Definitions of rheumatoid arthritis flare and how they relate to patients' perspectives: A scoping review of qualitative and quantitative evidence.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is characterized by intermittent flares of disease activity with a significant impact on patients' lives. However, distinguishing flare from daily symptom variation may be approached differently by patients and healthcare providers, potentially hampering shared decision-making when treating RA. OBJECTIVES: To provide a comprehensive overview of RA flare definitions reported in the published literature, and to compare these with patients' perceptions of the flare concept according to qualitative evidence. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on August 30th, 2022, and updated on September 30th, 2023, for both quantitative and qualitative studies reporting "flare" or related terms in the context of RA. We searched the following databases: Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Definitions of RA flare reported in quantitative studies were summarized descriptively. In parallel, a thematic synthesis of qualitative studies was performed to outline patients' views on the concept of flare, and to compare these with the currently used definitions. RESULTS: Among 32,864 potentially eligible records, 304 studies were included, 5 of which used qualitative/mixed methods to study patients' perceptions of flare. Remarkably, 62 different definitions for RA flare were reported, with many studies reporting more than one. The most commonly used definitions (54 %) were based on disease activity indices, with DAS28-based definitions the most widely applied (84 %). For each of the disease activity indices, several different cutoffs to define flares were used. Various definitions based on physician report were applied in 24 % of cases, while patient-reported criteria represented only 15 % of the applied definitions. Thematic synthesis of the qualitative/mixed-methods studies highlighted the multidimensional impact of flares on patients' lives, resulting in five sequential overarching themes: "Living with RA: a balancing act", "Flare: a disturbance of this balance", "The biopsychosocial impact of flares", "Self-management: the first line of defense", and "Medical help: the last resort". In turn, these five themes were underpinned by a central theme of "Uncertainty and variability". CONCLUSION: We found a striking heterogeneity regarding the conceptualization and measurement of RA flare in the published literature. Although qualitative evidence highlighted the considerable impact of flares on patients' wellbeing, the majority of reported flare definitions were not based on patient report. There is a need to bridge this gap by aligning patients' and healthcare professionals' views on what distinguishes a flare from acceptable symptom variability when living with RA.

Patients' and rheumatologists' perceptions on dose reduction of rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: The recommended dose of a rituximab course for the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) consists of two infusions of 1000 mg with a 2-week interval. Evidence is growing that a lower dose could be as effective. We aimed to investigate patients' and rheumatologists' perceptions on dose reduction of rituximab. METHODS: Patients with RA treated with rituximab, and rheumatologists were invited for a qualitative study via individual semi-structured interviews. Participants were recruited based on purposive sampling to ensure diversity. Interviews were analysed according to the principles of grounded theory and the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Sixteen patients and 13 rheumatologists were interviewed. Patients and rheumatologists perceived the benefits of rituximab dose reduction for reasons of safety and societal costs. Furthermore, available evidence for the effectiveness of lower doses was mentioned as an argument in favour, in addition to the possibility to tailor the dose based on the patients' clinical manifestations. However, patients and rheumatologists had concerns about the potential loss of effectiveness and quality of life. Moreover, some rheumatologists felt uncomfortable with dose reduction due to insufficient experience with rituximab in general. Patients and rheumatologists emphasised the importance of shared decision-making, underscoring the pivotal role of physicians in this process by explaining the reasoning behind dose reduction. CONCLUSION: Although some concerns on effectiveness were perceived, both patients and rheumatologists saw potential benefits of dose reduction in terms of safety, societal costs, and application of a personalised approach. As a result, most rheumatologists and patients showed a willingness to consider dose reduction strategies.

To flare or not to flare: patients' and rheumatologists' perceptions on the on-flare retreatment strategy of rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis.

