Search

Objective: To estimate preferences in relevant treatment characteristics evaluated by different groups involved in the management of patients with rheumatic diseases. Subjects and methods: We surveyed patients with rheumatic diseases, and rheumatologists, nurses, and pharmacists with experience in treatment with/provision of biologic drugs for these patients. Through a discrete choice experiment, participants evaluated 16 possible scenarios in which pairs of similarly efficacious treatments were described with six characteristics: 1) frequency of administration; 2) mode and place of administration; 3) manner, helpfulness, efficiency, and courtesy of health personnel; 4) frequency of reactions at the site of drug administration; 5) severity of generalized undesired/allergic reactions; and 6) additional cost. The direction and strength of preferences toward each characteristic level and the relative importance of each characteristic were estimated through a random-effects conditional logistic regression model. Results: In total, 513 patients, 110 rheumatologists, 51 nurses, and 46 pharmacists from 30 centers in Italy participated. Characteristics 3, 4, and 6 were the most important for every subgroup; 1 was least important for patients and rheumatologists, 2 was least important for pharmacists, and 2 and 5 were least important for nurses. For characteristic 2, pharmacists preferred subcutaneous self-injection with a syringe; nurses preferred assisted infusion at an infusion center close to the patient’s home; patients and rheumatologists preferred subcutaneous self-injection with a pen. Conclusion: The different preferences for some characteristics shown by the different groups can play an important role, together with purely clinical aspects, in the choice and consequent benefit of treatments, contributing also to a more satisfactory use of resources

In this prospective observational study, data were collected from 34 rheumatology clinics in Italy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) who started golimumab (GLM) as a second anti-TNFα drug. The primary objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of GLM after 6 months. Changes in quality of life using the EQ-5D-5L were also assessed. A total of 194 patients aged 53.2 ± 12 years started GLM as a second anti-TNF drug: 39 (20.1%) with RA, 91 (46.9%) with PsA and 64 (32.9%) with axSpA. After 6 months of GLM treatment, 68% of RA patients achieved low disease activity (LDA; DAS28-CRP ≤ 3.2), 31.9% of PsA patients achieved minimal disease activity and 32.5% of axSpA patients achieved LDA (ASDAS-CRP < 2.1). Good/moderate EULAR response was achieved in 61.9% and 73.8% of patients with RA and PsA, respectively, and 16% of axSpA patients achieved a 50% improvement in BASDAI. Across all indications, improvements in disease activity measures and EQ-5D-5L domains were observed over 6 months. The main reasons for GLM interruption were lack/loss of efficacy (7.2%) or adverse events (2%). This study confirms the effectiveness of GLM as a second-line anti-TNF for the treatment of RA, PsA and axSpA in a real-world setting in Italy.

To provide a survey of disease activity in patients treated with standard care in Italian clinical practice.This was an observational prospective cohort study in patients with early, aggressive rheumatoid arthritis (RA; duration ≤2 years but ≥6 weeks; DAS283.2) naïve to anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapy who were treated with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and/or biologics according to standard practice at 15 Italian ARPA (Artrite Reumatoide Precoce Aggressiva) centres. Patients were evaluated at baseline and after 6, 12 and 24 months. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving remission, as defined by disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28)2.6, after 1 year.Among the 152 patients enrolled, 92 were evaluable after 1 year and 77 after 2 years for DAS28. At baseline, patients had a mean DAS28 of 6.1±1.0. At 12 months, 62.6% of patients were treated with DMARDs (in monotherapy or in combination), and 37.4% with anti-TNFs (in monotherapy or in association with DMARDs). At 24 months, 35.1% were receiving anti-TNF therapy. The rate of DAS28 remission rates at 12 months and 24 months were 28.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 19.1-37.5) and 41.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 30.6-52.6), respectively.The remission rate was lower at 12 months compared with previous large randomised clinical trials for early, aggressive RA, but significantly improved at 24 months. These results suggest that patients in real-world clinical settings in Italy may experience a delay in receiving the best possible care.