Patient adherence with a smartphone app for patient-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) transmitted digitally allow patients to communicate with their clinicians and track the activity of chronic diseases, such as RA. Several ePRO smartphone apps have been developed in rheumatology, yet few data have been reported regarding patient adherence. We developed a PRO app for RA and assessed adherence over 6 months. METHODS: We developed an app to deliver daily assessments to participants (RA App v.1.0). The app was tested as part of a randomized controlled trial examining potential clinical benefits. The current analyses focus on the adherence to the ePRO app for patients randomized to receive the app. We recruited RA patients from an academic rheumatology practice in the USA. Patients randomized to receive the app received daily notifications regarding ePROs. We examined adherence to the PRO questionnaires over the 6-month study and examined factors related to adherence. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients received the app and have data included in these analyses: 63 (80.7%) were female, mean age was 55.2 years, 71% had attended college or beyond, and the mean Clinical Disease Activity Index at baseline was 9.7 (low disease activity). Median adherence to the daily questions was 79% (interquartile range 48-90%). Significant predictors of increased adherence were age ≥65 (P = 0.03) and low baseline Clinical Disease Activity Index (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: We developed and tested an ePRO app for RA over a 6-month study. Adherence to the app was strong. There was correlation between older age and better disease control and increased adherence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/, NCT02822521.

Adverse Effects of Low-Dose Methotrexate: A Randomized Trial.

Background: Low-dose methotrexate (LD-MTX) is the most commonly used drug for systemic rheumatic diseases worldwide and is the recommended first-line agent for rheumatoid arthritis. Despite extensive clinical use for more than 30 years, few data on adverse event (AE) rates derive from randomized, placebo-controlled trials, where both causality and magnitude of risk can be inferred. Objective: To investigate AE rates, risk, and risk differences comparing LD-MTX versus placebo. Design: Prespecified secondary analyses of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01594333). Setting: North America. Participants: Adults with known cardiovascular disease and diabetes or metabolic syndrome. Intervention: Random allocation to LD-MTX (≤20 mg/wk) or placebo. All participants received folic acid, 1 mg/d, 6 days per week. Measurements: Risks for specific AEs of interest, as well as for all AEs, were compared across treatment groups after blinded adjudication. Results: After an active run-in period, 6158 patients were enrolled and 4786 randomly assigned to a group; median follow-up was 23 months and median dosage 15 mg/wk. Among the randomly assigned participants, 81.2% were male, median age was 65.7 years, and median body mass index was 31.5 kg/m2. Of 2391 participants assigned to LD-MTX, 2080 (87.0%) had an AE of interest, compared with 1951 of 2395 (81.5%) assigned to placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17 [95% CI, 1.10 to 1.25]). The relative hazards of gastrointestinal (HR, 1.91 [CI, 1.75 to 2.10]), pulmonary (HR, 1.52 [CI, 1.16 to 1.98]), infectious (HR, 1.15 [CI, 1.01 to 1.30]), and hematologic (HR, 1.15 [CI, 1.07 to 1.23]) AEs were elevated for LD-MTX versus placebo. With the exception of increased risk for skin cancer (HR, 2.05 [CI, 1.28 to 3.28]), the treatment groups did not differ in risk for other cancer or mucocutaneous, neuropsychiatric, or musculoskeletal AEs. Renal AEs were reduced in the LD-MTX group (HR, 0.85 [CI, 0.78 to 0.93]). Limitation: The trial was done in patients without rheumatic disease who tolerated LD-MTX during an active run-in period. Conclusion: Use of LD-MTX was associated with small to moderate elevations in risks for skin cancer and gastrointestinal, infectious, pulmonary, and hematologic AEs, whereas renal AEs were decreased. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Barriers to treatment adjustment within a treat to target strategy in rheumatoid arthritis: a secondary analysis of the TRACTION trial.

Objectives: Adherence to a treat to target (TTT) strategy is a recommended paradigm for RA; however, research shows there are many barriers to implementation. We conducted a trial to improve TTT implementation, and herein examine barriers to treatment adjustment within TTT among patient visits not in agreement with the TTT paradigm. Methods: Chart review assessed TTT implementation based on documentation of four items: designation of a treatment target, recording a disease activity measure, shared-decision making when applicable and adjusting treatment when disease activity was not at target. A treatment decision not in agreement with the TTT paradigm was defined as lack of treatment adjustment when disease activity was not at the pre-determined treatment target. Providers were encouraged to report the barriers to treatment change; these were categorized and analysed by study staff. Multiple barriers were possible for one visit. Results: Eighty-three visits not in agreement with the TTT strategy were observed in 74 patients, during which 90 reported barriers to treatment adjustment were noted. Common barriers to adjusting treatment included patient preference in 37.1% of visits and elevated disease activity measure despite no objective evidence of active RA in 38.6% of visits. Conclusion: An elevated disease activity measure not reflective of RA disease activity and patient preference are the two leading barriers to treatment adjustment to TTT in RA. Understanding barriers to adherence should guide interventions aimed at using better markers of disease activity and improving alignment with patient preference, with the overarching goal of enhancing TTT adherence.