Background: Several retreatment strategies exist for rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In some countries, reimbursement criteria require a loss of disease control for rituximab retreatment. Understanding the patients' and rheumatologists' perceptions regarding this retreatment strategy would be informative in identifying the optimal treatment administration schedule. Objectives: This study aimed to uncover patients' and rheumatologists' perceptions regarding retreatment strategies of rituximab. Design: Qualitative study - semi-structured interviews. Methods: Patients with RA, treated with rituximab, and rheumatologists were invited to participate in a qualitative study consisting of individual, in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Interviews were analysed according to the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven. Results: A total of 16 patients and 13 rheumatologists were interviewed. Benefits (e.g. decreased risk of overtreatment, cost savings and long-lasting effectiveness of rituximab) and barriers (e.g. fluctuating disease activity, slow mode of action and increased glucocorticoid use) of on-flare retreatment were identified. To effectively treat on-flare, flares must first be identified timely. Both stakeholder groups acknowledged that patients are capable of recognizing flares. However, the patient's ability to discriminate between inflammatory and other types of pain was perceived as difficult. Furthermore, patients and rheumatologists stressed that patients must timely seek professional help in case of a flare, followed by a swift response from the rheumatologists. Remarkably, retreatment was approached in various ways among rheumatologists, and not always adhering strictly to the on-flare reimbursement criteria. Conclusion: This study revealed that both stakeholder groups perceived the heterogeneity in recognition of and reaction to a flare as important in influencing the effectiveness of the on-flare retreatment strategy. Moreover, this study identified the benefits and barriers of treating on-flare, which could be informative for daily practice decisions.

Patient-physician discordance impairs outcomes in early rheumatoid arthritis through less consistent treat-to-target implementation.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess whether patient-physician discordance regarding disease activity affects T2T-implementation and clinical outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This was an analysis of the 2-year T2T-guided trial Care in early RA (CareRA). During year 1, DMARD escalations were mandated by the protocol when DAS28-CRP was >3.2. During year 2, treatment was at the rheumatologists' discretion. At each visit we assessed T2T-implementation, defined as escalating DMARDs if DAS28-CRP >3.2. Patient-physician discordance was defined by the discordance score (DS), a weighted difference between patient-reported and clinical/laboratory outcomes. Using generalised linear mixed models and multilevel mediation analysis, we studied the association between time-varying DS, T2T-implementation and the odds of remission (SDAI ≤3.3), physical functioning (HAQ-score), and radiographic progression at year 2. RESULTS: Over 2 years, 379 patients were assessed at 3129 follow-up visits. On 445 (14%) of these visits, DAS28-CRP was >3.2, and DMARDs were escalated in 217/445 (49%) of such cases. T2T-implementation declined over time and was consistently lower during the second year (year 1: 57-66%; year 2: 17-52%). Higher DS over time was negatively associated with remission and physical functioning at year 2, partly mediated by a lower proportion of T2T-adherent visits. No such association was found for radiographic progression. CONCLUSION: Even in a trial setting, T2T was applied on only around 50% of visits. T2T was less likely to be implemented with increasing patient-physician discordance regarding disease activity, which was in turn associated with less remission and worse functional outcome, but not with radiographic progression.

Effectiveness and feasibility of a mobile health self-management intervention in rheumatoid arthritis: study protocol for a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (AEGORA).

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) considerably impacts patients' lives. Patients' confidence in their ability to manage this impact, or self-efficacy, can be supported with self-management interventions. One approach is to use mobile health (mHealth) applications, which can additionally provide insight into disease impact by remotely monitoring patient-reported outcomes. However, user engagement with mHealth-apps is variable, and concerns exist that remote monitoring might make patients overly attentive to symptoms. METHODS: App-based Education and GOal setting in RA (AEGORA) is a multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial investigating an mHealth-based self-management intervention to improve self-efficacy and remotely monitor disease impact in patients with RA. The intervention is provided via an adapted version of the application Sidekick (Sidekick Health, Reykjavik, Iceland) and consists of education, goal setting, lifestyle advice, and remote assessment of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) questionnaire. Across two centres, 120 patients will be recruited and randomised (2:1:1) to usual care or intervention group A/B (study app with weekly/monthly prompts to complete the RAID, respectively). Outcomes are assessed at baseline and after 4-6 months. The primary endpoint is a clinically important improvement (≥ 5.5/110) in the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale in the combined intervention group compared to usual care. Secondary endpoints are (a) non-inferiority regarding pain catastrophising, as a measure of symptom hypervigilance; (b) superiority regarding the RAID, sleep quality, and physical activity; and (c) participant engagement with the study app. Finally, the relationship between engagement, prompted frequency of RAID questionnaires, and the primary and secondary outcomes will be explored. DISCUSSION: The AEGORA trial aims to study the effectiveness of mHealth-based, multicomponent self-management support to improve self-efficacy in the context of RA, while providing potentially valuable insights into temporal disease activity dynamics and the feasibility and possible negative effects of remote symptom monitoring in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05888181. Retrospectively registered on March 23, 2023. Study inclusion started on March 3, 2023.