Body mass index and treatment survival in patients with RA starting treatment with TNFα-inhibitors: long-term follow-up in the real-life METEOR registry.

OBJECTIVES: To study whether there is an association between body mass index (BMI) category and survival of various tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in a real-life longitudinal international registry. METHODS: Data from 5230 patients with RA starting treatment with any TNFi were selected from the METEOR registry. Patients were divided into six BMI categories: 3.7% underweight, BMI<18.5 kg/m2; 46% normal weight, BMI 18.5-25 kg/m2; 32% pre-obesity, BMI 25-30 kg/m2; 13% obesity class I, BMI 30-35 kg/m2; 3.4% obesity class II, BMI 35-40 kg/m2; and 1.6% obesity class III, BMI >40 kg/m2. Time on treatment in the different BMI categories was compared for all TNFi combined and for the infliximab, adalimumab and etanercept separately, using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression analyses. Cox regression analyses were adjusted for potential confounders, with follow-up censored at 5000 days. RESULTS: Patients in obesity class II (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.54) and III (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.18) and underweight patients (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.58) showed statistically significantly shorter TNFi survival than normal weight patients. The effect in underweight patients was strongest for infliximab (HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.76), the effect in overweight patients was strongest for infliximab (category II (HR 1.49, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.26); category III (HR 1.46, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.71)) and etanercept (category II (HR 1.27 95% CI 0.98 to 1.65); category III (HR 1.79, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.55)). No significant effect modification from reported pain was found. CONCLUSION: Both underweight and overweight patients discontinued TNFi treatment earlier than normal weight patients, without evidence of reported pain as the main determinant. It remains uncertain what determines TNFi survival in individual patients.

How do patients with systemic sclerosis experience currently provided healthcare and how should we measure its quality?

OBJECTIVES: To gain insight into SSc patients' perspective on quality of care and to survey their preferred quality indicators. METHODS: An online questionnaire about healthcare setting, perceived quality of care (CQ index) and quality indicators, was sent to 2093 patients from 13 Dutch hospitals. RESULTS: Six hundred and fifty patients (mean age 59 years, 75% women, 32% limited cutaneous SSc, 20% diffuse cutaneous SSc) completed the questionnaire. Mean time to diagnosis was 4.3 years (s.d. 6.9) and was longer in women compared with men (4.8 (s.d. 7.3) vs 2.5 (s.d. 5.0) years). Treatment took place in a SSc expert centre for 58%, regional centre for 29% or in both for 39% of patients. Thirteen percent of patients was not aware of whether their hospital was specialized in SSc. The perceived quality of care was rated with a mean score of 3.2 (s.d. 0.5) (range 1.0-4.0). There were no relevant differences between expert and regional centres. The three prioritized process indicators were: good patient-physician interaction (80%), structural multidisciplinary collaboration (46%) and receiving treatment according to SSc guidelines (44%). Absence of disease progression (66%), organ involvement (33%) and digital ulcers (27%) were the three highest rated outcome indicators. CONCLUSION: The perceived quality of care evaluated in our study was fair to good. No differences between expert and regional centres were observed. Our prioritized process and outcome indicators can be added to indicators suggested by SSc experts in earlier studies and can be used to evaluate the quality of care in SSc.