Dataset Information

A randomized trial of three psychosocial treatments for the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis.

ABSTRACT: To assess and compare the benefits of 3 psychosocial treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).RA patients were randomized to cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT), relaxation response training (RR), or arthritis education (AE). All treatment was conducted in groups. Follow-up occurred immediately after treatment and 6 and 12 months later. Pain, other RA symptoms, role impairment, and psychological distress were assessed with standardized self-report questionnaires. Arthritis severity and activity were assessed with a joint examination, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, grip strength, and walking time. An intent-to-treat analytic strategy was employed. Linear regression was used to establish treatment effect on pain and other RA symptoms, while adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical variables.One hundred sixty-eight patients were randomized. Pain improved significantly at 12 months in the RR and AE groups and showed a nonsignificant positive trend with CBT. Other RA symptoms improved significantly with CBT and AE and showed a nonsignificant trend with RR. There were no significant differences in the outcomes across the 3 treatment groups. When the results for all 3 groups were aggregated, significant benefits were found for pain, other RA symptoms, self-care activities, and social activities. Effect sizes ranged between 0.26 and 0.35.These 3 psychosocial treatments were beneficial, with treatment effect sizes in the small to moderate range. The effects appeared immediately after treatment and were generally sustained at long-term follow-up. These benefits were achieved over and above those resulting from medical management. These treatments constitute an effective augmentation to standard medical therapy for RA patients.

SUBMITTER: Barsky AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2993818 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A randomized trial of three psychosocial treatments for the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis.

Barsky Arthur J AJ Ahern David K DK Orav E John EJ Nestoriuc Yvonne Y Liang Matthew H MH Berman Ilana T IT Kingsbury Joshua R JR Sy Jennifer T JT Wilk Kathryn G KG

Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism 20101201 3

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess and compare the benefits of 3 psychosocial treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).<h4>Methods</h4>RA patients were randomized to cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT), relaxation response training (RR), or arthritis education (AE). All treatment was conducted in groups. Follow-up occurred immediately after treatment and 6 and 12 months later. Pain, other RA symptoms, role impairment, and psychological distress were assessed with standardized self-report questionnaires. A ...[more]

PMID: 20621334

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective: To evaluate and compare benefits and harms of three biological treatments with different modes of action versus active conventional treatment in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis.Design: Investigator initiated, randomised, open label, blinded assessor, multiarm, phase IV study.Setting: Twenty nine rheumatology departments in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and Iceland between 2012 and 2018.Participants: Patients aged 18 years and older with treatment naive rheumatoid arthritis, symptom duration less than 24 months, moderate to severe disease activity, and rheumatoid factor or anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity, or increased C reactive protein.Interventions: Randomised 1:1:1:1, stratified by country, sex, and anti-citrullinated protein antibody status. All participants started methotrexate combined with (a) active conventional treatment (either prednisolone tapered to 5 mg/day, or sulfasalazine combined with hydroxychloroquine and intra-articular corticosteroids), (b) certolizumab pegol, (c) abatacept, or (d) tocilizumab.Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was adjusted clinical disease activity index remission (CDAI?2.8) at 24 weeks with active conventional treatment as the reference. Key secondary outcomes and analyses included CDAI remission at 12 weeks and over time, other remission criteria, a non-inferiority analysis, and harms.Results: 812 patients underwent randomisation. The mean age was 54.3 years (standard deviation 14.7) and 68.8% were women. Baseline disease activity score of 28 joints was 5.0 (standard deviation 1.1). Adjusted 24 week CDAI remission rates were 42.7% (95% confidence interval 36.1% to 49.3%) for active conventional treatment, 46.5% (39.9% to 53.1%) for certolizumab pegol, 52.0% (45.5% to 58.6%) for abatacept, and 42.1% (35.3% to 48.8%) for tocilizumab. Corresponding absolute differences were 3.9% (95% confidence interval -5.5% to 13.2%) for certolizumab pegol, 9.4% (0.1% to 18.7%) for abatacept, and -0.6% (-10.1% to 8.9%) for tocilizumab. Key secondary outcomes showed no major differences among the four treatments. Differences in CDAI remission rates for active conventional treatment versus certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not abatacept, remained within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15% (per protocol population). The total number of serious adverse events was 13 (percentage of patients who experienced at least one event 5.6%) for active conventional treatment, 20 (8.4%) for certolizumab pegol, 10 (4.9%) for abatacept, and 10 (4.9%) for tocilizumab. Eleven patients treated with abatacept stopped treatment early compared with 20-23 patients in the other arms.Conclusions: All four treatments achieved high remission rates. Higher CDAI remission rate was observed for abatacept versus active conventional treatment, but not for certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab versus active conventional treatment. Other remission rates were similar across treatments. Non-inferiority analysis indicated that active conventional treatment was non-inferior to certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not to abatacept. The results highlight the efficacy and safety of active conventional treatment based on methotrexate combined with corticosteroids, with nominally better results for abatacept, in treatment naive early rheumatoid arthritis.Trial registration: EudraCT2011-004720-35, NCT01491815.

