Embracing unity at OMERACT: Valuing equity, promoting diversity, fostering inclusivity.

OBJECTIVE: To increase awareness and understanding of the principles of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusivity (EDI) within Outcome Measures in Rheumatology's (OMERACT) members. For this, we aimed to obtain ideas on how to promote and foster these principles within the organization and determine the diversity of the current membership in order to focus future efforts. METHODS: We held a plenary workshop session at OMERACT 2023 with roundtable discussions on barriers and solutions to increased diversity within OMERACT. We conducted an anonymous, web-based survey of members to record characteristics including population group, gender identity, education level, age, and ability. RESULTS: The workshop generated ideas to increase diversity of participants across the themes of building relationships [12 topics], materials and methods [5 topics], and conference-specific [6 topics]. Four hundred and seven people responded to the survey (25 % response rate). The majority of respondents were White (75 %), female (61 %), university-educated (94 %), Christian (42 %), spoke English at home (60 %), aged 35 to 55 years (50 %), and did not report a disability (64 %). CONCLUSION: OMERACT is committed to improving its diversity. Next steps include strategic recruitment of members to the EDI working group, drafting an EDI mission statement centering equity and inclusivity in the organization, and developing guidance for the OMERACT Handbook to help all working groups create actionable plans for promoting EDI principles.

Consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the OMERACT Core Outcome Set for shared decision making interventions in rheumatology trials.

OBJECTIVE: To gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set for rheumatology trials evaluating shared decision making (SDM) interventions. METHODS: Following the OMERACT Handbook methods, our Working Group (WG), comprised of 90 members, including 17 patient research partners (PRPs) and 73 clinicians and researchers, had six virtual meetings in addition to email exchanges to develop draft definitions and descriptions. The WG then conducted an international survey of its members to gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions. Finally, the WG members had virtual meetings and e-mail exchanges to review survey results and finalize names, definitions and descriptions of the domains. RESULTS: WG members contributed to developing the definitions. Fifty-two members representing four continents and 13 countries completed the survey, including 15 PRPs, 33 clinicians and 37 researchers. PRPs and clinicians/researchers agreed with all definitions and descriptions with agreements ranging from 87% to 100%. Respondents suggested wording changes to the names, definitions and descriptions to better reflect the domains. Discussions led to further simplification and clarification to address common questions/concerns about the domains. CONCLUSION: Our WG reached consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the core domain set for rheumatology trials of SDM interventions. This step is crucial to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The current study provides consensus-based definitions and descriptions for the domains of the OMERACT core domain set for shared decision making interventions from patients/caregivers, clinicians and researchers. This is a crucial step to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set for trials of SDM interventions.

OMERACT Core outcome measurement set for shared decision making in rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions: a scoping review to identify candidate instruments.

OBJECTIVES: Shared decision making (SDM) is a central tenet in rheumatic and musculoskeletal care. The lack of standardization regarding SDM instruments and outcomes in clinical trials threatens the comparative effectiveness of interventions. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) SDM Working Group is developing a Core Outcome Set for trials of SDM interventions in rheumatology and musculoskeletal health. The working group reached consensus on a Core Outcome Domain Set in 2020. The next step is to develop a Core Outcome Measurement Set through the OMERACT Filter 2.2. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) to identify candidate instruments for the OMERACT Filter 2.2 We systematically reviewed five databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Web of Science). An information specialist designed search strategies to identify all measurement instruments used in SDM studies in adults or children living with rheumatic or musculoskeletal diseases or their important others. Paired reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text articles. We extracted characteristics of all candidate instruments (e.g., measured construct, measurement properties). We classified candidate instruments and summarized evidence gaps with an adapted version of the Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) table. RESULTS: We found 14,464 citations, read 239 full text articles, and included 99 eligible studies. We identified 220 potential candidate instruments. The five most used measurement instruments were the Decisional Conflict Scale (traditional and low literacy versions) (n=38), the Hip/Knee-Decision Quality Instrument (n=20), the Decision Regret Scale (n=9), the Preparation for Decision Making Scale (n=8), and the CollaboRATE (n=8). Only 44 candidate instruments (20%) had any measurement properties reported by the included studies. Of these instruments, only 57% matched with at least one of the 7-criteria adapted SOMP table. CONCLUSION: We identified 220 candidate instruments used in the SDM literature amongst people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Our classification of instruments showed evidence gaps and inconsistent reporting of measurement properties. The next steps for the OMERACT SDM Working Group are to match candidate instruments with Core Domains, assess feasibility and review validation studies of measurement instruments in rheumatic diseases or other conditions. Development and validation of new instruments may be required for some Core Domains.

