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.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of combined asynchronous telemonitoring and patient-initiated care for spondyloarthritis: protocol for a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (TeleSpA Study).

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, an accelerated uptake of remote monitoring strategies, replacing traditional face-to-face care, has been observed. However, data on the effects of remote care interventions for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases remain scarce and interpretation is hampered by study heterogeneity and research quality concerns. High-quality evidence is required to guide future implementation in clinical practice, with health economic analyses identified as an important knowledge gap. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing telemonitoring with conventional care for patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA) are currently lacking. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: TeleSpA is a pragmatic, multicentre RCT investigating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of combined asynchronous telemonitoring and patient-initiated follow-up for patients with SpA, compared with conventional care. Two-hundred patients will be recruited at two hospitals and randomised (1:1) to the study intervention or standard care. The primary endpoint is a reduction in the number of follow-up visits by ≥25% in the intervention compared with standard care group, during a 1-year period. Secondary endpoints are (a) non-inferiority of the study intervention with regard to health outcomes, quality of care and patient-reported experience with care; and (b) cost-effectiveness of the intervention, evaluated through a prospective trial-based cost-utility analysis. In addition, experiences with the study intervention will be assessed among patients and healthcare providers, and factors associated with primary and secondary endpoints will be identified. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Medical Research Ethics Committee of the Academic Hospital Maastricht/Maastricht University (NL71041.068.19/METC 19-059). Results will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04673825.

Are All Routine Spondyloarthritis Outpatient Visits Considered Useful by Rheumatologists? An Exploratory Clinical Practice Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine (1) the proportion of routine spondyloarthritis (SpA) outpatient visits considered (un)necessary by rheumatologists, (2) characteristics of (un)necessary visits, and (3) whether previsit remote health outcome assessments can identify the necessity of ensuing visits. METHODS: A random sample of follow-up visits was evaluated at an SpA outpatient clinic. Before visits, patient-reported outcomes and disease activity were collected through an online health registry (SpA-Net). Rheumatologists were asked whether visits were considered necessary and whether therapy was altered. Clinical actions during visits were documented alongside demographic and clinical patient characteristics; these were compared for necessary vs unnecessary visits. Multivariable logistic regressions explored which previsit health outcomes (disease activity, patient-reported physical and mental health) were associated with the perceived necessity of visits. Predictive value was calculated for high disease activity thresholds of Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) and patient global assessment (PtGA). RESULTS: Of 114 outpatient visits, 39 (34.2%) were considered unnecessary. These visits involved fewer treatment changes (6 of 39 [15.4%] vs 39 of 75 [52.0%] visits) and clinical actions (9 of 39 [23.1%] vs 47 of 75 [62.7%] visits) compared to visits considered necessary. Previsit ASDAS (OR 4.06, 95% CI 1.80-9.17) and PtGA (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.25-2.17) were associated with the perceived necessity of visits. Positive predictive value of ASDAS ≥ 2.1 and PtGA ≥ 3.0 were 91.7% and 80.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Traditional physician-initiated follow-up for patients with SpA likely results in a suboptimal use of time and resources. Remote disease activity assessments can help identify patients for whom visits might be necessary from a rheumatologist's perspective.

Urinary retention on an acute geriatric hospitalisation unit: prevalence, risk factors and the role of screening, an observational cohort study.

PURPOSE: Urinary retention (UR) is common in older patients. The aim of this observational cohort study was to measure the prevalence of UR in patients aged ≥ 75 years on admission to an acute geriatric hospitalisation unit and to determine which at risk group would benefit from screening. METHODS: Post-void residual volumes (PVR) were measured within 3 days of admission with an ultrasound bladder scan. Uni- and multivariable analysis were used to determine risk factors associated with PVR ≥ 150 and ≥ 300 millilitres. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients, mean age 84.6 years, were included. The male/female ratio was 0.7. Patients with PVR ≥ 150 (29.8%) had more urological comorbidities, symptoms of overflow incontinence, voiding difficulties, subtotal voiding, faecal impaction, urinary tract infection (UTI) and were more frequently referred because of urinary symptoms. Patients with PVR ≥ 300 lived less at home, had more urological comorbidities, dysuria, voiding difficulties, subtotal voiding, constipation, faecal impaction, UTI, detrusor relaxants, and were more frequently referred because of urinary symptoms. Voiding difficulties and referral because of urinary symptoms were independently associated with PVR ≥ 150. Not living at home, reporting subtotal voiding, constipation, and referral because of urinary symptoms were independently associated with PVR ≥ 300. CONCLUSION: Screening for UR on admission to an acute geriatric hospitalisation unit is most indicated in patients with urinary and defaecation problems. However, because the prevalence was high, because UR was also observed in patients without these problems, and history taking may be difficult, the threshold for PVR measurement in acutely ill geriatric patients should be low. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NTC04715971, January 19, 2021 (retrospectively registered).