Project description:ContextPsychosocial interventions have been shown to enhance pharmacotherapy outcomes in bipolar disorder.ObjectiveTo examine the benefits of 4 disorder-specific psychotherapies in conjunction with pharmacotherapy on time to recovery and the likelihood of remaining well after an episode of bipolar depression.DesignRandomized controlled trial.SettingFifteen clinics affiliated with the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder. Patients A total of 293 referred outpatients with bipolar I or II disorder and depression treated with protocol pharmacotherapy were randomly assigned to intensive psychotherapy (n = 163) or collaborative care (n = 130), a brief psychoeducational intervention.InterventionsIntensive psychotherapy was given weekly and biweekly for up to 30 sessions in 9 months according to protocols for family-focused therapy, interpersonal and social rhythm therapy, and cognitive behavior therapy. Collaborative care consisted of 3 sessions in 6 weeks.Main outcome measuresOutcome assessments were performed by psychiatrists at each pharmacotherapy visit. Primary outcomes included time to recovery and the proportion of patients classified as well during each of 12 study months.ResultsAll analyses were by intention to treat. Rates of attrition did not differ across the intensive psychotherapy (35.6%) and collaborative care (30.8%) conditions. Patients receiving intensive psychotherapy had significantly higher year-end recovery rates (64.4% vs 51.5%) and shorter times to recovery than patients in collaborative care (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.00; P = .01). Patients in intensive psychotherapy were 1.58 times (95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.13) more likely to be clinically well during any study month than those in collaborative care (P = .003). No statistically significant differences were observed in the outcomes of the 3 intensive psychotherapies.ConclusionsIntensive psychosocial treatment as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy was more beneficial than brief treatment in enhancing stabilization from bipolar depression. Future studies should compare the cost-effectiveness of models of psychotherapy for bipolar disorder.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00012558.

Project description:Rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a chronic inflammatory disease, is associated with insulin resistance. Experimental evidence indicates that the relationship between insulin resistance and inflammation is bidirectional: Inflammation promotes insulin resistance, and insulin resistance promotes inflammation. Therefore, we examined the hypothesis that pioglitazone, a thiazolidinedione peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor ? agonist, would decrease inflammation and disease activity and improve insulin resistance in patients with RA.In a single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study patients with RA (N = 34) receiving stable therapy were randomized to also receive either pioglitazone 45 mg daily (n = 17) or matching placebo (n = 17) for eight weeks. This was followed by a four-week washout period and alternative treatment for eight weeks. Outcomes included change in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) score, individual components of the DAS28 score and homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA). Intention-to-treat analysis and linear mixed-effects models were used.Patients had a mean (± SD) age of 51 (± 14.2) years, 82.4% were female and baseline DAS28 high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) was 4.58 (± 1.1) units. Addition of pioglitazone was associated with a 9.3% reduction (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.17% to 17.6%) in DAS28-CRP (P = 0.046), but no significant change in DAS28 erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) (P = 0.92). There was a 10.7 mm (95% CI = 0.4 to 20.9 mm) improvement in patient-reported global health (P = 0.042), a 48.6% decrease (95% CI = 27.6% to 63.5%) in CRP (P < 0.001) and a 26.4% decrease (95% CI = 3.7% to 43.8%) in insulin resistance as measured by HOMA (P = 0.025), but no significant reduction in swollen or tender joint count or in ESR (all P > 0.05). Lower-extremity edema was more common during pioglitazone treatment (16%) than placebo (0%).Addition of pioglitazone to RA therapy improves insulin resistance and modestly reduces RA disease activity measured by DAS28-CRP and two of its components, including patient-reported global health and CRP, but not DAS28-ESR or ESR.NCT00763139.

