Effects of tapering conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs to drug-free remission versus stable treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (ARCTIC REWIND): 3-year results from an open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Tapering of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to drug-free remission is an attractive treatment goal for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, although long-term effects of tapering and withdrawal remain unclear. We compared 3-year risks of flare between three conventional synthetic DMARD treatment strategies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in sustained remission. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial, we enrolled patients aged 18-80 years with rheumatoid arthritis who had been in sustained remission for at least 1 year on stable conventional synthetic DMARD therapy. Patients from ten hospitals in Norway were randomly assigned (2:1:1) with centre stratification to receive stable conventional synthetic DMARDs, half-dose conventional synthetic DMARDs, or half-dose conventional synthetic DMARDs for 1 year followed by withdrawal of all conventional synthetic DMARDs. The primary endpoint of this part of the study was disease flare over 3 years, analysed as flare-free survival and risk difference in the per-protocol population with a non-inferiority margin of 20%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01881308) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between June 17, 2013, and June 18, 2018, 160 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive stable-dose conventional synthetic DMARDs (n=80), half-dose conventional synthetic DMARDs (n=42), or half-dose conventional synthetic DMARDs tapering to withdrawal (n=38). Four patients did not receive the intervention and 156 patients received the allocated treatment strategy. One patient was excluded due to major protocol violation and 155 patients were included in the per-protocol analysis. 104 (67%) of 156 patients were women and 52 (33%) were men. 139 patients completed 3-years follow-up without major protocol violation; 68 (87%) of 78 patients in the stable-dose group, 36 (88%) of 41 patients in the half-dose group and 35 (95%) of 37 patients in the half-dose tapering to withdrawal group. During the 3-year study period, 80% (95% CI 69-88%) were flare-free in the stable-dose group, compared with 57% (41-71%) in the half-dose group and 38% (22-53%) in the half-dose tapering to withdrawal group. Compared with stable-dose conventional synthetic DMARDs, the risk difference of flare was 23% (95% CI 6-41%, p=0·010) in the half-dose group and 40% (22-58%, p<0·0001) in the half-dose tapering to withdrawal group, non-inferiority was therefore not shown. Adverse events were reported in 65 (83%) of 78 patients in the stable-dose group, 36 (90%) of 40 patients in the half-dose group, and 36 (97%) of 37 patients in the half-dose tapering to withdrawal group. One death occurred in the stable-dose conventional synthetic DMARD group (sudden death considered unlikely related to the study medication). INTERPRETATION: Two conventional synthetic DMARD tapering strategies were associated with significantly lower rates of flare-free survival compared with stable conventional synthetic DMARD treatment, and the data do not support non-inferiority. However, drug-free remission was achiveable for a significant subgroup of patients. This trial provides information on risk and benefits of different treatment strategies important for shared decision making. FUNDING: Research Council of Norway and South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority.

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.

Follow-Up of Patients With Axial Spondyloarthritis in Specialist Health Care With Remote Monitoring and Self-Monitoring Compared With Regular Face-to-Face Follow-Up Visits (the ReMonit Study): Protocol for a Randomized, Controlled Open-Label Noninferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic inflammatory joint diseases such as axial spondyloarthritis have traditionally received regular follow-up in specialist health care to maintain low disease activity. The follow-up has been organized as prescheduled face-to-face visits, which are time-consuming for both patients and health care professionals. Technology has enabled the remote monitoring of disease activity, allowing patients to self-monitor their disease and contact health care professionals when needed. Remote monitoring or self-monitoring may provide a more personalized follow-up, but there is limited research on how these follow-up strategies perform in maintaining low disease activity, patient satisfaction, safety, and cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: The Remote Monitoring in Axial Spondyloarthritis (ReMonit) study aimed to assess the effectiveness of digital remote monitoring and self-monitoring in maintaining low disease activity in patients with axial spondyloarthritis. METHODS: The ReMonit study is a 3-armed, single-site, randomized, controlled, open-label noninferiority trial including patients with axial spondyloarthritis with low disease activity (Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score <2.1) and on stable treatment with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor. Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to arm A (usual care, face-to-face visits every sixth month), arm B (remote monitoring, monthly digital registration of patient-reported outcomes), or arm C (patient-initiated care, self-monitoring, no planned visits during the study period). The primary end point was disease activity measured with the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score, evaluated at 6, 12, and 18 months. We aimed to include 240 patients, 80 in each arm. Secondary end points included other measures of disease activity, patient satisfaction, safety, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The project is funded by the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority and Centre for the treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Norway. Enrollment started in September 2021 and was completed with 242 patients by June 2022. The data collection will be completed in December 2023. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this trial will be among the first to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of remote digital monitoring and self-monitoring of patients with axial spondyloarthritis compared with usual care. Hence, the ReMonit study will contribute important knowledge to personalized follow-up strategies for patients with axial spondyloarthritis. These results may also be relevant for other patient groups with inflammatory joint diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05031767; hpps://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05031767. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/52872.

