4.3 Article

Factors influencing the use of biologic therapy and adoption of treat-to-target recommendations in current European rheumatology practice

期刊

PATIENT PREFERENCE AND ADHERENCE
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 2007-2014

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S170054

关键词

rheumatoid arthritis; treat-to-target; disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

资金

  1. Pfizer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim of this study was to identify factors that influence treatment adjustments and adoption of a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in European practices. Methods: Cross-sectional data were drawn from the Adelphi 2014 RA Disease Specific Programme. Treatment patterns and clinical characteristics were investigated in patients treated with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) vs non-bDMARDs. For the T2T analysis, patients were subdivided into two subsets (RA diagnosis <2 or >= 2 years) and compared according to the approach used (no target = no T2T approach; pragmatic = target different from remission; and aspirational = target set as remission). Results: Data from 2,536 patients were analyzed (mean age: 52.76 years and mean time since RA diagnosis: 6.05 years). Of the 1,438 patients eligible to receive bDMARDs, 55% did not receive them. Initiation of bDMARDs in a bDMARD-naive patient was prompted by worsening of the disease. In the RA diagnosis <2 years subset, a T2T approach was not adopted in 58% of the patients, whereas 8% and 34% adopted a pragmatic and aspirational approach, respectively. In the RA diagnosis >= 2 years subset, 45%, 19%, and 36% of the patients adopted a no target, pragmatic, and aspirational approach, respectively. Physician satisfaction with RA control was lower in the RA diagnosis <2 years subset than in the RA diagnosis >= 2 years subset (65% vs 77% satisfied, respectively; P<0.0001). Conclusion: This analysis shows that the use of bDMARDs remains suboptimal and that a T2T strategy is not universally adopted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据