Adverse Events and Resource Use Before and After Treat-to-Target in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Treat-to-target (TTT) is an accepted paradigm for care of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Because TTT can be associated with more medication switches, concerns arise regarding whether implementing TTT may increase adverse events and/or resource use. The aim of this study was to examine adverse events and resource use during the preintervention and intervention periods of the TTT intervention trial. METHODS: We used data from 6 practices enrolled in an 18-month cluster-randomized controlled trial to compare adverse events and resource use before (months 1-9) and during (months 10-18) a TTT intervention. The outcomes of interest, adverse events and resource use, were based on medical record review of all rheumatology visits for RA patients before and during the intervention. RESULTS: We examined records for 321 patients before the intervention and 315 during the intervention. An adverse event was recorded in 10.2% of visits before the intervention and 8.8% of visits during the intervention (P = 0.41). Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were taken by 53.6% of patients before the intervention and 49.8% of patients during the intervention (P = 0.73). Rheumatology visits were more frequent before the intervention (mean ± SD 4.0 ± 1.4) than during the intervention (mean ± SD 3.6 ± 1.2; P = 0.02). More visits were accompanied by monitoring laboratory tests before the intervention (90.0%) compared with during the intervention (52.7%; P < 0.001). A greater percentage of visits before the intervention included diagnostic imaging (15.4%) versus during the intervention (8.9%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: We observed similar rates of adverse events before and during the implementation of TTT for RA. Rheumatology visits, use of laboratory monitoring, and diagnostic imaging did not increase during the TTT intervention.

Implementation of Treat-to-Target for Rheumatoid Arthritis in the US: Analysis of Baseline Data From a Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: A treat-to-target (TTT) strategy is recommended in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, health care providers' adherence to TTT in clinical practice remains unclear. We examined adherence to TTT in RA at US rheumatology sites. METHODS: We used baseline information from the randomized controlled Treat-to-Target in RA: Collaboration to Improve Adoption and Adherence trial, which recruited 641 patients from 46 providers practicing at 11 US sites. We obtained data on the implementation of TTT, patient covariates, provider characteristics, and site variables. We examined the implementation of TTT using 4 cardinal features: recording a disease target, recording a disease activity measure, engaging in shared decision-making, and changing treatment if not at disease target. These features were assessed across sites and providers. We calculated a TTT implementation score as the percentage of features noted. We examined the association between patient, provider, and site covariates and TTT implementation score using proportional odds models. RESULTS: The implementation of TTT at baseline was suboptimal: 64.3% of visits had none of the TTT components present, 33.1% had 1 component, 2.3% had 2 components, and 0.3% had all components. The implementation of TTT was significantly different across providers and sites (P < 0.0001 for all). In the multivariable model, we observed that more experience as a rheumatologist was associated with a higher implementation score (P = 0.01 for trend). Compared with fellows, providers with >20 years of experience in practice were more likely to have more TTT components recorded (odds ratio 7.68 [95% confidence interval 1.46-40.52]). CONCLUSION: We found that adherence to a TTT strategy in RA was suboptimal, and it differed across providers and sites.

Benefits and Sustainability of a Learning Collaborative for Implementation of Treat-to-Target in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results of a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Phase II Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a 2-phase randomized controlled trial of a learning collaborative to facilitate implementation of treat-to-target (T2T) to manage rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We found substantial improvement in implementation of T2T in phase I. Here, we report on a second 9 months (phase II), where we examined the maintenance of response in phase I and predictors of greater improvement in T2T adherence. METHODS: We recruited patients from 11 rheumatology sites and randomized them to either receive the learning collaborative during phase I or to a wait-list control group that received the learning collaborative intervention during phase II. The outcome was change in T2T implementation score (0-100, where 100 = best) from pre- to postintervention. The T2T implementation score was defined as a percent of components documented in visit notes. Analyses examined the extent to which the phase-I intervention teams sustained improvement in T2T, as well as predictors of T2T improvement. RESULTS: The analysis included 636 RA patients. At baseline, the mean T2T implementation score was 11% in phase I intervention sites and 13% in phase II sites. After the intervention, T2T implementation score improved to 57% in the phase I intervention sites and to 58% in the phase II sites. Intervention sites from phase I sustained the improvement during the phase II (52%). Predictors of greater T2T improvement included having only rheumatologist providers at the site, academic affiliation of the site, having fewer providers per site, and the rheumatologist provider being a trainee. CONCLUSION: Improvement in T2T remained relatively stable over a postintervention period.

