Dataset Information

The clinical effectiveness of intensive management in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis: The titrate trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Many trials have shown that intensive management is effective in patients with early active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). But its benefits are unproven for the large number of RA patients seen in routine care who have established, moderately active RA and are already taking conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). The TITRATE trial studied whether these patients also benefit from intensive management and, in particular, achieve more remissions.

Methods

A 12-month multicentre individually randomised trial compared standard care with monthly intensive management appointments which was delivered by specially trained healthcare professionals and incorporated monthly clinical assessments, medication titration and psychosocial support. The primary outcome was 12-month remission assessed using the Disease Activity Score for 28 joints using ESR (DAS28-ESR). Secondary outcomes included fatigue, disability, harms and healthcare costs. Intention-to-treat multivariable logistic- and linear regression analyses compared treatment arms with multiple imputation used for missing data.

Results

459 patients were screened and 335 were randomised (168 intensive management; 167 standard care); 303 (90%) patients provided 12-month outcomes. Intensive management increased DAS28-ESR 12-month remissions compared to standard care (32% vs 18%, p = 0.004). Intensive management also significantly increased remissions using a range of alternative remission criteria and increased patients with DAS28-ESR low disease activity scores. (48% vs 32%, p = 0.005). In addition it substantially reduced fatigue (mean difference -18; 95% CI: -24, -11, p<0.001). There was no evidence that serious adverse events (intensive management =15 vs standard care =11) or other adverse events (114 vs 151) significantly increase with intensive management.

Interpretation

The trial shows that intensive management incorporating psychosocial support delivered by specially trained healthcare professions is effective in moderately active established RA. More patients achieve remissions, there were greater improvements in fatigue, and there were no more harms.

SUBMITTER: Scott D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7390769 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe TITRATE trial seeks to test whether intensive management is valuable in achieving disease remission in moderately active rheumatoid arthritis. Intensive management is a complex intervention consisting of: 1) 12 x monthly appointments, 2) tailored 'treatment support' based on motivational interviewing techniques, 3) optimised medication (including the opportunity for biologics), 4) provision of a Patient Handbook, and 5) shared treatment planning. This study aims to understand: a) patients' and practitioners' views on the feasibility and acceptability of intensive management, and b) patients' and practitioners' experience of receiving/providing intensive management.MethodsA qualitative study, nested within a randomised controlled trial. Participants were patients (n = 15) in the intensive management arm of the trial and rheumatology practitioners (n = 16) providing the intensive management intervention, from 18/42 clinics across England. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews and analysed using thematic analysis and iterative categorization.ResultsMonthly appointments were largely acceptable to both groups who cited several treatment benefits (e.g. regular review of medication, practitioners built close relationships with patients). Practitioners were 'fairly confident' using the motivational interviewing techniques. Learning to pace was the most commonly reported self-management technique that patients and healthcare professionals worked on together, followed by gaining control over pain and fatigue. Practitioners liked having the option to offer biologics to patients with moderate RA. Most patients found the optimised medication (following monthly joint assessment) helpful and side-effects experienced were resolved. Variation existed in the extent to which patients engaged with the Patient Handbook and shared treatment planning, with those who did engage doing so in the early stages.ConclusionsFeedback from patient participants about the intensive management intervention was positive. They found increased medication helpful. Continuity of care with the same healthcare professional at regular intensive management sessions, and the treatment support provided, were highly rated. Feedback from practitioners indicated that intensive management training is feasible. Evidence from the interviews showed that some practitioners applied motivational interviewing techniques during standard care appointments and they would like the opportunity to address lifestyle issues with patients.