Effect of tapered versus stable treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors on disease flares in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in remission: a randomised, open label, non-inferiority trial.

OBJECTIVES: Many patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) require treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) to reach remission. It is debated whether tapering of TNFi to discontinuation should be considered in sustained remission. The aim of ARCTIC REWIND TNFi was to assess the effect of tapering TNFi to withdrawal compared with stable treatment on the risk of disease activity flares in patients with RA in remission ≥1 year. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial was undertaken at nine Norwegian rheumatology departments. Patients with RA in remission ≥12 months on stable TNFi therapy were allocated by computer-based block-randomisation to tapering to discontinuation of TNFi or stable TNFi. Conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic co-medication was unchanged. The primary endpoint was disease flare during the 12-month study period (non-inferiority margin 20%), assessed in the per-protocol population. RESULTS: Between June 2013 and January 2019, 99 patients were enrolled and 92 received the allocated treatment strategy. Eighty-four patients were included in the per-protocol population. In the tapering TNFi group, 27/43 (63%) experienced a flare during 12 months, compared with 2/41 (5%) in the stable TNFi group; risk difference (95% CI) 58% (42% to 74%). The tapering strategy was not non-inferior to continued stable treatment. The number of total/serious adverse events was 49/3 in the tapering group, 57/2 in the stable group. CONCLUSION: In patients with RA in remission for more than 1 year while using TNFi, an increase in flare rate was reported in those who tapered TNFi to discontinuation. However, most regained remission after reinstatement of full-dose treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EudraCT: 2012-005275-14 and clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01881308.

Educational readiness among health professionals in rheumatology: low awareness of EULAR offerings and unfamiliarity with the course content as major barriers-results of a EULAR-funded European survey.

BACKGROUND: Ongoing education of health professionals in rheumatology (HPR) is critical for high-quality care. An essential factor is education readiness and a high quality of educational offerings. We explored which factors contributed to education readiness and investigated currently offered postgraduate education, including the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) offerings. METHODS AND PARTICIPANTS: We developed an online questionnaire, translated it into 24 languages and distributed it in 30 European countries. We used natural language processing and the Latent Dirichlet Allocation to analyse the qualitative experiences of the participants as well as descriptive statistics and multiple logistic regression to determine factors influencing postgraduate educational readiness. Reporting followed the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys guideline. RESULTS: The questionnaire was accessed 3589 times, and 667 complete responses from 34 European countries were recorded. The highest educational needs were 'professional development', 'prevention and lifestyle intervention'. Older age, more working experience in rheumatology and higher education levels were positively associated with higher postgraduate educational readiness. While more than half of the HPR were familiar with EULAR as an association and the respondents reported an increased interest in the content of the educational offerings, the courses and the annual congress were poorly attended due to a lack of awareness, comparatively high costs and language barriers. CONCLUSIONS: To promote the uptake of EULAR educational offerings, attention is needed to increase awareness among national organisations, offer accessible participation costs, and address language barriers.

Fatigue in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis undergoing treat-to-target therapy: predictors and response to treatment.

OBJECTIVES: Fatigue is a frequent symptom in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and has high impact on quality of life. We explored associations between disease activity and fatigue in patients with early RA during the initial 24 months of modern treat-to-target therapy and predictors of fatigue after 24 months of follow-up. METHODS: Data were obtained from the treat-to-target, tight control Aiming for Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis: a Randomised Trial Examining the Benefit of Ultrasound in a Clinical Tight Control Regime (ARCTIC) trial. Fatigue was measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100 mm and defined as clinically relevant if VAS was ≥20 mm. Baseline predictors of fatigue at 24 months were analysed by multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: 205 patients with fatigue data at baseline and 24 months were included. Median (25th, 75th percentiles) symptom duration was 5.4 months (2.8, 10.4), fatigue VAS 37.0 mm (13.0, 62.0) and mean Disease Activity Score (DAS) 3.4 (SD 1.1) at baseline. Prevalence of fatigue declined from 69% at baseline to 38% at 24 months. Fewer swollen joints (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.98, p=0.006), lower power Doppler ultrasound score (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.99, p=0.027) and higher patient global assessment (PGA) (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.04, p<0.001) increased the risk of clinically relevant fatigue at 24 months. Not achieving remission at 6 months was associated with a higher risk of reporting fatigue at 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: Fatigue in patients with early RA was prevalent at disease onset, with a rapid and sustained reduction during treatment. Low objective disease activity and high PGA at baseline were predictors of clinically relevant fatigue at 24 months.

Effect of Half-Dose vs Stable-Dose Conventional Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs on Disease Flares in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis in Remission: The ARCTIC REWIND Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Sustained remission has become an achievable goal for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), but how to best treat patients in clinical remission remains unclear. Objective: To assess the effect of tapering of csDMARDs, compared with continuing csDMARDs without tapering, on the risk of flares in patients with RA in sustained remission. Design, Setting, and Participants: ARCTIC REWIND was a multicenter, randomized, parallel, open-label noninferiority study conducted in 10 Norwegian hospital-based rheumatology practices. A total of 160 patients with RA in remission for 12 months who were receiving stable csDMARD therapy were enrolled between June 2013 and June 2018, and the final visit occurred in June 2019. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to half-dose csDMARDs (n = 80) or stable-dose csDMARDs (n = 80). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a disease flare between baseline and the 12-month follow-up, defined as a combination of Disease Activity Score (DAS) greater than 1.6 (threshold for RA remission), an increase in DAS score of 0.6 units or more, and at least 2 swollen joints. A disease flare could also be recorded if both the patient and investigator agreed that a clinically significant flare had occurred. A risk difference of 20% was defined as the noninferiority margin. Results: Of 160 enrolled patients (mean [SD] age, 55.1 [11.9] years; 66% female), 156 received the allocated therapy, of which 155 without any major protocol violations were included in the primary analysis population (77 receiving half-dose and 78 receiving stable-dose csDMARDs). Flare occurred in 19 patients (25%) in the half-dose csDMARD group compared with 5 (6%) in the stable-dose csDMARD group (risk difference, 18% [95% CI, 7%-29%]). Adverse events occurred in 34 patients (44%) in the half-dose group and 42 (54%) in the stable-dose group, none leading to study discontinuation. No deaths occurred. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with RA in remission taking csDMARD therapy, treatment with half-dose vs stable-dose csDMARDs did not demonstrate noninferiority for the percentage of patients with disease flares over 12 months, and there were significantly fewer flares in the stable-dose group. These findings do not support treatment with half-dose therapy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01881308.

Use of video consultations in an outpatient rheumatology clinic. / Bruk av videokonsultasjon ved en revmatologisk poliklinikk.

BACKGROUND: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the implementation of video consultations as an alternative to hospital face-to-face consultations was advanced for persons with rheumatic diseases at Diakonhjemmet Hospital. Video consultations were introduced in March 2020, and this article presents the experiences gained by healthcare professionals and patients. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The data was collected in June 2020 through focus-group interviews with healthcare professionals and through an anonymous online survey of patients who had attended video consultations during a period of three weeks in June 2020. RESULTS: The data from the focus-group interviews with seven rheumatologists and seven nurses were sorted into main thematic categories: patient, healthcare professional, consultation, and technology. The healthcare professionals felt that video consultations, with some exceptions, were appropriate in the follow-up of patients with rheumatic diseases, and especially for stable patients with no confounding issues. Of the 383 patients who were invited to participate, 139 (36 %) responded to the survey. The patients were largely satisfied with the video consultation, with a median score of 10 (quartiles 8-10) on a numerical rating scale from 0 to 10, however, 32 (27 %) patients considered the lack of clinical examination to be detrimental. INTERPRETATION: Video consultations are often appropriate in the follow-up of patients with a rheumatic disease.

Endorsement of the OMERACT core domain set for shared decision making interventions in rheumatology trials: Results from a multi-stepped consensus-building approach.