Implementation of Treat-to-Target in Rheumatoid Arthritis Through a Learning Collaborative: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Treat-to-target (TTT) is an accepted paradigm for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but some evidence suggests poor adherence. The purpose of this study was to test the effects of a group-based multisite improvement learning collaborative on adherence to TTT. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized quality-improvement trial with waitlist control across 11 rheumatology sites in the US. The intervention entailed a 9-month group-based learning collaborative that incorporated rapid-cycle improvement methods. A composite TTT implementation score was calculated as the percentage of 4 required items documented in the visit notes for each patient at 2 time points, as evaluated by trained staff. The mean change in the implementation score for TTT across all patients for the intervention sites was compared with that for the control sites after accounting for intracluster correlation using linear mixed models. RESULTS: Five sites with a total of 23 participating rheumatology providers were randomized to intervention and 6 sites with 23 participating rheumatology providers were randomized to the waitlist control. The intervention included 320 patients, and the control included 321 patients. At baseline, the mean TTT implementation score was 11% in both arms; after the 9-month intervention, the mean TTT implementation score was 57% in the intervention group and 25% in the control group (change in score of 46% for intervention and 14% for control; P = 0.004). We did not observe excessive use of resources or excessive occurrence of adverse events in the intervention arm. CONCLUSION: A learning collaborative resulted in substantial improvements in adherence to TTT for the management of RA. This study supports the use of an educational collaborative to improve quality.

Investigating methotrexate toxicity within a randomized double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial: Rationale and design of the Cardiovascular Inflammation Reduction Trial-Adverse Events (CIRT-AE) Study.

BACKGROUND: The role of low dose methotrexate (LDM) in potential serious toxicities remains unclear despite its common use. Prior observational studies investigating LDM toxicity compared LDM to other active drugs. Prior placebo-controlled clinical trials of LDM in inflammatory conditions were not large enough to investigate toxicity. The Cardiovascular Inflammation Reduction Trial (CIRT) is an ongoing NIH-funded, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of LDM in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. We describe here the rationale and design of the CIRT-Adverse Events (CIRT-AE) ancillary study which aims to investigate adverse events within CIRT. DESIGN: CIRT will randomize up to 7000 participants with cardiovascular disease and no systemic rheumatic disease to either LDM (target dose: 15-20mg/week) or placebo for an average follow-up period of 3-5 years; subjects in both treatment arms receive folic acid 1mg daily for 6 days each week. The primary endpoints of CIRT include recurrent cardio vascular events, incident diabetes, and all-cause mortality, and the ancillary CIRT-AE study has been designed to adjudicate other clinically important adverse events including hepatic, gastrointestinal, respiratory, hematologic, infectious, mucocutaneous, oncologic, renal, neurologic, and musculoskeletal outcomes. Methotrexate polyglutamate levels and genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphisms will be examined for association with adverse events. SUMMARY: CIRT-AE will comprehensively evaluate potential LDM toxicities among subjects with cardiovascular disease within the context of a large, ongoing, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. This information may lead to a personalized approach to monitoring LDM in clinical practice.

Implementation of treat-to-target in rheumatoid arthritis through a Learning Collaborative: Rationale and design of the TRACTION trial.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Treat-to-target (TTT) is a recommended strategy in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but various data sources suggest that its uptake in routine care in the US is suboptimal. Herein, we describe the design of a randomized controlled trial of a Learning Collaborative to facilitate implementation of TTT. METHODS: We recruited 11 rheumatology sites from across the US and randomized them into the following two groups: one received the Learning Collaborative intervention in Phase 1 (month 1-9) and the second formed a wait-list control group to receive the intervention in Phase 2 (months 10-18). The Learning Collaborative intervention was designed using the Model for Improvement, consisting of a Change Package with corresponding principles and action phases. Phase 1 intervention practices had nine learning sessions, collaborated using a web-based tool, and shared results of plan-do-study-act cycles and monthly improvement metrics collected at each practice. The wait-list control group sites had no intervention during Phase 1. The primary trial outcome is the implementation of TTT as measured by chart review, comparing the differences from baseline to end of Phase 1, between intervention and control sites. RESULTS: All intervention sites remained engaged in the Learning Collaborative throughout Phase 1, with a total of 38 providers participating. The primary trial outcome measures are currently being collected by the study team through medical record review. CONCLUSIONS: If the Learning Collaborative is an effective means for improving implementation of TTT, this strategy could serve as a way of implementing disseminating TTT more widely.