Publications by authors named "Ellen Moholt"

6 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

Fatigue in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis undergoing treat-to-target therapy: predictors and response to treatment.

Ann Rheum Dis 2021 Aug 13. Epub 2021 Aug 13.

Division of Rheumatology and Research, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.

Objectives: Fatigue is a frequent symptom in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and has high impact on quality of life. We explored associations between disease activity and fatigue in patients with early RA during the initial 24 months of modern treat-to-target therapy and predictors of fatigue after 24 months of follow-up.

Methods: Data were obtained from the treat-to-target, tight control Aiming for Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis: a Randomised Trial Examining the Benefit of Ultrasound in a Clinical Tight Control Regime (ARCTIC) trial. Fatigue was measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100 mm and defined as clinically relevant if VAS was ≥20 mm. Baseline predictors of fatigue at 24 months were analysed by multivariable logistic regression.

Results: 205 patients with fatigue data at baseline and 24 months were included. Median (25th, 75th percentiles) symptom duration was 5.4 months (2.8, 10.4), fatigue VAS 37.0 mm (13.0, 62.0) and mean Disease Activity Score (DAS) 3.4 (SD 1.1) at baseline. Prevalence of fatigue declined from 69% at baseline to 38% at 24 months. Fewer swollen joints (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.98, p=0.006), lower power Doppler ultrasound score (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.99, p=0.027) and higher patient global assessment (PGA) (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.04, p<0.001) increased the risk of clinically relevant fatigue at 24 months. Not achieving remission at 6 months was associated with a higher risk of reporting fatigue at 24 months.

Conclusions: Fatigue in patients with early RA was prevalent at disease onset, with a rapid and sustained reduction during treatment. Low objective disease activity and high PGA at baseline were predictors of clinically relevant fatigue at 24 months.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220750DOI Listing
August 2021

Use of video consultations in an outpatient rheumatology clinic.

Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2021 05 19;141(8). Epub 2021 May 19.

Background: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the implementation of video consultations as an alternative to hospital face-to-face consultations was advanced for persons with rheumatic diseases at Diakonhjemmet Hospital. Video consultations were introduced in March 2020, and this article presents the experiences gained by healthcare professionals and patients.

Material And Method: The data was collected in June 2020 through focus-group interviews with healthcare professionals and through an anonymous online survey of patients who had attended video consultations during a period of three weeks in June 2020.

Results: The data from the focus-group interviews with seven rheumatologists and seven nurses were sorted into main thematic categories: patient, healthcare professional, consultation, and technology. The healthcare professionals felt that video consultations, with some exceptions, were appropriate in the follow-up of patients with rheumatic diseases, and especially for stable patients with no confounding issues. Of the 383 patients who were invited to participate, 139 (36 %) responded to the survey. The patients were largely satisfied with the video consultation, with a median score of 10 (quartiles 8-10) on a numerical rating scale from 0 to 10, however, 32 (27 %) patients considered the lack of clinical examination to be detrimental.

Interpretation: Video consultations are often appropriate in the follow-up of patients with a rheumatic disease.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.4045/tidsskr.20.0882DOI Listing
May 2021

Effect of Half-Dose vs Stable-Dose Conventional Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs on Disease Flares in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis in Remission: The ARCTIC REWIND Randomized Clinical Trial.

JAMA 2021 05;325(17):1755-1764

Division of Rheumatology and Research, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.

Importance: Sustained remission has become an achievable goal for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), but how to best treat patients in clinical remission remains unclear.

Objective: To assess the effect of tapering of csDMARDs, compared with continuing csDMARDs without tapering, on the risk of flares in patients with RA in sustained remission.

Design, Setting, And Participants: ARCTIC REWIND was a multicenter, randomized, parallel, open-label noninferiority study conducted in 10 Norwegian hospital-based rheumatology practices. A total of 160 patients with RA in remission for 12 months who were receiving stable csDMARD therapy were enrolled between June 2013 and June 2018, and the final visit occurred in June 2019.

Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to half-dose csDMARDs (n = 80) or stable-dose csDMARDs (n = 80).

Main Outcomes And Measures: The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a disease flare between baseline and the 12-month follow-up, defined as a combination of Disease Activity Score (DAS) greater than 1.6 (threshold for RA remission), an increase in DAS score of 0.6 units or more, and at least 2 swollen joints. A disease flare could also be recorded if both the patient and investigator agreed that a clinically significant flare had occurred. A risk difference of 20% was defined as the noninferiority margin.

Results: Of 160 enrolled patients (mean [SD] age, 55.1 [11.9] years; 66% female), 156 received the allocated therapy, of which 155 without any major protocol violations were included in the primary analysis population (77 receiving half-dose and 78 receiving stable-dose csDMARDs). Flare occurred in 19 patients (25%) in the half-dose csDMARD group compared with 5 (6%) in the stable-dose csDMARD group (risk difference, 18% [95% CI, 7%-29%]). Adverse events occurred in 34 patients (44%) in the half-dose group and 42 (54%) in the stable-dose group, none leading to study discontinuation. No deaths occurred.