Project description:To establish if using intensive treatment to reduce synovitis and attain remission in active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) improves all aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQoL).A secondary analysis of two randomised clinical trials (CARDERA and TACIT) was undertaken. CARDERA randomised 467 patients with early active RA to different disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) regimens, including high-dose tapering corticosteroids. TACIT randomised 205 established patients with active RA to combination DMARDs (cDMARDs) or tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors (TNFis). Short-Form 36 (SF-36) measured HRQoL across eight domains, generating physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) component summary scores. Linear regression evaluated 6-month intensive treatment impacts. Mean SF-36 scores, stratified by end point disease activity category, were compared with age/gender-matched population scores.In CARDERA, intensive corticosteroid treatment gave significantly greater improvements in PCS but not MCS scores relative to placebo. In TACIT, all eight SF-36 domains had improvements from baseline exceeding minimal clinically important differences with cDMARDs and TNFis. Significantly greater improvements with TNFi relative to cDMARDs were reported in PCS only (p=0.034), after adjusting for covariates. Remission provided the best SF-36 profiles, but scores in physical functioning, role physical and general health in both trials remained below normative values. Patient global assessment of disease activity had a greater association with HRQoL than other disease activity score (DAS28) components.Intensive corticosteroid treatment in early RA improves physical but not mental health, relative to placebo. In established RA, cDMARDs and TNFi provide similar improvements in HRQoL. As remission optimises but fails to normalise HRQoL, a focus on treatment strategies targeting HRQoL is required.CARDERA was registered as ISRCTN 32484878. TACIT was registered as ISRCTN 37438295; pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundArthritis (or compression) gloves are widely prescribed to people with rheumatoid arthritis and other forms of hand arthritis. They are prescribed for daytime wear to reduce hand pain and improve hand function, and/or night-time wear to reduce pain, improve sleep and reduce morning stiffness. However, evidence for their effectiveness is limited. The aims of this study were to investigate the clinical and cost effectiveness of arthritis gloves compared to placebo gloves on hand pain, stiffness and function in people with rheumatoid arthritis and persistent hand pain.MethodsA parallel randomised controlled trial, in adults (≥ 18 years) with rheumatoid or undifferentiated inflammatory arthritis at 16 National Health Service sites in the UK. Patients with persistent hand pain affecting function and/or sleep were eligible. Randomisation (1:1) was stratified by recent change (or not) in medication, using permuted blocks of random sizes. Three-quarter-finger length arthritis gloves (Isotoner®: applying 23-32 mmHg pressure) (intervention) were compared to loose-fitting placebo gloves (Jobskin® classic: providing no/minimal pressure) (control). Both gloves (considered to have similar thermal qualities) were provided by occupational therapists. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded; clinicians were not. The primary outcome was dominant hand pain on activity (0-10) at 12 weeks, analysed using linear regression and intention to treat principles.ResultsTwo hundred six participants were randomly assigned (103 per arm) and 163 (84 intervention: 79 control) completed 12-week follow-up. Hand pain improved by 1.0 (intervention) and 1.2 (control), an adjusted mean difference of 0.10 (95% CI: - 0.47 to 0.67; p = 0.72). Adverse events were reported by 51% of intervention and 36% of control group participants; with 6 and 7% respectively, discontinuing glove wear. Provision of arthritis gloves cost £129, with no additional benefit.ConclusionThe trial provides evidence of no clinically important effect of arthritis gloves on any of the trial outcomes (hand pain, function and stiffness) and arthritis gloves are not cost-effective. The clinical and cost-effectiveness results support ceasing provision of arthritis gloves in routine clinical practice.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN25892131 ; Registered 05/09/2016: retrospectively registered.

