Predicting outcomes in chronic kidney disease: needs and preferences of patients and nephrologists.

INTRODUCTION: Guidelines on chronic kidney disease (CKD) recommend that nephrologists use clinical prediction models (CPMs). However, the actual use of CPMs seems limited in clinical practice. We conducted a national survey study to evaluate: 1) to what extent CPMs are used in Dutch CKD practice, 2) patients' and nephrologists' needs and preferences regarding predictions in CKD, and 3) determinants that may affect the adoption of CPMs in clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with CKD patients to inform the development of two online surveys; one for CKD patients and one for nephrologists. Survey participants were recruited through the Dutch Kidney Patient Association and the Dutch Federation of Nephrology. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients and 50 nephrologists responded to the surveys. Most patients (89%) reported they had discussed predictions with their nephrologists. They most frequently discussed predictions regarded CKD progression: when they were expected to need kidney replacement therapy (KRT) (n = 81), and how rapidly their kidney function was expected to decline (n = 68). Half of the nephrologists (52%) reported to use CPMs in clinical practice, in particular CPMs predicting the risk of cardiovascular disease. Almost all nephrologists (98%) reported discussing expected CKD trajectories with their patients; even those that did not use CPMs (42%). The majority of patients (61%) and nephrologists (84%) chose a CPM predicting when patients would need KRT in the future as the most important prediction. However, a small portion of patients indicated they did not want to be informed on predictions regarding CKD progression at all (10-15%). Nephrologists not using CPMs (42%) reported they did not know CPMs they could use or felt that they had insufficient knowledge regarding CPMs. According to the nephrologists, the most important determinants for the adoption of CPMs in clinical practice were: 1) understandability for patients, 2) integration as standard of care, 3) the clinical relevance. CONCLUSION: Even though the majority of patients in Dutch CKD practice reported discussing predictions with their nephrologists, CPMs are infrequently used for this purpose. Both patients and nephrologists considered a CPM predicting CKD progression most important to discuss. Increasing awareness about existing CPMs that predict CKD progression may result in increased adoption in clinical practice. When using CPMs regarding CKD progression, nephrologists should ask whether patients want to hear predictions beforehand, since individual patients' preferences vary.

Limited value for ultrasonography in predicting flare in rheumatoid arthritis patients with low disease activity stopping TNF inhibitors.

Objective: Ultrasonography (US) can be used for treatment decisions in RA patients. This study investigated the added value of US to clinical variables in predicting flare in RA patients with longstanding low disease activity when stopping TNF inhibitors (TNFi). Methods: Cox models with and without using US added to clinical variables were developed in the Potential Optimization of Expediency of TNFi-UltraSonography study. RA patients (n = 259), using >1 year TNFi and csDMARD with DAS28 < 3.2 for 6 months prior to inclusion, were followed for 52 weeks after stopping TNFi. The added value of US was assessed in two ways: first, by the extent to which individual predictions for flare at 52 weeks with and without US differed; and second, by comparing how US information improved the prediction to classify patients at 52 weeks in the low risk (<33% flare), intermediate risk (33-50%) and high risk (50-100%) groups. Results: Although US was predictive of flare at group level (multivariate hazard ratio = 1.7; 95% CI: 1.1, 2.5), individual predictions for flare at 52 weeks with and without US differed little (median difference 3.7%; interquartile range: -7.8 to 6.5%). With US, 15.9% of patients were designated low risk; without US, 14.6%. In fact, 12.0% of patients were US-classified as low risk with/without knowing US. Conclusion: In RA patients with longstanding low disease activity, at time of stopping TNFi, US is a predictor for flare at group level, but at the patient level, US has limited added value when common clinical parameters are used already, though the predictive value of clinical predictors is modest as well.

Clinical Evaluation of the Measurement Performance of the Philips Health Watch: A Within-Person Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity is an important modifiable risk factor for chronic diseases. A new wrist-worn heart rate and activity monitor has been developed for unobtrusive data collection to aid prevention and management of lifestyle-related chronic diseases by means of behavioral change programs. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the performance of total energy expenditure and resting heart rate measures of the Philips health watch. Secondary objectives included the assessment of accuracy of other output parameters of the monitor: heart rate, respiration rate at rest, step count, and activity type recognition. METHODS: A within-person comparative study was performed to assess the performance of the health watch against (medical) reference measures. Participants executed a protocol including 15 minutes of rest and various activities of daily life. A two one-sided tests approach was adopted for testing equivalence. In addition, error metrics such as mean error and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 29 participants (14 males; mean age 41.2, SD 14.4, years; mean weight 77.2, SD 10.2, kg; mean height 1.8, SD 0.1, m; mean body mass index 25.1, SD 3.1, kg/m2) completed the 81-minute protocol. Their mean resting heart rate in beats per minute (bpm) was 64 (SD 7.3). With a mean error of -10 (SD 38.9) kcal and a MAPE of 10% (SD 8.7%), total energy expenditure estimation of the health watch was found to be within the 15% predefined equivalence margin in reference to a portable indirect calorimeter. Resting heart rate determined during a 15-minute rest protocol was found to be within a 10% equivalence margin in reference to a wearable electrocardiogram (ECG) monitor, with a mean deviation of 0 bpm and a maximum deviation of 3 bpm. Heart rate was within 10 bpm and 10% of the ECG monitor reference for 93% of the duration of the protocol. Step count estimates were on average 21 counts lower than a waist-mounted step counter over all walking activities combined, with a MAPE of 3.5% (SD 2.4%). Resting respiration rate was on average 0.7 (SD 1.1) breaths per minute lower than the reference measurement by the spirometer embedded in the indirect calorimeter during the 15-minute rest, resulting in a MAPE of 8.3% (SD 7.0%). Activity type recognition of walking, running, cycling, or other was overall 90% accurate in reference to the activities performed. CONCLUSIONS: The health watch can serve its medical purpose of measuring resting heart rate and total energy expenditure over time in an unobtrusive manner, thereby providing valuable data for the prevention and management of lifestyle-related chronic diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands trial register NTR5552; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=5552 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6neYJgysl).

Systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for assessing disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis.

Patient assessment of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may be useful in clinical practice, offering a patient-friendly, location independent, and a time-efficient and cost-efficient means of monitoring the disease. The objective of this study was to identify patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess disease activity in RA and to evaluate the measurement properties of these measures. Systematic literature searches were performed in the PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify articles reporting on clinimetric development or evaluation of PROM-based instruments to monitor disease activity in patients with RA. 2 reviewers independently selected articles for review and assessed their methodological quality based on the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) recommendations. A total of 424 abstracts were retrieved for review. Of these abstracts, 56 were selected for reviewing the full article and 34 articles, presenting 17 different PROMs, were finally included. Identified were: Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index (RADAI), RADAI-5, Patient-based Disease Activity Score (PDAS) I & II, Patient-derived Disease Activity Score with 28-joint counts (Pt-DAS28), Patient-derived Simplified Disease Activity Index (Pt-SDAI), Global Arthritis Score (GAS), Patient Activity Score (PAS) I & II, Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID) 2-5, Patient Reported Outcome-index (PRO-index) continuous (C) & majority (M), Patient Reported Outcome CLinical ARthritis Activity (PRO-CLARA). The quality of reports varied from poor to good. Typically 5 out of 10 clinimetric domains were covered in the validations of the different instruments. The quality and extent of clinimetric validation varied among PROMs of RA disease activity. The Pt-DAS28, RADAI, RADAI-5 and RAPID 3 had the strongest and most extensive validation. The measurement properties least reported and in need of more evidence were: reliability, measurement error, cross-cultural validity and interpretability of measures.

The influence of patient perceptions of disease on medication intensification in daily practice.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were twofold: to assess if there are independent effects of variables representing patients' perceptions of disease on intensification of drug therapy in patients with RA seen in daily practice; and to test the hypothesis that effects of patients' perceptions of disease are mediated through patient self-reported willingness to alter therapy. METHODS: Before being seen by a physician, consecutive patients with RA, attending the Radboudumc outpatient rheumatology clinic, were asked to fill out a short questionnaire regarding the following four items: perceived health change, satisfaction with current health, willingness to change therapy and expected health change until the next visit. Independent associations between these measures, registered clinical measures and synthetic DMARD/biologic DMARD (including CSs) intensification were studied with logistic regression. Mediation analysis was performed focusing on the strongest predictor and self-reported willingness as a mediator. RESULTS: Out of 453 patients with RA, 65% female, 67% RF positive, medication was intensified for 82 patients (18%). All patient perception measures exhibited significant associations, independent of clinical measures, of which patient satisfaction with current health state was the strongest [odds ratio (OR) 0.21, 95% CI: 0.10, 0.44]. Significant mediation of the effect of patient satisfaction through willingness to alter therapy on actual registered medication intensification was found. CONCLUSION: Treat to Target interventions should address patients' perceptions of their disease, and the related health goals patients aim to achieve, in addition to the attained level of disease activity.