2022 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Exercise, Rehabilitation, Diet, and Additional Integrative Interventions for Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop initial American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines on the use of exercise, rehabilitation, diet, and additional interventions in conjunction with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) as part of an integrative management approach for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: An interprofessional guideline development group constructed clinically relevant Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) questions. A literature review team then completed a systematic literature review and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate the certainty of evidence. An interprofessional Voting Panel (n = 20 participants) that included 3 individuals with RA achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS: The Voting Panel achieved consensus on 28 recommendations for the use of integrative interventions in conjunction with DMARDs for the management of RA. Consistent engagement in exercise received a strong recommendation. Of 27 conditional recommendations, 4 pertained to exercise, 13 to rehabilitation, 3 to diet, and 7 to additional integrative interventions. These recommendations are specific to RA management, recognizing that other medical indications and general health benefits may exist for many of these interventions. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides initial ACR recommendations on integrative interventions for the management of RA to accompany DMARD treatments. The broad range of interventions included in these recommendations illustrates the importance of an interprofessional, team-based approach to RA management. The conditional nature of most recommendations requires clinicians to engage persons with RA in shared decision-making when applying these recommendations.

2022 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Exercise, Rehabilitation, Diet, and Additional Integrative Interventions for Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop initial American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines on the use of exercise, rehabilitation, diet, and additional interventions in conjunction with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) as part of an integrative management approach for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: An interprofessional guideline development group constructed clinically relevant Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) questions. A literature review team then completed a systematic literature review and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate the certainty of evidence. An interprofessional Voting Panel (n = 20 participants) that included 3 individuals with RA achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS: The Voting Panel achieved consensus on 28 recommendations for the use of integrative interventions in conjunction with DMARDs for the management of RA. Consistent engagement in exercise received a strong recommendation. Of 27 conditional recommendations, 4 pertained to exercise, 13 to rehabilitation, 3 to diet, and 7 to additional integrative interventions. These recommendations are specific to RA management, recognizing that other medical indications and general health benefits may exist for many of these interventions. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides initial ACR recommendations on integrative interventions for the management of RA to accompany DMARD treatments. The broad range of interventions included in these recommendations illustrates the importance of an interprofessional, team-based approach to RA management. The conditional nature of most recommendations requires clinicians to engage persons with RA in shared decision-making when applying these recommendations.

An Evaluation of Burnout Among US Rheumatology Fellows: A National Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate levels of burnout and correlates of burnout among US rheumatology fellows. METHODS: US rheumatology fellows were invited to complete an electronic survey in 2019. Burnout was assessed using the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Measures of depression, fatigue, quality of life, and training year were also collected. Open-ended questions about perceived factors to promote resiliency and factors leading to increased burnout were included. Bivariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to examine correlates of burnout. Open-ended responses were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The response rate was 18% (105/582 pediatric and adult rheumatology fellows). Over one-third (38.5%) of postgraduate year (PGY) 4 and 16.7% of PGY5/6 fellows reported at least 1 symptom of burnout. Of PGY4 fellows, 12.8% met criteria for depression compared with 2.4% of PGY5/6 fellows. PGY4 fellows reported worse fatigue and poorer quality of life compared with PGY5/6. In multivariable models controlling for training year and gender, older age (> 31 years) was associated with lower odds of burnout. Thematic analysis of open-ended responses identified factors that help reduce burnout: exercise, family/friends, sleep, support at work, and hobbies. Factors contributing to burnout: pager, documentation, long hours, demands of patient care, and presentations and expectations. CONCLUSION: This national survey of US rheumatology fellows reveals that early trainee level and younger age are associated with worse levels of fatigue, quality of life, and burnout. Although awareness of and strategies to reduce burnout are needed for all fellows, targeted interventions for younger fellows and those in their first year of training may be of highest yield.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in a Biochemical Marker of Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity.

