factors (EM-CFs), Outcome Influencing Contextual Factors (OI-CFs), and Measurement Affecting Contextual Factors (MA-CFs)) considered important within rheumatology. METHODS: We surveyed OMERACT working groups and conducted a Special Interest Group (SIG) session at the OMERACT 2023 meeting, where the results were reviewed, and additional CFs suggested. RESULTS: The working groups suggested 44, 49, and 21 generic EM-CFs, OI-CFs, and MA-CFs, respectively. SIG participants added 49, 44, and 55 factors, respectively. CONCLUSION: Candidate CFs were identified, next step is a consensus-based set of endorsed (important) CFs.

Development and usability of a decision aid to initiate anti-osteoporosis medication treatment in patients visiting the fracture liaison service with a recent fracture.

This study describes the development of a decision aid (DA), aimed at supporting patients in their decision whether to start anti-osteoporosis medication. People with recent fractures or osteoporosis and health professionals were supportive of the DA initiative. An experimental study been started to assess (cost-)effectiveness of the DA. PURPOSE: At fracture liaison services (FLS), patients with a recent fracture ánd osteoporosis or a prevalent vertebral fracture are advised to start anti-osteoporosis medication (AOM). This study describes the development of a decision aid (DA) to support patients and healthcare providers (HCPs) in their decision about whether to start AOM. METHODS: The DA was developed according to International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). A systematic procedure was chosen including scope, design, prototype development, and alpha testing. A previously developed DA for women with osteoporosis was used as a basis. Furthermore, input from literature searches, the Dutch guideline on management of osteoporosis, and from people with a fracture or osteoporosis was used. The updated DA was evaluated during alpha testing. RESULTS: The DA facilitates the decision of patients whether to initiate AOM treatment and provides information on fractures and osteoporosis, general risk factors that increase the likelihood of a subsequent fracture, the role of lifestyle, personalized risk considerations of a subsequent fracture with and without AOM treatment, and AOM options and their characteristics in an option grid. Alpha testing with 15 patients revealed that patient preferences and needs were adequately presented, and several suggestions for improvement (e.g. adding more specific information, simplifying terminology, improving icon use) were accounted for. Participants from the alpha testing recommended use of the DA during outpatient visits. CONCLUSION: Professionals and persons with osteoporosis were supportive of the proposed DA and its usability. The DA could help in a shared decision-making process between patients and HCPs.

Patients' preferences for fracture risk communication: the Risk Communication in Osteoporosis (RICO) study.

The RICO study indicated that most patients would like to receive information regarding their fracture risk but that only a small majority have actually received it. Patients globally preferred a visual presentation of fracture risk and were interested in an online tool showing the risk. PURPOSE: The aim of the Risk Communication in Osteoporosis (RICO) study was to assess patients' preferences regarding fracture risk communication. METHODS: To assess patients' preferences for fracture risk communication, structured interviews with women with osteoporosis or who were at risk for fracture were conducted in 11 sites around the world, namely in Argentina, Belgium, Canada at Hamilton and with participants from the Osteoporosis Canada Canadian Osteoporosis Patient Network (COPN), Japan, Mexico, Spain, the Netherlands, the UK, and the USA in California and Washington state. The interviews used to collect data were designed on the basis of a systematic review and a qualitative pilot study involving 26 participants at risk of fracture. RESULTS: A total of 332 women (mean age 67.5 ± 8.0 years, 48% with a history of fracture) were included in the study. Although the participants considered it important to receive information about their fracture risk (mean importance of 6.2 ± 1.4 on a 7-point Likert scale), only 56% (i.e. 185/332) had already received such information. Globally, participants preferred a visual presentation with a traffic-light type of coloured graph of their FRAX® fracture risk probability, compared to a verbal or written presentation. Almost all participants considered it important to discuss their fracture risk and the consequences of fractures with their healthcare professionals in addition to receiving information in a printed format or access to an online website showing their fracture risk. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant communication gap between healthcare professionals and patients when discussing osteoporosis fracture risk. The RICO study provides insight into preferred approaches to rectify this communication gap.

