Roberto Giacomelli1, Roberto Gorla2, Francesco Trotta2, Rosella Tirri2, Walter Grassi2, Laura Bazzichi2, Mauro Galeazzi2, Marco Matucci-Cerinic2, Raffaele Scarpa2, Fabrizio Cantini2, Roberto Gerli2, Giovanni Lapadula2, Luigi Sinigaglia2, Gianfranco Ferraccioli2, Ignazio Olivieri2, Piero Ruscitti2, Piercarlo Sarzi-Puttini2. 1. Rheumatology Unit, Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Science, School of Medicine, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Rheumatology Unit, University of Brescia, Brescia, Rheumatology Unit, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Rheumatology Unit of the Second University of Naples, Naples, Rheumatology Unit, Polytechnic University of the Marche, Jesi, Ancona, Rheumatology Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Rheumatology Unit, Department of Clinical Medicine and Immunological Science, University of Siena, Siena, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Biomedicine, University of Florence, Florence, Rheumatology Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University Federico II, Naples, Division of Rheumatology, Misericordia e Dolce Hospital, Prato, Rheumatology Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Perugia, Perugia, Rheumatology Unit, University of Bari, Bari, Rheumatology Unit, G Pini Hospital, Milan, Division of Rheumatology, Institute of Rheumatology and Affine Sciences, School of Medicine, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Rheumatology Department of Lucania, San Carlo Hospital of Potenza and Madonna delle Grazie Hospital of Matera, Matera and Rheumatology Unit, L. Sacco University Hospital, Milan, Italy roberto.giacomelli@cc.univaq.it. 2. Rheumatology Unit, Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Science, School of Medicine, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Rheumatology Unit, University of Brescia, Brescia, Rheumatology Unit, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Rheumatology Unit of the Second University of Naples, Naples, Rheumatology Unit, Polytechnic University of the Marche, Jesi, Ancona, Rheumatology Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Rheumatology Unit, Department of Clinical Medicine and Immunological Science, University of Siena, Siena, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Biomedicine, University of Florence, Florence, Rheumatology Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University Federico II, Naples, Division of Rheumatology, Misericordia e Dolce Hospital, Prato, Rheumatology Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Perugia, Perugia, Rheumatology Unit, University of Bari, Bari, Rheumatology Unit, G Pini Hospital, Milan, Division of Rheumatology, Institute of Rheumatology and Affine Sciences, School of Medicine, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Rheumatology Department of Lucania, San Carlo Hospital of Potenza and Madonna delle Grazie Hospital of Matera, Matera and Rheumatology Unit, L. Sacco University Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The observational RAPSODIA (RA, PsA and spondylitis including AS) study was planned to assess, in patients with RA, AS and PsA, their involvement in medical decisions, quality of life and unmet needs 15 years after the introduction of biologic therapies in Italy. METHODS: Patients completed a questionnaire during their scheduled rheumatology consultation. They rated their satisfaction with disease knowledge on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = totally satisfied). Self-efficacy, defined as judgement of one's own ability to achieve given levels of performance and exercise control over events, was measured using the pain subscale of the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale. Patients' global assessments of pain, fatigue and disease activity were recorded on 100 mm visual analogue scales (0 = best status, 100 = worse status). Disease activity status was assessed using standard tools. Health status was measured using the 36-item Short Form Health Survey and the Italian version of the HAQ. RESULTS: Ninety-eight per cent of patients reported that their health care practitioner used understandable terms to explain their condition. Joint issues and general symptoms (e.g. fatigue and malaise) were common. All measures of disease activity and self-efficacy scores were markedly better in patients receiving biologic vs conventional therapy. Biologic therapy recipients were more productive at work. CONCLUSION: These results confirm that some patients with rheumatic diseases are not satisfied with the level of information they receive about their treatments. Biologic therapy appears to be an important advance, with patients receiving this form of treatment having improved symptoms and productivity. However, patients still report unmet needs. Thus further research, and perhaps new and more effective therapies, along with better education and multidisciplinary collaboration, are required to improve outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: The observational RAPSODIA (RA, PsA and spondylitis including AS) study was planned to assess, in patients with RA, AS and PsA, their involvement in medical decisions, quality of life and unmet needs 15 years after the introduction of biologic therapies in Italy. METHODS:Patients completed a questionnaire during their scheduled rheumatology consultation. They rated their satisfaction with disease knowledge on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = totally satisfied). Self-efficacy, defined as judgement of one's own ability to achieve given levels of performance and exercise control over events, was measured using the pain subscale of the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale. Patients' global assessments of pain, fatigue and disease activity were recorded on 100 mm visual analogue scales (0 = best status, 100 = worse status). Disease activity status was assessed using standard tools. Health status was measured using the 36-item Short Form Health Survey and the Italian version of the HAQ. RESULTS: Ninety-eight per cent of patients reported that their health care practitioner used understandable terms to explain their condition. Joint issues and general symptoms (e.g. fatigue and malaise) were common. All measures of disease activity and self-efficacy scores were markedly better in patients receiving biologic vs conventional therapy. Biologic therapy recipients were more productive at work. CONCLUSION: These results confirm that some patients with rheumatic diseases are not satisfied with the level of information they receive about their treatments. Biologic therapy appears to be an important advance, with patients receiving this form of treatment having improved symptoms and productivity. However, patients still report unmet needs. Thus further research, and perhaps new and more effective therapies, along with better education and multidisciplinary collaboration, are required to improve outcomes.
Authors: Eldin Dzubur; Carine Khalil; Christopher V Almario; Benjamin Noah; Deeba Minhas; Mariko Ishimori; Corey Arnold; Yujin Park; Jonathan Kay; Michael H Weisman; Brennan M R Spiegel Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Marco Garrido-Cumbrera; Ottfrid Hillmann; Raj Mahapatra; David Trigos; Petra Zajc; Luisa Weiss; Galya Bostynets; Laure Gossec; Laura C Coates Journal: Rheumatol Ther Date: 2017-06-09