Search

Objective: Individuals with inflammatory arthritis (IA) require long-term rheumatologist care for optimal outcomes. We sought to determine if socioeconomic status (SES) influences general practitioner (GP) and specialist physician visit frequency and out of pocket (OOP) visit costs., Methods: We linked data from Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD) participants with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis to the Pharmaceutical Benefits (PBS) and Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) from 2011-2018. Small-area SES was approximated as quintiles of the Index of Relative Socieconomic Advantage and Disadvantage. A comorbidity index (Rx-Risk) was determined from PBS data. Analysis was performed using panel regression methods., Results: We included 1916 ARAD participants (76.3% rheumatoid arthritis, 71.1% women, mean [SD] age 54 [12] years and disease duration 6 [4] years). Participants averaged 9.0 (95% CI 8.6, 9.4) annual GP visits and 3.9 (3.8 to 4.1) annual specialist physician visits. After adjustment for sex, age, education, remoteness and comorbidity, there was an inverse relationship between annual GP visit frequency and higher SES quintile (-0.6 [-0.9, -0.3] visits/quintile) and a direct relationship between more frequent specialist visits and higher SES (linear slope 0.3 [0.2, 0.5] visits/quintile). Average OOP costs/visit were higher for specialist physician (AUD$38.43 [37.34, 39.53] versus GP visits (AUD$7.86 [7.42, 8.31], and higher SES was associated with greater OOP cost., Conclusion: Higher SES patients have relatively fewer GP visits and more specialist physician visits compared with lower SES patients, suggesting lower SES patients may receive suboptimal specialist physician care. OOP costs may be a contributing factor., (This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Dyadic coping, the process of coping that transpires between couples challenged by one partner's illness, is an important predictor of disease adjustment and patient well-being. However, the extent of dyadic coping in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) remains unclear. This study examines the effect of dyadic coping on psychological distress and relationship quality from the perspectives of both participants with RA and their spouses., Methods: Participants and their spouses were invited to participate in an online survey study if they were aged ≥ 18 years and had lived together for more than a year. The survey included the Chronic Pain Grade Scale, Dyadic Coping Inventory, Depression Anxiety Stress Scale, and Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Participants and spouses completed the survey independently. The actor-partner interdependence model was used to analyze the dyadic data., Results: One hundred sixty-three couples participated. Our findings showed that participants who reported higher supportive dyadic coping reported lower depression, anxiety, and stress, and higher relationship quality, whereas participants who reported higher negative dyadic coping reported higher depression, anxiety, and stress, and lower relationship quality. Spouses who reported higher supportive dyadic coping reported higher relationship quality, but no effect on depression, anxiety, and stress was observed. In contrast, spouses who reported higher negative dyadic coping reported higher levels of depression, anxiety, and stress, and lower relationship quality., Conclusion: Participants' and spouses' perceptions of supportive and negative dyadic coping closely influenced their psychological distress and relationship quality. Further, having a partner with RA also seemed to affect the spouse, especially when there was a negative dyadic coping pattern., (Copyright © 2024 by the Journal of Rheumatology.)