OBJECTIVE: Racial and ethnic disparities in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity measures have been documented. We compared racial and ethnic differences in disease activity using multiple composite measures, including an objective measure, the multi-biochemical disease activity (MBDA) score. METHODS: Data are derived from the University of California, San Francisco RA Cohort, a longitudinal observational cohort. Participants with at least one MBDA measure and self-reported race and ethnicity were included. Multivariable linear regression evaluated the association between race and ethnicity groups and mean MBDA score, adjusting for potential confounders, including symptom duration and medication use. Sensitivity analyses substituted the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and the Disease Activity Score-28 joints with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) for the MBDA in multivariable models. RESULTS: We included 267 participants (86% female, mean age 52.7 ± 13.3 years). The majority were Latinx (n = 137; 51%), followed by Asian (n = 91; 34%). After adjustment, Latinx participants had the highest mean MBDA score (40.6 ± 2.1) compared with White participants at (32.8 ± 6.7). Black participants had the second highest mean MBDA score, followed by Asian participants (36.3 ± 5.3, 36.0 ± 2.7, respectively), although neither were significantly different from White participants. The trends observed for the CDAI and DAS28-ESR were similar to those for the MBDA. CONCLUSION: We found significantly higher disease activity measured by the MBDA and DAS28-ESR in Latinx participants compared with White participants. We also found significantly higher disease activity in Asian participants compared with White participants with the DAS28-ESR. Our findings, although limited by the small number of White participants in the referent group, suggest that RA disease activity measures may be influenced by external factors that have differential impacts by racial and ethnic group.

Are We on the Same Page? A Cross-Sectional Study of Patient-Clinician Goal Concordance in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Patient-clinician goal concordance is associated with improved outcomes in certain chronic diseases but not explored in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We examined goal concordance, correlates of concordance, and the association of concordance with health outcomes. METHODS: Adult patients with RA seen at least 1 time in the prior 12 months at 1 of 2 rheumatology clinics participated. Patients and their clinicians independently ranked top 3 goals for RA treatment from 8 options before a routine visit. Patients completed postvisit surveys on health, demographic information, health literacy, and adherence. Goal concordance was defined as the patient's number 1 goal being among the clinician's top 3 goals for that patient. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine correlates of concordance. RESULTS: Patients were 58% female and 16% Spanish-speaking, and 29% had limited health literacy. Among 204 patient-clinician dyads, 20% were goal-discordant. "Have less pain" was selected by both patient and clinician in 81% of dyads, followed by "have fewer problems doing daily activities" by 63%. Otherwise, clinicians prioritized avoiding side effects, whereas patients ranked improved sleep, fatigue, and mood. Longer disease duration was associated with discordance (median 13.3 years, interquartile range [IQR] 5.2-20 among discordant vs. 7 years, IQR 4-14; P = 0.039); higher depressive symptoms were associated with concordance (8.1% vs. 24%; P = 0.04). Goal concordance was associated with higher medication adherence (adjusted odds ratio 2.76 [95% confidence interval 1.01, 7.56]). CONCLUSION: One in 5 patient-clinician dyads had discordant treatment goals. Goal concordance was associated with higher medication adherence. Studies to improve goal elicitation and communication of patients with RA's priorities are needed.