OBJECTIVE: To gain consensus on the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set for rheumatology trials of shared decision making (SDM) interventions. METHODS: The process followed the OMERACT Filter 2.1 methodology, and used consensus-building methods, with patients involved since the inception. After developing the draft core domain set in previous research, we conducted five steps: (i) improving the draft core domain set; (ii) developing and disseminating white-board videos to promote its understanding; (iii) conducting an electronic survey to gather feedback on the draft core domain set; (iv) finalizing the core domain set and developing summaries, a plenary session video and discussion boards to promote its understanding; and (v) conducting virtual workshops with voting to endorse the core domain set. RESULTS: A total of 167 participants from 28 countries answered the survey (62% were patients/caregivers). Most participants rated domains as relevant (81%-95%) and clear (82%-93%). A total of 149 participants (n = 48 patients/caregivers, 101 clinicians/researchers) participated in virtual workshops and voted on the proposed core domain set which received endorsement by 95%. Endorsed domains are: 1- Knowledge of options, their potential benefits and harms; 2- Chosen option aligned with each patient's values and preferences; 3- Confidence in the chosen option; 4- Satisfaction with the decision-making process; 5- Adherence to the chosen option and 6- Potential negative consequences of the SDM intervention. CONCLUSION: We achieved consensus among an international group of stakeholders on the OMERACT core domain set for rheumatology trials of SDM interventions. Future research will develop the Core Outcome Measurement Set. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Prior to this study, there had been no consensus on the OMERACT core domain set for SDM interventions. The current study shows that the OMERACT core domain set achieved a high level of endorsement by key stakeholders, including patients/caregivers, clinicians and researchers.

2020 EULAR points to consider for the prevention, screening, assessment and management of non-adherence to treatment in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases for use in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Non-adherence to treatment could preclude reaching an optimal outcome. Thirty to 80% of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) do not adhere to the agreed treatment. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to establish points to consider (PtCs) for the prevention, screening, assessment and management of non-adherence to (non-)pharmacological treatments in people with RMDs. METHODS: An EULAR task force (TF) was established, and the EULAR standardised operating procedures for the development of PtCs were followed. The TF included healthcare providers (HCPs), comprising rheumatologists, nurses, pharmacists, psychologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and patient-representatives from 12 European countries. A review of systematic reviews was conducted in advance to support the TF in formulating the PtCs. The level of agreement among the TF was established by anonymous online voting. RESULTS: Four overarching principles and nine PtCs were formulated. The PtCs reflect the phases of action on non-adherence. HCPs should assess and discuss adherence with patients on a regular basis and support patients to treatment adherence. As adherence is an agreed behaviour, the treatment has to be tailored to the patients' needs. The level of agreement ranged from 9.5 to 9.9 out of 10. CONCLUSIONS: These PtCs can help HCPs to support people with RMDs to be more adherent to the agreed treatment plan. The basic scheme being prevent non-adherence by bonding with the patient and building trust, overcoming structural barriers, assessing in a blame-free environment and tailoring the solution to the problem.

Prevention, screening, assessing and managing of non-adherent behaviour in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: systematic reviews informing the 2020 EULAR points to consider.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse how non-adherence to prescribed treatments might be prevented, screened, assessed and managed in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: An overview of systematic reviews (SR) was performed in four bibliographic databases. Research questions focused on: (1) effective interventions or strategies, (2) associated factors, (3) impact of shared decision making and effective communication, (4) practical things to prevent non-adherence, (5) effect of non-adherence on outcome, (6) screening and assessment tools and (7) responsible healthcare providers. The methodological quality of the reviews was assessed using AMSTAR-2. The qualitative synthesis focused on results and on the level of evidence attained from the studies included in the reviews. RESULTS: After reviewing 9908 titles, the overview included 38 SR on medication, 29 on non-pharmacological interventions and 28 on assessment. Content and quality of the included SR was very heterogeneous. The number of factors that may influence adherence exceed 700. Among 53 intervention studies, 54.7% showed a small statistically significant effect on adherence, and all three multicomponent interventions, including different modes of patient education and delivered by a variety of healthcare providers, showed a positive result in adherence to medication. No single assessment provided a comprehensive measure of adherence to either medication or exercise. CONCLUSIONS: The results underscore the complexity of non-adherence, its changing pattern and dependence on multi-level factors, the need to involve all stakeholders in all steps, the absence of a gold standard for screening and the requirement of multi-component interventions to manage it.