Objectives: To evaluate the reliability and validity of an adapted Commissioning for Quality in Rheumatoid Arthritis-RA-Patient-Reported Experience Measure (CQRA-RA-PREM) for assessing care experience in an Australian rheumatology outpatient cohort., Methods: Individual patient interviews were performed to check the language and completion time of the CQRA-RA-PREM before modification. Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD) participants completed the CQRA-PREM-Australian version (CQRA-PREM-AU) (22 items, 5 domains), disease activity measure (RAPID-3, BASDAI) and Assessment of Quality of Life (AQOL-6D) index. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) assessed item correlation. Cronbach's α assessed internal consistency., Results: Individual patient interviews ( n  = 8, 62% male, mean age 50 years, mean disease duration 4.5 years) informed CQRA-RA-PREM modification. The ARAD survey response rate was 707/1124 (63%); 459 (65%) RA, 134 (19%) PsA, 114 (16%) AS; 67% female, mean age 62 years, mean disease duration 22 years. The median instrument completion time was 299 s (interquartile range 284-414). Scoring of responses allowed an averaged overall score. EFA extracted five factors: all items loading similarly onto factor 1, indicating validity of the overall score. The CQRA-PREM-AU score correlated with the AQOL-6D score (ρ = 0.23, P  < 0.01); partial correlation with disease activity was not significant (ρ = 0.03, P  = 0.45), indicating divergent validity. Reliability was comparable across disease subgroups (Cronbach's α >0.94). The mean overall score did not differ by disease subgroup [4.1 (s.d. 0.6, P  = 0.73) and there was no floor/ceiling effect., Conclusion: CQRA-PREM-AU is a valid and reliable instrument to measure self-reported care experience in Australian rheumatology patients and may be interpreted as an average overall numerical score., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from the UK Medical Research Council for the submitted work. SB is a member of the NICE Decision Support Unit and NICE Guidelines Technical Support Unit; has served as a paid consultant, providing methodological advice, to NICE, Roche, IQVIA, and RTI Health Solutions; received payments for educational events from Roche; and has received research funding from European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations and Johnson & Johnson. MOu works for and has shares in AstraZeneca. JSR is a deputy editor at JAMA, was formerly an associate editor at The BMJ, and is co-founder (unpaid) of medRxiv; has received research support through Yale University from Johnson & Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, from the Medical Device Innovation Consortium as part of the National Evaluation System for Health Technology, from the Food and Drug Administration for the Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation programme (U01FD005938), from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS022882), from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (R01HS025164, R01HL144644), and from Arnold Ventures; was an expert witness at the request of Relator’s attorneys, the Greene Law Firm, in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in September 2022. NJB has received consulting fees from Nobias Therapeutics. AA and YR are associate editors at BMC Trials. OC is an associate editor for Value in Health and has received consulting fees from MSD and Janssen. RC is a founding member of the OMERACT Technical Advisory Group, which might be perceived as a possible conflict of interest. RH has shares in Johnson & Johnson. JHP has been a consultant for AdaptivePhage, Arrevus, Atheln, BavariaNordic, Cellularity, Eicos, Evofem, Eyecheck, Gilead, GSK, Mustang, OPKO, Otsuka, Resolve, Romark, SpineBioPPharma, and UTIlity,Vir. GSC is a statistics editor for The BMJ, and director of the UK EQUATOR Centre. CJW has undertaken consultancy for AB Science, for which his institution has received a fee. DD is an associate editor of Value in Health.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from the UK Medical Research Council for the submitted work. SB is a member of the NICE Decision Support Unit and NICE Guidelines Technical Support Unit; has served as a paid consultant, providing methodological advice, to NICE, Roche, IQVIA, and RTI Health Solutions; received payments for educational events from Roche; and has received research funding from European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations and Johnson & Johnson. MOu works for and has shares in AstraZeneca. JSR is a deputy editor at JAMA, was formerly an associate editor at The BMJ, and is co-founder (unpaid) of medRxiv; has received research support through Yale University from Johnson & Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, from the Medical Device Innovation Consortium as part of the National Evaluation System for Health Technology, from the Food and Drug Administration for the Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation programme (U01FD005938), from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS022882), from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (R01HS025164, R01HL144644), and from Arnold Ventures; was an expert witness at the request of Relator’s attorneys, the Greene Law Firm, in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in September 2022. NJB has received consulting fees from Nobias Therapeutics. AA and YR are associate editors at BMC Trials. OC is an associate editor for Value in Health and has received consulting fees from MSD and Janssen. RC is a founding member of the OMERACT Technical Advisory Group, which might be perceived as a possible conflict of interest. RH has shares in Johnson & Johnson. JHP has been a consultant for AdaptivePhage, Arrevus, Atheln, BavariaNordic, Cellularity, Eicos, Evofem, Eyecheck, Gilead, GSK, Mustang, OPKO, Otsuka, Resolve, Romark, SpineBioPPharma, and UTIlity,Vir. GSC is a statistics editor for The BMJ, and director of the UK EQUATOR Centre. CJW has undertaken consultancy for AB Science, for which his institution has received a fee. DD is an associate editor of Value in Health.