Project description:ImportanceDigital health applications have been shown to be effective in the management of chronic diseases with simple treatment targets. The potential clinical value of digital health applications in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has not been well studied.ObjectiveTo investigate whether assessing patient-reported outcomes using digital health applications could result in disease control for patients with RA.Design, setting, and participantsThis is a multicenter, open-label randomized clinical trial in 22 tertiary hospitals across China. Eligible participants were adult patients with RA. Participants were enrolled from November 1, 2018, to May 28, 2019, with a 12-month follow-up. The statisticians and rheumatologists who assessed disease activity were blinded. Investigators and participants were not blind to group assignment. Analysis was conducted from October 2020 to May 2022.InterventionsParticipants were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio (block size of 4) to a smart system of disease management group (SSDM) or a conventional care control group. Upon the completion of the 6-month parallel comparison, patients in the conventional care control group were instructed to use the SSDM application for an extension of 6 months.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the rate of patients with disease activity score in 28 joints using the C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) of 3.2 or less at month 6.ResultsOf 3374 participants screened, 2204 were randomized, and 2197 patients with RA (mean [SD] age, 50.5 [12.4] years; 1812 [82.5%] female) were enrolled. The study included 1099 participants in the SSDM group and 1098 participants in the control group. At month 6, the rate of patients with DAS28-CRP of 3.2 or less was 71.0% (780 of 1099 patients) in the SSDM group vs 64.5% (708 of 1098 patients) in the control group (difference between groups, 6.6%; 95% CI, 2.7% to 10.4%; P = .001). At month 12, the rate of patients with DAS28-CRP of 3.2 or less in the control group increased to a level (77.7%) that was comparable with that (78,2%) in the SSDM group (difference between groups, -0.2%; 95% CI, -3.9% to 3.4%; P = .90).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial of RA, the use of a digital health application with patient-reported outcomes was associated with an increase in disease control rate.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03715595.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether intensive combinations of synthetic disease modifying drugs can achieve similar clinical benefits at lower costs to high cost biologics such as tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis resistant to initial methotrexate and other synthetic disease modifying drugs.DesignOpen label pragmatic randomised multicentre two arm non-inferiority trial over 12 months.Setting24 rheumatology clinics in England.ParticipantsPatients with rheumatoid arthritis who were eligible for treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors according to current English guidance were randomised to either the tumour necrosis factor inhibitor strategy or the combined disease modifying drug strategy.InterventionsBiologic strategy: start tumour necrosis factor inhibitor; second biologic in six month for non-responders. Alternative strategy: start combination of disease modifying drugs; start tumour necrosis factor inhibitors after six months in non-responders.Main outcome measurePrimary outcomereduction in disability at 12 months measured with patient recorded heath assessment questionnaire (range 0.00-3.00) with a 0.22 non-inferiority margin for combination treatment versus the biologic strategy.Secondary outcomesquality of life, joint damage, disease activity, adverse events, and costs. Intention to treat analysis used multiple imputation methods for missing data.Results432 patients were screened: 107 were randomised to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors and 101 started taking; 107 were randomised to the combined drug strategy and 104 started taking the drugs. Initial assessments were similar; 16 patients were lost to follow-up (seven with the tumour necrosis factor inhibitor strategy, nine with the combined drug strategy); 42 discontinued the intervention but were followed-up (19 and 23, respectively). The primary outcome showed mean falls in scores on the health assessment questionnaire of -0.30 with the tumour necrosis factor inhibitor strategy and -0.45 with the alternative combined drug strategy. The difference between groups in unadjusted linear regression analysis favoured the alternative strategy of combined drugs. The mean difference was -0.14, and the 95% confidence interval (-0.29 to 0.01) was below the prespecified non-inferiority boundary of 0.22. Improvements at 12 months in secondary outcomes, including quality of life and erosive progression, were similar with both strategies. Initial reductions in disease activity were greater with the biologic strategy, but these differences did not persist beyond six months. Remission was seen in 72 patients (44 with biologic strategy; 36 with alternative strategy); 28 patients had serious adverse events (18 and 10, respectively); six and 10 patients, respectively, stopped treatment because of toxicity. The alternative strategy reduced health and social care costs per patient by £3615 (€4930, $5585) for months 0-6 and £1930 for months 6-12.ConclusionsIn patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who meet English criteria for biologics an alternative strategy with combinations of intensive synthetic disease modifying drugs gives non-inferior outcomes to treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors. Costs are reduced substantially.Trial Registration ISRCTN 37438295.

Project description:Objective To determine whether a treatment strategy based on structured ultrasound assessment would lead to improved outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis, compared with a conventional strategy.Design Multicentre, open label, two arm, parallel group, randomised controlled strategy trial.Setting Ten rheumatology departments and one specialist centre in Norway, from September 2010 to September 2015.Participants 238 patients were recruited between September 2010 and April 2013, of which 230 (141 (61%) female) received the allocated intervention and were analysed for the primary outcome. The main inclusion criteria were age 18-75 years, fulfilment of the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis, disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug naivety with indication for disease modifying drug therapy, and time from first patient reported swollen joint less than two years. Patients with abnormal kidney or liver function or major comorbidities were excluded.Interventions 122 patients were randomised to an ultrasound tight control strategy targeting clinical and imaging remission, and 116 patients were randomised to a conventional tight control strategy targeting clinical remission. Patients in both arms were treated according to the same disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug escalation strategy, with 13 visits over two years.Main outcome measures The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a combination between 16 and 24 months of clinical remission, no swollen joints, and non-progression of radiographic joint damage. Secondary outcomes included measures of disease activity, radiographic progression, functioning, quality of life, and adverse events. All participants who attended at least one follow-up visit were included in the full analysis set.Results 26 (22%) of the 118 analysed patients in the ultrasound tight control arm and 21 (19%) of the 112 analysed patients in the clinical tight control arm reached the primary endpoint (mean difference 3.3%, 95% confidence interval -7.1% to 13.7%). Secondary endpoints (disease activity, physical function, and joint damage) were similar between the two groups. Six (5%) patients in the ultrasound tight control arm and seven (6%) patients in the conventional arm had serious adverse events.Conclusions The systematic use of ultrasound in the follow-up of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis treated according to current recommendations is not justified on the basis of the ARCTIC results. The findings highlight the need for randomised trials assessing the clinical application of medical technology.Trial registration Clinical trials NCT01205854.