Monitoring rheumatoid arthritis using an algorithm based on patient-reported outcome measures: a first step towards personalised healthcare.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this proof of concept study was to evaluate alerts generated by a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM)-based algorithm for monitoring patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: The algorithm was constructed using an example PROM score of an equally weighted mean of visual analogue scale (VAS) general health, VAS disease activity and VAS pain. Based on the PROM score, red flags are generated in 2 instances: the target level of disease activity is not met; change in disease activity surpasses an early alert threshold. To reduce false alarms, 3 consecutive red flags are needed to trigger an alert to the physician. Time series data from patients included consecutively in the practice-based Nijmegen Early RA cohort were analysed to select an appropriate autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model. This allowed for advanced interpolation of PROM scores and weekly data evaluation. Alerts were evaluated against disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)/biologic medication intensification registered in the cohort. RESULTS: Data of 165 patients followed in their second year postdiagnosis were analysed. In 89.8% of 716 visits, the algorithm did not generate an alert and medication was not escalated. Positive predictive value, sensitivity and specificity were 24.6%, 55.6% and 69.7%, respectively. Comparable performance was found when analyses were stratified for baseline Disease Activity Score 28-joint count (DAS28) level. CONCLUSIONS: When using the algorithm to screen scheduled visits, the overall chance of missing patients in need of medication intensification is low. These findings provide evidence that an off-site monitoring system could aid in optimising the number and timing of face-to-face consultations of patients with their rheumatologists.

Cost-effectiveness of abatacept, rituximab, and TNFi treatment after previous failure with TNFi treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: a pragmatic multi-centre randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) whose treatment with a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) is failing, several biological treatment options are available. Often, another TNFi or a biological with another mode of action is prescribed. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three biologic treatments with different modes of action in patients with RA whose TNFi therapy is failing. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, 1-year randomised trial in a multicentre setting. Patients with active RA despite previous TNFi treatment were randomised to receive abatacept, rituximab or a different TNFi. The primary outcome (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints) and the secondary outcomes (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index and 36-item Short Form Health Survey scores) were analysed using linear mixed models. Cost-effectiveness was analysed on the basis of incremental net monetary benefit, which was based on quality-adjusted life-years (calculated using EQ-5D scores), and all medication expenditures consumed in 1 year. All analyses were also corrected for possible confounders. RESULTS: Of 144 randomised patients, 5 were excluded and 139 started taking abatacept (43 patients), rituximab (46 patients) or a different TNFi (50 patients). There were no significant differences between the three groups with respect to multiple measures of RA outcomes. However, our analysis revealed that rituximab therapy is significantly more cost-effective than both abatacept and TNFi over a willingness-to-pay range of 0 to 80,000 euros. CONCLUSIONS: All three treatment options were similarly effective; however, when costs were factored into the treatment decision, rituximab was the best option available to patients whose first TNFi treatment failed. However, generalization of these costs to other countries should be undertaken carefully. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register number NTR1605. Registered 24 December 2008.

Individual patient monitoring in daily clinical practice: a critical evaluation of minimal important change.