Objectives: To determine long-term (20 year) survival in RA patients enrolled in the Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD)., Methods: ARAD patients with RA and data linkage consent who were diagnosed from 1995 onwards were included. Death data were obtained through linkage to the Australian National Death Index. Results were compared with age-, gender- and calendar year-matched Australian population mortality rates. Analysis included both the standardized mortality ratio (SMR) and relative survival models. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) at 20 years was calculated as a measure of life lost. Cause-specific SMRs (CS-SMRs) were estimated for International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision cause of death classifications., Results: A total of 1895 RA patients were included; 74% were female, baseline median age 50 years (interquartile range 41-58), with 204 deaths. There was no increase in mortality over the first 10 years of follow up, but at 20 years the SMR was 1.49 (95% CI 1.30, 1.71) and the relative survival was 94% (95% CI 91, 97). The difference between observed (18.41 years) and expected (18.68 years) RMST was 4 months. Respiratory conditions were an important underlying cause of death in RA, primarily attributable to pneumonia [CS-SMR 5.2 (95% CI 2.3, 10.3)] and interstitial lung disease [CS-SMR 7.6 (95% CI 3.0, 14.7)], however, coronary heart disease [CS-SMR 0.82 (95% CI 0.42, 1.4)] and neoplasms [CS-SMR 1.2 (95% CI 0.89, 1.5)] were not., Conclusion: Mortality risk in this RA cohort accrues over time and is moderately increased at 20 years of follow-up. Respiratory diseases may have supplanted cardiovascular diseases as a major contributor to this mortality gap., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Background: Interventional trials that evaluate treatment effects using surrogate endpoints have become increasingly common. This paper describes four linked empirical studies and the development of a framework for defining, interpreting and reporting surrogate endpoints in trials., Methods: As part of developing the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) extensions for randomised trials reporting surrogate endpoints, we undertook a scoping review, e-Delphi study, consensus meeting, and a web survey to examine current definitions and stakeholder (including clinicians, trial investigators, patients and public partners, journal editors, and health technology experts) interpretations of surrogate endpoints as primary outcome measures in trials., Findings: Current surrogate endpoint definitional frameworks are inconsistent and unclear. Surrogate endpoints are used in trials as a substitute of the treatment effects of an intervention on the target outcome(s) of ultimate interest, events measuring how patients feel, function, or survive. Traditionally the consideration of surrogate endpoints in trials has focused on biomarkers (e.g., HDL cholesterol, blood pressure, tumour response), especially in the medical product regulatory setting. Nevertheless, the concept of surrogacy in trials is potentially broader. Intermediate outcomes that include a measure of function or symptoms (e.g., angina frequency, exercise tolerance) can also be used as substitute for target outcomes (e.g., all-cause mortality)-thereby acting as surrogate endpoints. However, we found a lack of consensus among stakeholders on accepting and interpreting intermediate outcomes in trials as surrogate endpoints or target outcomes. In our assessment, patients and health technology assessment experts appeared more likely to consider intermediate outcomes to be surrogate endpoints than clinicians and regulators., Interpretation: There is an urgent need for better understanding and reporting on the use of surrogate endpoints, especially in the setting of interventional trials. We provide a framework for the definition of surrogate endpoints (biomarkers and intermediate outcomes) and target outcomes in trials to improve future reporting and aid stakeholders' interpretation and use of trial surrogate endpoint evidence., Funding: SPIRIT-SURROGATE/CONSORT-SURROGATE project is Medical Research Council Better Research Better Health (MR/V038400/1) funded., Competing Interests: Sylwia Bujkiewicz is a member of the NICE Decision Support Unit (DSU) and NICE Guidelines Technical Support Unit (TSU), has served as a paid consultant, providing methodological advice, to NICE, Roche, IQVIA and RTI Health Solutions, received payments for educational events from NICE and Roche and has received research funding from European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries & Associations (EEPIA) and Johnson & Johnson. Mario Ouwens works for and has shares in AstraZeneca. Joseph Ross is an Associate Editor at BMJ and co-founder (unpaid) of medRxiv; research support through Yale University from Johnson and Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, from the Medical Device Innovation Consortium