"It may help you to know ": The Early-phase Qualitative Development of a Rheumatoid Arthritis Goal Elicitation Tool.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment guidelines for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) include a patient-centered approach and shared decision making, which includes a discussion of patient goals. We describe the iterative early development of a structured goal elicitation tool to facilitate goal communication for persons with RA and their clinicians. METHODS: Tool development occurred in 3 phases: (1) clinician feedback on the initial prototype during a communication training session; (2) semistructured interviews with RA patients; and (3) community stakeholder feedback on elements of the goal elicitation tool in a group setting and electronically. Feedback was dynamically incorporated into the tool. RESULTS: Clinicians (n = 15) and patients (n = 10) provided feedback on the tool prototypes. Clinicians preferred a shorter tool deemphasizing goals outside of their perceived treatment domain or available resources; they highlighted the benefits of the tool to facilitate conversation but raised concerns regarding current constraints of the clinic visit. Patients endorsed the utility of such a tool to support agenda setting and preparing for a visit. Clinicians, patients, and community stakeholders reported the tool was useful but identified barriers to implementation that the tool could itself resolve. CONCLUSION: A goal elicitation tool for persons with RA and their clinicians was iteratively developed with feedback from multiple stakeholders. The tool can provide a structured way to communicate patient goals within a clinic visit and help overcome reported barriers such as time constraints. Incorporating a structured communication tool to enhance goal communication and foster shared decision making may lead to improved outcomes and higher-quality care in RA.

The Development of the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness Learning Collaborative for Improving Patient-Reported Outcome Collection and Patient-Centered Communication in Adult Rheumatology.

OBJECTIVE: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an integral part of treat-to-target approaches in managing rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In clinical practice, however, routine collection, documentation, and discussion of PROs with patients are highly variable. The RISE LC (Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness Learning Collaborative) was established to develop and share best practices in PRO collection and use across adult rheumatology practices in the United States METHODS: The goals of the RISE LC were developed through site surveys and in-person meetings. Participants completed a baseline survey on PRO collection and use in their practices. RISE LC learning sessions focused on improving communication around PROs with patients and enhancing shared decision-making in treatment plans. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the RISE LC pivoted to adapt PRO tools for telehealth. RESULTS: At baseline, all responding sites (n = 15) had established workflows for collecting PROs. Most sites used paper forms alone. PRO documentation in electronic health records was variable, with only half of the sites using structured data fields. To standardize and improve the use of PROs, participants iteratively developed a Clinical Disease Activity Index-based RA Disease Activity Communication Tool to solicit treatment goals and improve shared decision-making across sites. The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated developing a tool to gauge PROs via telehealth. CONCLUSION: The RISE LC is a continuous, structured method for implementing strategies to improve PRO collection and use in rheumatological care, initially adapting from the Learning Collaborative model and extending to include features of a learning network. Future directions include measuring the impact of standardized PRO collection and discussion on shared decision-making and RA outcomes.

2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop updated guidelines for the pharmacologic management of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A voting panel comprising clinicians and patients achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS: The guideline addresses treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic DMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, use of glucocorticoids, and use of DMARDs in certain high-risk populations (i.e., those with liver disease, heart failure, lymphoproliferative disorders, previous serious infections, and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease). The guideline includes 44 recommendations (7 strong and 37 conditional). CONCLUSION: This clinical practice guideline is intended to serve as a tool to support clinician and patient decision-making. Recommendations are not prescriptive, and individual treatment decisions should be made through a shared decision-making process based on patients' values, goals, preferences, and comorbidities.

2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop updated guidelines for the pharmacologic management of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A voting panel comprising clinicians and patients achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS: The guideline addresses treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic DMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, use of glucocorticoids, and use of DMARDs in certain high-risk populations (i.e., those with liver disease, heart failure, lymphoproliferative disorders, previous serious infections, and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease). The guideline includes 44 recommendations (7 strong and 37 conditional). CONCLUSION: This clinical practice guideline is intended to serve as a tool to support clinician and patient decision-making. Recommendations are not prescriptive, and individual treatment decisions should be made through a shared decision-making process based on patients' values, goals, preferences, and comorbidities.

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

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.

