ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Previously, our cross-sectional observational study in Japan revealed high (68%) discordance within treatment goals between psoriasis patients and their physicians. OBJECTIVE: This secondary analysis aimed to determine whether patient and physician users of biologics have higher treatment goals than users of non-biologics. METHODS: A survey for both patients and physicians on background characteristics, disease severity, treatment goals, treatment satisfaction, and health-related quality of life was conducted at 54 sites. Association between treatment goals and biologic/non-biologic users was assessed using ordinal logistic regression models. RESULTS: In total, 449 patient-physician pairs agreed to participate; 425 completed the survey and were analyzed. More biologic users than non-biologic users reported complete clearance (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 100) as a treatment goal (patient-reported: 23.6% vs. 16.1%; physician-reported: 26.9% vs. 2.2%). Biologic users were significantly associated with higher treatment goals than non-biologic users (patient-reported: 1.8 (1.15-2.87) (odds ratio (9 5% CI)), p = 0.01; physician-reported: 11.0 (5.72-21.01), p < 0.01). Among biologic users, higher treatment goals were associated with higher treatment satisfaction (patient- and physician-rated); lower treatment goals were associated with back lesions and increasing patient age (patient-rated) and higher disease severity (physician-rated). CONCLUSION: Use of biologics among patients with psoriasis was associated with higher treatment goals. Further use of biologics contributed to treatment satisfaction. Appropriate treatment goals that are shared among patients and their physicians may improve treatment outcomes.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) obtained through routine medical care may identify patients' day-to-day burden and help tackle the disease from the patients' perspective. However, there is a paucity of information regarding the availability of PRO data and PRO tools for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Japan. OBJECTIVE: We reviewed the literature on PRO data availability and to identify PRO measures implemented in Japan for RA patients. METHOD: We conducted a systematic literature review using ICHUSHI and the PubMed databases on PRO measures for RA published from January 2011 to August 2015 in Japan. RESULTS: After removing duplicates, 2423 manuscripts were found. From these, 100 manuscripts were included for review and analysis. We found 29 PRO tools that were used to assess various domains of health such as general well-being, pain, functionality, and fatigue. More than 90% of the studies utilized PRO tools for research purpose. Only one study reported PRO tool implementation in the routine medical care. CONCLUSION: The importance of PROs is recognized in Japan. PRO tools varied significantly and were mostly used for research purposes, while reports on the use of PRO measures in routine medical care were limited. Despite the awareness of PROs in the research community, unmet needs remain among RA patients in Japan. Further work is needed to investigate ways in which PROs can better reflect these unmet needs and be utilized in routine medical care.