as part of the National Evaluation System for Health Technology (NEST), from the Food and Drug Administration for the Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) program (U01FD005938), from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS022882), from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01HS025164, R01HL144644), and from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation to establish the Good Pharma Scorecard at Bioethics International; expert witness at the request of Relator's attorneys, the Greene Law Firm, in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen Inc. Nancy Butcher has received consulting fees from Nobias Therapeutics, Inc. Alain Amstutz and Yousef Rezaei are Associate Editors at BMC Trials. Robin Christensen is a founding member of the OMERACT Technical Advisory Group which might be perceived as a possible conflict of interest. Ray Harris has shares in Johnson and Johnson. John Powers has been a consultant for Adaptive Phage, Arrevus, Atheln, Bavaria Nordic, Cellularity, Eicos, Evofem, Eyecheck, Gilead, GSK, Mustang, OPKO, Otsuka, Resolve, Romark, SpineBioPPharma, UTIlity, Vir. Achilles Thoma received royalties from Springer Publishing for his book “Evidence Based Surgery: A Guide to Understanding and Interpreting the Surgical Literature”, 2019., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Objective: To determine distinct trajectories of self-reported pain-related health status in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), their relationship with sociodemographic factors and medication use., Methods: 988 Australian Rheumatology Association Database participants with RA (71% female, mean age 54 years, mean disease duration 2.3 years) were included. Distinct multi-trajectories over 15-year follow-up for five different self-reported pain-related health outcome measures (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, visual analogue scores for pain, arthritis, global health and the Assessment of Quality of Life utility index) were identified using latent variable discrete mixture modelling. Random effects models were used to determine associations with medication use and biologic therapy modification during follow-up., Results: Four, approximately equally sized, pain/health status groups were identified, ranging from 'better' to 'poorer', within which changes over time were relatively small. Important determinants of those with poorer pain/health status included female gender, obesity, smoking, socioeconomic indicators and comorbidities. While biologic therapy use was similar between groups during follow-up, biologic therapy modifications (p linear <0.001) and greater tendency of non-tumour necrosis factor inhibitor use (p linear <0.001) were observed in those with poorer pain/health status. Similarly, greater use of opioids, prednisolone and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs was seen in those with poorer pain/health status., Conclusion: In the absence of disease activity information, distinct trajectories of varying pain/health status were seen from the outset and throughout the disease course in this RA cohort. More biologic therapy modifications and greater use in anti-inflammatories, opioids and prednisolone were seen in those with poorer pain/health status, reflecting undesirable lived experience of persistent pain in RA., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to describe treatment patterns in RA, including the frequency and reasons for switching or stopping biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/tsDMARDs)., Methods: The reasons for switching or stopping b/tsDMARDs were extracted from the Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD) from 2003 to 2018 for RA participants. Switching patterns for each b/tsDMARD and time on first-, second- and third-line b/tsDMARDs were evaluated using Sankey diagrams and survival methods., Results: A total of 2839 participants were included in the analysis. The first-line b/tsDMARDs were etanercept (n = 1414), adalimumab (n = 1024), infliximab (n = 155), golimumab (n = 98), abatacept (n = 66), certolizumab (n = 38), tocilizumab (n = 21) and tofacitinib (n = 23). Of those starting first-, second- and third-line biologic therapy, 24.0%, 31.8% and 24.4% switched to another b/tsDMARD within 12 months, respectively. Inefficacy or adverse effects were the most common reasons for stopping therapy, irrespective of line of treatment. Compared with first-line etanercept, participants were more likely to stop adalimumab [Hazard ratio (HR) 1.16, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.29] and infliximab (HR 1.77, 95% CI: 1.46, 2.16). No differences were seen for other b/tsDMARDs. For second-line therapies compared with etanercept, the risk of stopping was lower for tocilizumab (HR 0.41, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.70), rituximab (HR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.85) and tofacitinib (HR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.57). Participants taking rituximab, tocilizumab and tofacitinib were also less likely to stop third-line therapy in comparison with participants taking etanercept., Conclusions: Switching between b/tsDMARDs was common among ARAD participants with RA, most commonly due to inefficacy or adverse effects. Durability of exposure and reasons for switching varied between b/tsDMARDs., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Introduction: A key element in the big data revolution is large-scale biobanking and the associated development of high-quality data collections and supporting informatics solutions. As such, in establishing the Australian Arthritis and Autoimmune Biobank Collaborative (A3BC), we sought to establish a low-cost, nation-scale data management system capable of managing a multisite biobank registry with complex longitudinal sample and data requirements. Materials and Methods: We assessed several international commercial and nonprofit software platforms using standardized system requirement criteria and follow-up interviews. Vendor compliance scoring was prioritized to meet our project-critical requirements. Consumer/end-user codesign was integral to refining our system requirements for optimized adoption. Customization of the selected software solution was performed to optimize field auto-population between participant timepoints and forms, using modules that are transferable and that do not impact core code. Institutional and independent testing was used to ensure data security. Results: We selected the widely used research web application Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap), which is "free" (under nonprofit license agreement terms), highly configurable, and customizable to a variety of biobank and registry needs and can be developed/maintained by biobank users with modest IT skill, time, and cost. We created a secure, comprehensive participant-centric biobank-registry database that includes: (1) best practice data security measures (incl. multisite access login using institutional user credentials), (2) permission-to-contact and dynamic itemized electronic consent, (3) a complete chain of custody from consent to longitudinal biospecimen data collection to publication, (4) complex longitudinal patient-reported surveys, (5) integration of record-level extracted/linked participant data, (6) significant form auto-population for streamlined data capture, and (7) native dashboards for operational visualizations. Conclusion: We recommend the versatile, reusable, and sustainable informatics model we have developed in REDCap for prospective chronic disease biobanks or registry biobanks (of local to national complexity) supporting holistic research into disease prediction, precision medicine, and prevention strategies.

Serum urate (SU) is the most common primary efficacy outcome in trials of urate-lowering therapies for gout. Despite this, it is not formally considered a validated surrogate outcome. In this paper we will outline the definitions of biomarkers and surrogate outcome measures, respectively as well as the available frameworks and challenges in the assessment of the validity of serum urate as a surrogate in gout (i.e. a reasonable replacement for gout symptoms)., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest MBM: No conflicts declared, RC: No conflicts declared, JAS: Has received consultant fees from Crealta/Horizon, Medisys, Fidia, PK Med, Two labs Inc., Adept Field Solutions, Clinical Care options, Clearview healthcare partners, Putnam associates, Focus forward, Navigant consulting, Spherix, MedIQ, Jupiter Life Science, UBM LLC, Trio Health, Medscape, WebMD, and Practice Point communications; and the National Institutes of Health and the American College of Rheumatology. JAS owns stock options in TPT Global Tech, Vaxart pharmaceuticals and Charlotte's Web Holdings, Inc. JAS previously owned stock options in Amarin, Viking and Moderna pharmaceuticals. JAS is on the speaker's bureau of Simply Speaking. JAS is a member of the executive of Outcomes Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT), an organization that develops outcome measures in rheumatology and receives arms-length funding from 12 companies. JAS serves on the FDA Arthritis Advisory Committee. JAS is the chair of the Veterans Affairs Rheumatology Field Advisory Committee. JAS is the editor and the Criteria subcommittee. Director of the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group Satellite Center on Network Meta-analysis. JAS previously served as a member of the following committees: member, the American College of Rheumatology's (ACR) Annual Meeting Planning Committee (AMPC) and Quality of Care Committees, the Chair of the ACR Meet-the-Professor, Workshop and Study Group Subcommittee and the co-chair of the ACR Criteria and Response, ND: Reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Dyve BioSciences, Selecta, Horizon, and Arthrosi, speaker fees from Abbvie and