Conclusions And Relevance: Among patients with RA in remission taking csDMARD therapy, treatment with half-dose vs stable-dose csDMARDs did not demonstrate noninferiority for the percentage of patients with disease flares over 12 months, and there were significantly fewer flares in the stable-dose group. These findings do not support treatment with half-dose therapy.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01881308.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.4542DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8097499PMC
May 2021

Endorsement of the OMERACT core domain set for shared decision making interventions in rheumatology trials: Results from a multi-stepped consensus-building approach.

Semin Arthritis Rheum 2021 06 6;51(3):593-600. Epub 2021 Apr 6.

Institute for Work & Health, Institute Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

Objective: To gain consensus on the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set for rheumatology trials of shared decision making (SDM) interventions.

Methods: The process followed the OMERACT Filter 2.1 methodology, and used consensus-building methods, with patients involved since the inception. After developing the draft core domain set in previous research, we conducted five steps: (i) improving the draft core domain set; (ii) developing and disseminating white-board videos to promote its understanding; (iii) conducting an electronic survey to gather feedback on the draft core domain set; (iv) finalizing the core domain set and developing summaries, a plenary session video and discussion boards to promote its understanding; and (v) conducting virtual workshops with voting to endorse the core domain set.

Results: A total of 167 participants from 28 countries answered the survey (62% were patients/caregivers). Most participants rated domains as relevant (81%-95%) and clear (82%-93%). A total of 149 participants (n = 48 patients/caregivers, 101 clinicians/researchers) participated in virtual workshops and voted on the proposed core domain set which received endorsement by 95%. Endorsed domains are: 1- Knowledge of options, their potential benefits and harms; 2- Chosen option aligned with each patient's values and preferences; 3- Confidence in the chosen option; 4- Satisfaction with the decision-making process; 5- Adherence to the chosen option and 6- Potential negative consequences of the SDM intervention.

Conclusion: We achieved consensus among an international group of stakeholders on the OMERACT core domain set for rheumatology trials of SDM interventions. Future research will develop the Core Outcome Measurement Set.

Clinical Significance: Prior to this study, there had been no consensus on the OMERACT core domain set for SDM interventions. The current study shows that the OMERACT core domain set achieved a high level of endorsement by key stakeholders, including patients/caregivers, clinicians and researchers.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2021.03.017DOI Listing
June 2021

2020 EULAR points to consider for the prevention, screening, assessment and management of non-adherence to treatment in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases for use in clinical practice.

Ann Rheum Dis 2020 Dec 18. Epub 2020 Dec 18.

Instituto de Salud Musculoesquelética (INMUSC), Madrid, Spain.

Background: Non-adherence to treatment could preclude reaching an optimal outcome. Thirty to 80% of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) do not adhere to the agreed treatment.

Objectives: The objective was to establish points to consider (PtCs) for the prevention, screening, assessment and management of non-adherence to (non-)pharmacological treatments in people with RMDs.

Methods: An EULAR task force (TF) was established, and the EULAR standardised operating procedures for the development of PtCs were followed. The TF included healthcare providers (HCPs), comprising rheumatologists, nurses, pharmacists, psychologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and patient-representatives from 12 European countries. A review of systematic reviews was conducted in advance to support the TF in formulating the PtCs. The level of agreement among the TF was established by anonymous online voting.

Results: Four overarching principles and nine PtCs were formulated. The PtCs reflect the phases of action on non-adherence. HCPs should assess and discuss adherence with patients on a regular basis and support patients to treatment adherence. As adherence is an agreed behaviour, the treatment has to be tailored to the patients' needs. The level of agreement ranged from 9.5 to 9.9 out of 10.

Conclusions: These PtCs can help HCPs to support people with RMDs to be more adherent to the agreed treatment plan. The basic scheme being prevent non-adherence by bonding with the patient and building trust, overcoming structural barriers, assessing in a blame-free environment and tailoring the solution to the problem.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218986DOI Listing
December 2020

Prevention, screening, assessing and managing of non-adherent behaviour in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: systematic reviews informing the 2020 EULAR points to consider.

RMD Open 2020 11;6(3)

Rheumatology, Aarhus University Hospital, Århus N, Denmark.

Objective: To analyse how non-adherence to prescribed treatments might be prevented, screened, assessed and managed in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

Methods: An overview of systematic reviews (SR) was performed in four bibliographic databases. Research questions focused on: (1) effective interventions or strategies, (2) associated factors, (3) impact of shared decision making and effective communication, (4) practical things to prevent non-adherence, (5) effect of non-adherence on outcome, (6) screening and assessment tools and (7) responsible healthcare providers. The methodological quality of the reviews was assessed using AMSTAR-2. The qualitative synthesis focused on results and on the level of evidence attained from the studies included in the reviews.

Results: After reviewing 9908 titles, the overview included 38 SR on medication, 29 on non-pharmacological interventions and 28 on assessment. Content and quality of the included SR was very heterogeneous. The number of factors that may influence adherence exceed 700. Among 53 intervention studies, 54.7% showed a small statistically significant effect on adherence, and all three multicomponent interventions, including different modes of patient education and delivered by a variety of healthcare providers, showed a positive result in adherence to medication. No single assessment provided a comprehensive measure of adherence to either medication or exercise.

Conclusions: The results underscore the complexity of non-adherence, its changing pattern and dependence on multi-level factors, the need to involve all stakeholders in all steps, the absence of a gold standard for screening and the requirement of multi-component interventions to manage it.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2020-001432DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7856118PMC
November 2020
-->