Impact of disease outcomes on the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society Health Index (ASAS HI): a Bayesian network analysis of the DESIR cohort.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to build a structural model visualising and quantifying the interrelationships of different disease outcomes with the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society Health Index (ASAS HI) in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). METHODS: Cross-sectional data collected at month 72 of the Devenir des Spondylarthropathies Indifferénciées Récentes cohort was analysed. Combining prior knowledge and observed data, probabilistic Bayesian network modelling was used to study how the interplay of different disease outcomes affects the ASAS HI, which measures disease-specific overall functioning and health. Disease outcomes comprised, among others, the Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) and the Bath AS Functional Index (BASFI). RESULTS: Data of 384 patients were analysed. The obtained structure suggests that ASAS HI is determined by both patient-reported physical function (BASFI) and disease activity (ASDAS). The parameters of the structural model show that an increase of ASDAS or BASFI by 1 unit corresponds to an increase of ASAS HI by 0.70 or 1.25 units, respectively. Moreover, the model suggests that disease activity has an indirect impact on ASAS HI via BASFI. No relationship between spinal mobility or structural damage and ASAS HI was found. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first structural model developed to better understand the construct and the interplay between clinically relevant outcomes related to ASAS HI in axSpA patients. It shows that disease activity and physical function have a strong impact on ASAS HI, confirming it to be a valid construct of overall functioning and health in axSpA patients.

Work productivity in patients with axial spondyloarthritis initiating biological or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) can limit work participation. Our objective was to characterise productivity in patients with axSpA, including changes after 12-16 weeks of treatment with biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs). METHODS: A systematic literature review identified studies published from 1 January 2010 to 21 October 2021 reporting work productivity using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire in patients with axSpA initiating b/tsDMARDs. Baseline and Week 12-16 overall work productivity, absenteeism, presenteeism and activity impairment scores were used in a random-effects meta-analysis to calculate absolute mean change from baseline for each WPAI-domain. RESULTS: Eleven studies in patients with axSpA who received either placebo (n=727) or treatment with adalimumab, bimekizumab, etanercept, ixekizumab, secukinumab or tofacitinib (n=994) were included. In working patients initiating a b/tsDMARD, mean baseline overall work productivity impairment, absenteeism and presenteeism scores were 52.1% (N=7 studies), 11.0% and 48.8% (N=6 studies), respectively. At Week 12-16, the pooled mean change from baseline in overall work impairment for b/tsDMARDs or placebo was -21.6% and -12.3%. When results were extrapolated to 1 year, the potential annual reductions in cost of paid and unpaid productivity loss per patient ranged from €11 962.88 to €14 293.54. CONCLUSIONS: Over 50% of employed patients with active axSpA experienced work impairment, primarily due to presenteeism. Overall work productivity improved at Weeks 12-16 to a greater extent for patients who received b/tsDMARDs than placebo. Work productivity loss was associated with a substantial cost burden, which was reduced with improvements in impairment.

Burden of osteoarthritis in the Netherlands: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of societal burden of osteoarthritis (OA) in the Netherlands. METHODS: Medline (via Ovid) and Embase databases were searched in September 2022 for all publications providing prevalence/incidence, cost or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data of OA (all sites) in the Netherlands. RESULTS: Twenty-eight original studies were included in this scoping review; twelve reporting prevalence/incidence data of OA, seven reporting data on the economic burden of OA and twelve reporting HRQoL data of patients with OA. Most of the available data were from Dutch national cohorts. The prevalence of knee OA ranged from 6% to 18% across studies, from 4% to 7% for hip OA and from 12% to 56% for hand OA. OA was shown to be associated with impairment in work participation and long-term requirement of health care utilization, translating into substantial medical costs and societal costs of lost productivity. All studies comparing HRQoL among persons with OA with control persons showed a significantly lower HRQoL in patients with OA after adjustment for age, sex, and various risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: OA is a highly prevalent disease in the Dutch population and is responsible for a significant economic and health burden.

Fatigue in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: a scoping review on definitions, measurement instruments, determinants, consequences and interventions.