Telerheumatology: before, during, and after a global pandemic.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In early 2020, the COVID-19 global pandemic shifted most healthcare to remote delivery methods to protect patients, clinicians, and hospital staff. Such remote care delivery methods include the use of telehealth technologies including clinical video telehealth or telephone visits. Prior to this, research on the acceptability, feasibility, and efficacy of telehealth applied to rheumatology, or telerheumatology, has been limited. RECENT FINDINGS: Telerheumatology visits were found to be noninferior to in-person visits and are often more time and cost effective for patients. Clinicians and patients both noted the lack of a physical exam in telehealth visits and patients missed the opportunity to have lab work done or other diagnostic tests they are afforded with in-person visits. Overall, patients and clinicians had positive attitudes toward the use of telerheumatology and agreed on its usefulness, even beyond the pandemic. SUMMARY: Although telerheumatology has the potential to expand the reach of rheumatology practice, some of the most vulnerable patients still lack the most basic resources required for a telehealth visit. As the literature on telerheumatology continues to expand, attention should be paid to health equity, the digital divide, as well as patient preferences in order to foster true shared decision-making over telehealth.

Shared decision-making in gout treatment: a national study of rheumatology provider opinion and practice.

To assess rheumatologists' views and practices related to shared decision-making (SDM) in gout treatment. We performed a cross-sectional electronic survey of rheumatologists at U.S. Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers, assessing views and practices related to SDM in gout. Of the 154 VA rheumatology providers eligible, 90 responded (response rate, 58%). Fifty-eight percent were female, the mean age was 51 years (standard deviation, 9.6), 42% had > 20 years of experience in medical practice. Rheumatologists reported routinely offering a choice to their patients for (1) starting urate-lowering therapy (ULT) for gout vs. doing nothing (70%); (2) choosing NSAIDs, corticosteroids, or colchicine for the treatment of acute flares (67%); and (3) choosing NSAIDs, corticosteroids, or colchicine for anti-inflammatory prophylaxis when starting ULT (51%). Very few rheumatologists offered choice regarding (4) choosing allopurinol vs. febuxostat as the first ULT (16%) and (5) taking daily ULT long-term vs. intermittently (15%). Rheumatologists perceived that a large proportion of patients were often or sometimes unsure of the best choice for these five decisions, 34%, 76%, 76%, 52%, and 54%, respectively. Similar proportions of rheumatologists felt that patients were uninformed about both medication benefits and risks, unclear about the personal importance of the benefits and risks, and unsupported in decision-making. For the five decisions respectively, rheumatologists supported SDM with patients in 76%, 56%, 58%, 27%, and 25%. The majority of VA rheumatologists incorporated SDM in several gout treatment decisions. Rheumatologists also recognized that patients need better support to participate in SDM in gout. Key Points: • Rheumatologists offered shared decision-making to gout patients for 3 key treatment decisions. • Rheumatologists perceived that many patients were unsure of the best choice for these decisions. • Rheumatologists felt that patients were uninformed about medication benefits/risks and unsupported in decision-making.

Relationship Between Depression and Disease Activity in United States Veterans With Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Receiving Methotrexate.

OBJECTIVE: Depression is common in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), exacerbates disease activity, and may decrease response to first-line disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. This study aimed to determine if depression affects disease activity among veterans with early RA prescribed methotrexate (MTX). METHODS: Participants included veterans enrolled in the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis (VARA) registry with early RA (onset < 2 yrs) prescribed MTX. Depression was assessed at enrollment using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision codes (296.2-296.39, 300.4, 311). Disease activity was measured using the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) and other core measures of RA disease activity. Propensity score weights were used to adjust depressed (n = 48) and nondepressed (n = 220) patients on baseline confounders within imputed datasets. Weighted estimating equations were used to assess standardized mean differences in disease activity between depressed and nondepressed patients at 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year follow-ups. RESULTS: The analytic sample was composed of 268 veterans with early RA prescribed MTX who were predominantly male (n = 239, 89.2%) and older (62.7 yrs, SD 10.6) than patients with RA in the general population. Adjusted estimates indicated that depression was associated with significantly higher DAS28 at 6 months (ß 0.35, 95% CI 0.01-0.68) but not at the 1- or 2-year follow-up. Also, depression was associated with significantly worse pain at 6 months (ß 0.39, 95% CI 0.04-0.73) and 1 year (ß 0.40, 95% CI 0.04-0.75). CONCLUSION: In early RA, depression is associated with greater short-term disease activity during MTX treatment, as well as more persistent and severe pain.