Janssen, and research grants from Amgen and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. ORCID: 0000-0003-3485-0006, KS: Reports he is an Investigator for Horizon, Sobi, LG, Dyve and consulting fees from Horizon, WJT: No conflicts declared ORCID 0000-0001-6075-8479, TN: No conflicts declared. ORCID 000-002-9515-1711, MK: No conflicts declared ORCID 0000-0002-6445-8526, BMP: No conflicts declared, GMM: No conflicts declared, BJS: Is the senior Methodologist. ORCID 0000-0002-7686-2585, CDT: No conflicts declared. ORCID 0000-0001-6275-7699, SKT: No conflicts declared, RG: personal fees from Pfizer, Cornerstones, Jannsen, and Novartis. AA: No conflicts declared, ML: No conflicts declared, AG: No conflicts declared ORCID 0000-0001-7365-7212, LSS: Serves as a consultant to Horizon Therapeutics. He serves on the Executive of OMERACT and is Chair of the Finance Committee of OMERACT and Co-Chair of It's Business Advisory Committee., AN: No conflicts declared, SMN: No conflicts declared, ML: No conflicts declared, PT: No conflicts declared ORCID 00000-0001-5062-0556, LKS: No conflicts declared ORCID 0000-0003-0138-2912, (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To describe oral complementary medicine (CM) use in people with inflammatory arthritis, associations with use, and changes in use over time., Methods: Demographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcome data from 5,630 participants with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) were extracted from the Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD), a national observational database. CM use at entry into ARAD was ascertained for participants recruited between 2002 and 2018. CM was categorised according to the NIH/Cochrane schema (fatty acids, herbs, or supplements). Logistic regression was used to assess associations between demographic characteristics and CM use. Change in CM use between 2006 and 2016 was investigated using a nonparametric test for trend of rate by year., Results: 2,156 (38.3%) ARAD participants were taking CM at enrolment (RA: 1,502/3,960 (37.9%), AS: 281/736 (38.2%), PsA: 334/749 (44.6%), and JIA: 39/185 (21.1%)). CM use was more prevalent in women (OR 1.3; 95% CI: 1.13-1.50), those with tertiary education (OR 1.32; 95% CI: 1.13-1.55), private health insurance (OR 1.26; (95% CI: 1.10-1.44), drinking alcohol sometimes (OR 1.22; 95% CI: 1.05-1.43), poorer function (HAQ) (OR 1.13; 95% CI: 1.02-1.24), use of NSAID (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.17-1.50), weak (OR 1.21; 95% CI 1.05-1.41) but not strong opioids, and less prevalent in current smokers (OR 0.76; 95%: CI 0.63-0.91). CM use was not associated with pain, disease activity, or quality of life. The most common CMs were fish oils ( N = 1,489 users) followed by glucosamine ( N = 605). Both declined in use over time between 2006 and 2016 (27.5% to 21.4%, trend p = 0.85 and 15.5% to 6.4%, trend p < 0.01), respectively., Conclusion: Oral CM use is common among Australians with inflammatory arthritis. Its use is greater among women and those with tertiary education. Fish oil and glucosamine, the most common CMs, both declined in use over time., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2020 Ashley Fletcher et al.)

Objective: To determine factors associated with opioid use in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients., Methods: Adult RA patients (n = 3225, 73% female, mean age 57 years, median follow-up 54 months) were recruited into the Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD) between 2001-2015. A logistic regression examining both within- and between-patient effect sizes for time-varying covariates, and transition-state analysis for covariates associated with opioid commencement or cessation were used to examine determinants of current opioid use., Results: The population-averaged prevalence of any opioid use was 33% (95%CI 32-34), 9% (95% CI 8, 10) for high potency opioid use, and 62% (95% 60, 64) of patients reported opioid ever-use after five years of follow-up. Opioid use was higher in females and decreased with older baseline age. Within-patients opioid use was associated with higher self-reported pain and HAQ scores (p < 0.001), and NSAID (OR 1.88; 1.67-2.10), oral glucocorticoid (2.23;1.93-2.58), csDMARD (2.08;1.78-2.44) and bDMARD (1.22;1.06-1.40) treatment. Younger baseline age, higher pain scores, HAQ scores and oral GC use were important determinants of change in opioid use, associated with both a higher probability of commencing opioid use, and a lower probability of cessation. Paradoxically, NSAID and DMARD treatments were associated with both a lower probability of commencing opioids, and a lower probability of cessation., Conclusions: There was a high prevalence of opioid use among RA patients, which was associated with pain, function and GC treatment. NSAID, and DMARD treatments obviate the need for opioids in some, but not all, patients., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)