OBJECTIVES: To scope published reviews addressing fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis, osteoarthritis and fibromyalgia in areas relevant for clinical practice: (1) definition, (2) measurement instruments and diagnosis, (3) determinants, (4) consequences and (5) effectiveness of interventions. METHODS: A systematic literature search of reviews was performed in five bibliographical databases. A hierarchical data extraction was applied based on review type (Cochrane reviews (CRs), followed by non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) and narrative reviews (NRs)) and year of publication. Extracted data were summarised in elaborated narrative syntheses. Results were discussed with a patient panel. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-four reviews were included (19 CRs, 44 SRs, 71 NRs). No agreed on definition was reported for general fatigue, nor for types of fatigue. Twenty-five measurement instruments were found, all self-reported. Five instruments proposed a threshold for excessive fatigue. Pain, physical function and depressive symptoms were the most frequently studied disease-related determinants of fatigue; female sex and stress the most frequent contextual determinants. Work performance, followed by impact on pain, physical activity and social roles were the most frequently studied consequences. Whenever quantified, associations between fatigue with determinants and consequences were on average small. For non-pharmacological interventions, if effect sizes were reported, these were negligible to small and for pharmacological interventions negligible to moderate. Patients recommended actions for research and practice. CONCLUSION: Syntheses of reviews point to the complexity of fatigue. The extensive amount of evidence could be used to offer tailored management plans to patients in clinical practice and inform future research agendas.

Factors Associated With Residual Disease in Axial Spondyloarthritis: Results From a Clinical Practice Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To explore residual disease, defined as substantial symptoms and disease burden despite a remission or low disease activity (LDA) state, in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), and to determine which factors are associated with residual disease. METHODS: For this cross-sectional observational study, 1 timepoint per patient was used from SpA-Net, a web-based monitoring registry for SpA. Patients with an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) < 2.1 (LDA) were included. Indicators of residual disease (outcomes) included fatigue (primary outcome), pain, physical functioning, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and peripheral symptoms. Sex was the primary explanatory factor for residual disease. Other explanatory factors included demographics and disease-related factors. Associations between these factors and presence and extent of residual disease were explored using logistic and linear regression. RESULTS: In total, 267 patients in an LDA state were included. Mean age was 50.6 (SD 14.3) years and 100 (37.5%) were female. Residual disease occurred frequently (n = 114 [42.7%] had fatigue scores > 4/10; n = 34 [17.8%] had pain scores > 4/10), including in those in remission (ASDAS < 1.3). Physical HRQOL was reduced in 27% and moderate/poor in 33%. Multivariable regression analyses showed that reported fatigue was more severe and prevalent in female patients (fatigue severity [0-10]: Bfemale = 0.78, 95% CI 0.18-1.38; fatigue > 4/10: ORfemale = 3.29, 95% CI 1.74-6.20). Other indicators of residual disease (ie, pain, peripheral symptoms, physical HRQOL) were also more severe and/or more prevalent in females. CONCLUSION: Residual disease is frequent in patients with axSpA who are in an LDA state, including remission, and it is particularly prevalent in female patients. Future studies should address how to manage or prevent residual disease in axSpA.

The value of correctly diagnosing axial spondyloarthritis for patients and society.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the value of diagnosing axSpA, by comparing health and costs associated with available diagnostic algorithms and perfect diagnosis. METHODS: Using data from SPACE and other cohorts, a model was developed to estimate health (quality-adjusted life-years, QALYs) and costs (healthcare consumption and work productivity losses) of different diagnostic algorithms for axSpA amongst patients with low back pain referred to a rheumatologist, over a 60-year horizon. The model combined a decision-tree (diagnosis) with a state-transition model (treatment). The three algorithms (Berlin [BER, highest specificity], Modification 1 [M1; less strict inflammatory back pain (IBP) criterion] and Modification 2 [M2; IBP not mandatory as entry criterion, highest sensitivity]) were compared. Changes in sensitivity/specificity were explored and the value of perfect diagnosis was investigated. RESULTS: For each correctly diagnosed axSpA patient, up to 4.7 QALYs and €60,000 could be gained/saved, considering a societal perspective. Algorithm M2 resulted in more health and lower costs per patient (24.23 QALYs; €157,469), compared to BER (23.96 QALYs; €159,423) and M1 (24.15 QALYs; €158,417). Hypothetical improvements in M2 sensitivity resulted in slightly more value compared to improvements in specificity. Perfect diagnosis can cost €7,500 per patient and still provide enough value. CONCLUSION: Correct diagnosis of axSpA results in substantial health and cost benefits for patients and society. Not requiring IBP as mandatory for diagnosis of axSpA (algorithm M2) provides more value and would be preferable. A considerably more expensive diagnostic algorithm with better accuracy than M2 would still be considered good value for money.