PURPOSE: In daily practice, physicians translate knowledge from clinical trials to practice, to improve health in individual patients. To help interpret meaningful change on disease outcome measures, the concept of minimal important change (MIC) was conceived. The objective of this study was to investigate whether MIC values are suited for individual patient monitoring. METHODS: Three main elements of the MIC concept were evaluated: (1) MIC values for improvement and deterioration were determined, and the amount of misclassification present in quantifying minimal change was analyzed. (2) Discordance between change categories (improved, unchanged, deteriorated), defined by the MIC values, and patients' satisfaction with their health was inspected. (3) Discordance between change categories, defined by MIC values, and patients' willingness to alter therapy was inspected. RESULTS: MIC value analysis was based on 469 patients with RA seen in daily practice. The chance of falsely classifying health change of an individual patient was high (false-positive range 19-30 % and false-negative range 43-72 %). Of patients classified as improved, 24 % were not satisfied with their health and 69 % were not willing to change therapy. Of patients classified as deteriorated, 54 % were satisfied with their health and 57 % were not willing to change therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The misclassification in the quantification of change and high proportions of discordance between change categories defined by MIC cutoff values and patients' satisfaction and willingness to alter therapy indicate that MIC values as such are not suited for individual patient monitoring.

Should we redefine treatment targets in rheumatoid arthritis? Low disease activity is sufficiently strict for patients who are anticitrullinated protein antibody-negative.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical remission currently is the treatment target for all patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). At the same level of inflammation, the prognosis regarding joint damage is believed to be different for anticitrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)-negative and ACPA-positive patients. Our objective was to show the difference in prognosis at similar disease activity levels, and to illustrate how this could be translated to differentiation of treatment targets. METHODS: Data were used from the Nijmegen Early RA Cohort. The relation between the time-averaged disease activity level (by Disease Activity Score; DAS) and joint damage progression over 3 years was analyzed, separately for ACPA-negative and ACPA-positive patients. Joint damage was assessed as change in Ratingen score, and dichotomized as occurrence of erosions in joints that were unaffected at baseline. Linear and logistic multivariable regression models were used. RESULTS: The regression coefficient of DAS on change in Ratingen score was 3.9 (p < 0.001) for ACPA-negative and 4.7 (p < 0.001) for ACPA-positive patients, showing less joint damage progression at the same disease activity level in ACPA-negative patients. This difference became greater with increasing disease activity. The probability for erosions in joints unaffected at baseline was 0.35 in ACPA-negative patients when time-averaged DAS was < 2.4 versus 0.80 in ACPA-positive patients. CONCLUSION: At the same level of inflammation, ACPA-negative patients have less joint damage and lower probability for damage in newly affected joints than ACPA-positive patients. Low disease activity might be a sufficiently strict treatment target for ACPA-negative patients to prevent progression of joint damage.

The relationship between change in subjective outcome and change in disease: a potential paradox.

BACKGROUND: Response shift theory suggests that improvements in health lead patients to change their internal standards and re-assess former health states as worse than initially rated when using retrospective ratings via the then-test. The predictions of response shift theory can be illustrated using prospect theory, whereby a change in current health causes a change in reference frame. Therefore, if health deteriorates, the former health state will receive a better rating, whereas if it improves, the former health state will receive a worse rating. OBJECTIVE: To explore the predictions of response shift and prospect theory by relating subjective change to objective change. METHODS: Baseline and 3-month follow-up data from a cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients (N = 197) starting on TNFalpha-blocking agents were used. Objective disease change was classified according to a disease-specific clinical outcome measure (DAS28). Visual analogue scales (VAS) for general health (GH) and pain were used as self-reported measures. Three months after starting on anti-TNFalpha, patients used the then-test to re-rate their baseline health with regard to general health and pain. Differences between then-test value and baseline values were calculated and tested between improved, non-improved and deteriorated patients by the Student t-test. RESULTS: At 3 months, 51 (25.9%) patients had good improvement in health, 83 (42.1%) had moderate improvement, and 63 (32.0%) had no improvement or deteriorated in health. All patients no matter whether they improved, did not improve, or even became worse rated their health as worse retrospectively. The difference between the then-test rating and the baseline value was similarly sized in all groups. CONCLUSION: More positive ratings of retrospective health are independent of disease change. This suggests that patients do not necessarily change their standards in line with their disease change, and therefore it is inappropriate to use the then-test to correct for such a change. If a then-test is used to correct for shifts in internal standards, it might lead to the paradoxical result that patients who do not improve or even deteriorate increase significantly on self-reported health and pain. An alternative explanation for differences in retrospective and prospective ratings of health is the implicit theory of change which is more successful in explaining our results than prospect theory.