Abstract

Objective: to describe the portrait of a patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in real clinical practice, to assess disease activity from the point of view of a physician and a patient, functional status, quality of life (QOL), and the efficiency of the therapy performed.Patients and methods. The investigation enrolled 976 RA patients from a cohort of patients in the TERMINAL-I multicenter study, who, when visiting a rheumatologist, independently assessed the disease activity and QOL using a computer system (the «Computer Terminals of SelfAssessment for Patients with Rheumatic Diseases» project). The mean age of the patients was 52.30±13.3 years; women accounted for 85%; the median disease duration 8.0 [4.0; 14.0] years. Baseline clinical parameters and pharmacotherapy were evaluated for 6 months. The disease activity was determined by the DAS28 and RAPID-3 indices; functional status and quality of life were evaluated by the HAQ and the EQ-5D, respectively.Results. 83% of the RA patients were positive for rheumatoid factor and 60% were for anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies. There was a preponderance of patients with high (40.5%) and moderate (46.8%) RA activity; 6.9% were observed to have a low activity; 5.8% had clinical remission. The mean values of DAS28 and RAPID-3 were 4.7±1.3 and 13.7±3.6, respectively. Only 14.3% of patients had a good functional status that was comparable with the population-based control (HAQ≤0.5). The remaining patients were found to have a substantial decrease in joint functional parameters (median HAQ 1.88 [1.0; 2.5]) and EQ-5D QOL (0.60 [0.60; 0.74). Prosthetic joints were present in 7.4% of patients. At visit 1 to a rheumatologist, the therapy was changed in 15% of patients. During 6-month follow-up, conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs were taken by almost all (91.2%) patients. Of them, 70.9% of the patients were treated with methotrexate (MTX): 77.0% received the latter at a dose of 15 mg/week and 23.0% had it at a dose of >15 mg (17.5 to 40 mg/week). Glucocorticoids could be stopped in 20.5% of the patients within six months. Tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors and anti-B-cell therapy were used in 6.6 and 16.2% of patients, respectively. At 6-month follow-up (Visit 2), 54% of patients achieved a 20% clinical improvement in the ACR criteria. At the same time, the DAS28 scores decreased substantially from 4.5±1.2 to 3.8±1.1 (p = 0.0001). There was a minimal functional improvement in the HAQ index in 64% of patients and a better EQ-D QOL scores in 16%.Conclusion. The majority of RA patients who came to the rheumatologists showed high to moderate disease activity. This was due to long disease duration, inadequate MTX dose, and insufficient patient monitoring in real clinical practice. Introduction of a computer system for selfassessment of their health status by RA patients in an outpatient setting could improve the interaction of physicians, nurses, and patients, better monitor disease activity, and enhance therapeutic efficiency.

Highlights

  • Цель исследования – описание «портрета» пациента с ревматоидным артритом (РА) в реальной клинической практике, оценка активности заболевания с точки зрения врача и пациента, функционального состояния, качества жизни (КЖ) и эффективности проводимой терапии

  • The disease activity was determined by the DAS28 and RAPID-3 indices; functional status and quality of life were evaluated by the HAQ and the EQ-5D, respectively

  • 83% of the rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients were positive for rheumatoid factor and 60% were for anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Цель исследования – описание «портрета» пациента с ревматоидным артритом (РА) в реальной клинической практике, оценка активности заболевания с точки зрения врача и пациента, функционального состояния, качества жизни (КЖ) и эффективности проводимой терапии. Мечникова» Минздрава России, Санкт-Петербург, Россия; 3ГБУЗ «Челябинская областная клиническая больница», Челябинск, Россия; 4ГБУ Ростовской области «Областная клиническая больница No2», Ростов-на-Дону, Россия; 5ОГАУЗ «Иркутская городская клиническая больница No1», Ревматологический центр и ревматологическое отделение, Иркутск, Россия; 6БУЗ Вологодской области «Вологодская областная клиническая больница», Вологда, Россия; 7БУ Ханты-Мансийского автономного округа – Югры «Сургутская окружная клиническая больница», Сургут, Россия; 8ГБУЗ Тюменской области «Областная клиническая больница No1», Тюмень, Россия; 9ГБУЗ «Краевая клиническая больница No2», Владивосток, Россия; 10Клиника Башкирского государственного медицинского университета, Уфа, Россия; 11ГУЗ «Ульяновская областная клиническая больница», Ульяновск, Россия; 12ГАУЗ «Городская клиническая больница No7», Казань, Россия; 13ГБУЗ Республики Карелия «Республиканская клиническая больница им.

Objectives
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call