Project description:Introduction: Cardiovascular parameters disruption can be found in patients at early stages of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The primary endpoint of this study was the reduction of arterial stiffness in RA patients without traditional cardiovascular risk factors or previous comorbidities, measured by cardio-ankle vascular index (CAVI) through the enalapril intervention. The secondary endpoints were the enalapril influence on carotid femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV), carotid intima media thickness (cIMT), carotid artery distensibility (cDistensibility), Young's incremental elastic modulus (Einc)]. Materials and Methods: Fifty-three patients were enrolled in a clinical, randomized, closed-label trial. The subjects were randomly assigned into two groups: One receiving 5 mg of enalapril (27) or placebo (26), both twice a day. The drug was acquired at Victory Enterprises®. The placebo was kindly provided by the Universidad de Guadalajara (UdeG), as well as the blinding into two groups: A and B. Enalapril and placebo were packed into bottles without labeling. Clinical assessment included a structured questionnaire to gather demographic and clinical variables as well as determination of CAVI, cfPWV, cIMT, carotid artery distensibility and Einc. The whole set of evaluations were analyzed at the baseline and at the end of 12 weeks of intervention. Results: The CAVI measurement at baseline was 7.1 ± 1.4 and increased up to 7.5 ± 1.2 at the end of 12 weeks. Meanwhile, the enalapril group was as follows: 7.4 ± 1.2 and at the of intervention, reduced to 7.1 ± 0.9. A reduction in delta CAVI of 0.21 in the enalapril intervention group was found. In contrast, an increase of 0.39 was observed in the placebo group. The delta CAVI reduction was not influenced by age or peripheral systolic blood pressure (pSBP). Discussion: Enalapril seems to be effective in CAVI reduction in RA patients. The effect of enalapril intervention on arterial stiffness translated to the clinical context might be interpreted as a reduction of 6.4 years of arterial aging. Trial Registration: The protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board with the register CI-0117 from UdeG, and 0211/18 from Hospital Civil "Dr. Juan I. Menchaca", Secretaría de Salud Jalisco: DGSP/DDI/D.INV.28/18 and retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System: NCT03667131.

Project description:The treat-to-target (T2T) approach to the care of patients with rheumatoid arthritis involves using validated metrics to measure disease activity, frequent follow-up visits for patients with moderate to high disease activity, and escalation of therapy when patients have inadequate therapeutic response as assessed by standard disease activity scores. The study described is a newly launched cluster-randomized behavioral intervention to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of the T2T approach in US rheumatology practices. It is designed to identify patient and provider barriers to implementing T2T management. This initial paper focuses on the novel study design and methods created to provide these insights.This trial cluster-randomizes rheumatology practices from the existing Corrona network of private and academic sites rather than patients within sites or individual investigators to provide either T2T or usual care (UC) for qualified patients who meet the 2010 revised American College of Rheumatology criteria for the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis and have moderate to high disease activity. Specific medication choices are left to the investigator and patient, rather than being specified in the protocol. Enrollment is expected to be completed by the end of 2013, with 30 practices randomized and enrolling a minimum of 530 patients. During the 12-month follow-up, visits are mandated as frequently as monthly in patients with active disease in the T2T group and every 3 months for the UC group. Safety data are collected at each visit. The coprimary endpoints include a comparison of the proportion of patients achieving low disease activity in the T2T and UC groups and assessment of the feasibility of implementing T2T in rheumatology practices, specifically assessment of the rates of treatment acceleration, frequency of visits, time to next visit conditional on disease activity, and probability of acceleration conditional on disease activity in the 2 groups.This cluster-randomized behavioral intervention study will provide valuable insights on the outcomes and feasibility of employing a T2T treatment approach in clinical practice in the United States.NCT01407419.

Dataset Information

A randomized trial of three psychosocial treatments for the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis.

Publications

A randomized trial of three psychosocial treatments for the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets