Search

Background Patients with rheumatoid arthritis require frequent consultations to monitor disease activity and intensify medication when treatment targets are not met. However, because most patients are in remission during follow-up, it should be possible to reduce the number of consultations for them. Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) could be used to identify patients who meet their treatment goal and who could therefore be eligible to skip their visit. Objective The aim of this study was to assess the probability that patients with low disease activity scores on their ePROs do not need a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) or steroid intensification in the first 2 weeks after completion of the ePROs. Methods This medical-records review study compared results of ePROs answered during routine care with DMARD or steroid intensifications collected from anonymized electronic medical record at Reade. The primary outcome was the positive predictive value (PPV) of having a low disease activity score on an ePRO for not receiving a DMARD or steroid intensifications within 2 weeks. The 3 studied ePROs (and respective low disease activity outcome) were the Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) (score

Objective To evaluate if COmbinatie therapie Bij Reumatoïde Artritis (COBRA)-light therapy is cost-effective in treating patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with COBRA therapy. Methods This economic evaluation was performed next to the open-label, randomised non-inferiority COBRA-light trial in 164 patients with early RA. Non-responders to COBRA or COBRA-light received etanercept (50 mg/week) for 3–6 months. The societal perspective analysis took medical direct, non-medical direct and indirect costs into account. Costs were measured with patient cost diaries for the follow-up period of 52 weeks. Bootstrapping techniques estimated uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness ratios, presented in cost-effectiveness planes. Results 164 patients were randomised to either COBRA or COBRA-light strategy. At week 52, COBRA-light proved to be non-inferior to COBRA therapy on all clinical outcome measures. The results of the base-case cost-utility analysis (intention-to-treat analyses) revealed that COBRA-light strategy is more expensive (k€9.3 (SD 0.9) compared with COBRA (k€7.2 (SD 0.8)), but the difference in costs were not significant (k€2.0; 95% CI –0.3 to 4.4). Also, both strategies produced similar quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The sensitivity analyses showed robustness of these results. In a per-protocol sensitivity analysis, in which costs of etanercept were assumed to be provided as prescribed according to protocol, both arms had much higher costs: COBRA-light: k€11.5 (8.3) compared with k€8.5 (6.8) for COBRA, and the difference in costs was significant (k€2.9; 0.6 to 5.3). Conclusions In the base-case cost-utility analysis, the two strategies produced similar QALYs for similar costs. But it is anticipated that if protocol had been followed correctly, the COBRA-light strategy would have been more costly due to additional etanercept costs, for a limited health gain. Given the limited added benefit and high costs of starting etanercept in the presence of low disease activity in our trial, such a strategy needs better justification than is available now. Trial registration number 55552928, Results.

Objective: Epidemiologic studies suggest that vitamin D status plays a role in glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, intervention studies yielded inconsistent results. The aim of this study is to systematically review the effect of vitamin D supplementation on glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library for RCTs examining the effect of vitamin D supplementation on glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed to obtain a summarized outcome of vitamin D supplementation on HbA1c, fasting glucose and homeostasis model assessment - insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). Results: Twenty-three RCTs were included in this systematic review representing a total of 1797 patients with type 2 diabetes. Mean (± s.d.) change in serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D varied from 1.8 ± 10.2 nmol/L to 80.1 ± 54.0 nmol/L. Nineteen studies included HbA1c as outcome variable. Combining these studies no significant effect in change of HbA1c was seen after vitamin D intervention compared with placebo. A significant effect of vitamin D supplementation was seen on fasting glucose in a subgroup of studies (n = 4) with a mean baseline HbA1c ≥ 8% (64 mmol/mol) (standardized difference in means: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.12-0.61, P = 0.003). Conclusions: Current evidence of RCTs does not support short-term vitamin D supplementation in a heterogeneous population with type 2 diabetes. However, in patients with poorly controlled diabetes, a favourable effect of vitamin D is seen on fasting glucose.