The impact of different (rheumatoid) arthritis phenotypes on patients' lives.

OBJECTIVES: To compare patient-reported outcome (PRO) domains between three arthritis phenotypes [undifferentiated arthritis (UA), autoantibody-negative RA (RA-) and autoantibody-positive RA (RA+)] at diagnosis, after 2 years and over time. METHODS: All UA (n = 130), RA- (n = 176) and RA+ (n = 331) patients from the tREACH trial, a stratified single-blinded trial with a treat-to-target approach, were used. PRO comparisons between phenotypes at baseline and after 2 years were performed with analysis of variance, while a linear mixed model compared them over time. Effect sizes were weighted against the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for each PRO. RESULTS: RA- patients had a higher disease burden compared with RA+ and UA. At baseline and after 2 years, RA- patients had more functional impairment and a poorer Physical Component Summary (PCS) compared with the other phenotypes, while they only scored worse for general health and morning stiffness duration at baseline. The MCIDs were exceeded at baseline, except for functional ability between RA+ and UA, while after 2 years only the MCID of the PCS was exceeded by RA- compared with UA and RA. After 2 years the PROs of all phenotypes improved, but PROs measuring functioning were still worse compared with the general population, even when patients had low disease activity. CONCLUSION: RA- patients had the highest disease burden of all phenotypes. Although most patients have low disease activity after treatment, all clinical phenotypes still have a similar significant impact on patients' lives, which is mainly physical. Therefore it is important to assess and address PROs in daily practice because of persistent disease burden despite low disease activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN26791028.

The susceptibility of attaining and maintaining DMARD-free remission in different (rheumatoid) arthritis phenotypes.

OBJECTIVES: To compare (sustained) DMARD-free remission rates((S)DFR), defined as respectively ≥6 months and >1 year, after 2 and 5 years between three clinical arthritis phenotypes; undifferentiated arthritis(UA), autoantibody-negative(RA-) and positive rheumatoid arthritis(RA+). METHODS: All UA(n = 130), RA-(n = 176) and RA + (n = 331) patients from the tREACH trial, a stratified single-blinded trial with a treat-to-target approach, were used. (S)DFR comparisons between phenotypes after 2 and 5 years were performed with Logistic regression. Medication use and early and late flares(DAS ≥ 2.4), respectively defined as < 12 and >12 months after reaching DFR, were also compared. Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate potential predictors for (S)DFR. RESULTS: Within 2 and 5 years less DFR was seen in RA + (17.2-25.7%), followed by RA-(28.4-42.1%) and UA patients(43.1-58.5%). This also applied for SDFR within 2 and 5 years (respectively 7.6% and 21.4%; 20.5% and 38.1%; and 35.4% and 55.4%). A flare during tapering was seen in 22.7% of patients. Of the patients in DFR 7.5% had an early flare and 3.4% a late flare. Also more treatment intensifications occurred in RA+ compared with RA- and UA. We found that higher baseline DAS, ACPA positivity, BMI and smoking were negatively associated with (S)DFR, while clinical phenotype(reference RA+), short symptom duration(<6 months) and remission within 6 months were positively associated. CONCLUSIONS: (Long-term) clinical outcomes differ between undifferentiated arthritis, autoantibody-negative and positive rheumatoid arthritis(RA). These data reconfirm that RA can be subdivided into aforementioned clinical phenotypes and that treatment might be stratified upon these phenotypes, although validation is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, https://www.isrctn.com/, ISRCTN26791028.

Meta-Analyses on the Effects of Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs on the Most Relevant Patient-Reported Outcome Domains in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Whereas in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis much evidence exists on the effects of current pharmacologic treatment on clinical outcomes, little is known about the effects on patient-reported outcomes. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effects of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) on the patient-relevant domains of pain, fatigue, activity limitation, overall emotional and physical health impact, and work/school/housework ability and productivity. METHODS: A literature search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials wherein registered DMARDs were compared with placebo or methotrexate and reported the effects on patient-reported outcomes included in the International Consortium of Health Outcomes Measurement standard set for inflammatory arthritis. Random effects meta-analyses using the standardized mean differences of change scores as the effect measure were performed for the domains of pain, fatigue, and activity limitation, comparing DMARDs with placebo and methotrexate. The other 2 domains were presented narratively. RESULTS: Across the 5 domains, 69 records belonging to 52 studies were identified. All meta-analyses showed a decrease of burden when DMARDs were compared with placebo (standardized mean differences [95% confidence interval] in pain -0.80 [-0.99, -0.61], fatigue -0.48 [-0.64, -0.32], and activity limitation -0.56 [- 0.63, -0.49]) and when compared with methotrexate (-0.55 [-0.70, -0.41), -0.44 [-0.55, -0.33], and - 0.37 [-0.44, -0.30], respectively). CONCLUSION: DMARDs decrease the burden in all the domains that are relevant to patients. Effect sizes may be influenced by DMARD type. Therefore, in the decision for rheumatoid arthritis treatment, patient-reported outcomes should be taken into account.

Differences in optimality index between planned place of birth in a birth centre and alternative planned places of birth, a nationwide prospective cohort study in The Netherlands: results of the Dutch Birth Centre Study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the Optimality Index of planned birth in a birth centre with planned birth in a hospital and planned home birth for low-risk term pregnant women who start labour under the responsibility of a community midwife. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Low-risk pregnant women under care of a community midwife and living in a region with one of the 21 participating Dutch birth centres or in a region with the possibility for midwife-led hospital birth. Home birth was commonly available in all regions included in the study. PARTICIPANTS: 3455 low-risk term pregnant women (1686 nulliparous and 1769 multiparous) who gave birth between 1 July 2013 and 31 December 2013: 1668 planned birth centre births, 701 planned midwife-led hospital births and 1086 planned home births. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The Optimality IndexNL-2015, a tool to measure 'maximum outcome with minimal intervention', was assessed by planned place of birth being a birth centre, a hospital setting or at home. Also, a composite maternal and perinatal adverse outcome score was calculated for the different planned places of birth. RESULTS: There were no differences in Optimality Index NL-2015 for pregnant women who planned to give birth in a birth centre compared with women who planned to give birth in a hospital. Although effect sizes were small, women who planned to give birth at home had a higher Optimality Index NL-2015 than women who planned to give birth in a birth centre. The differences were larger for multiparous than for nulliparous women. CONCLUSION: The Optimality Index NL-2015 for women with planned birth centre births was comparable with planned midwife-led hospital births. Women with planned home births had a higher Optimality Index NL-2015, that is, a higher sum score of evidence-based items with an optimal value than women with planned birth centre births.