Construct validity of Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) and Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) treatment target cut-offs in a BASDAI treat-to-target axial spondyloarthritis cohort: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: In axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) and Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) are recommended for use in treat-to-target (T2T) strategies. However, BASDAI disease states may be a less suitable T2T instrument than ASDAS, since BASDAI contains non-disease activity related items. The objective of our study was to investigate the construct validity of BASDAI and ASDAS disease states. METHOD: We performed a single-centre cross-sectional study on BASDAI and ASDAS construct validity in long-term BASDAI T2T-treated axSpA patients. Our hypothesis was that BASDAI is less representative of disease activity than ASDAS owing to the focus on pain and fatigue, and missing an objective item, e.g. C-reactive protein (CRP). This was operationalized using several subhypotheses. RESULTS: The study included 242 axSpA patients. BASDAI and ASDAS disease states showed a similar relation to Patient Acceptable Symptom State and T2T protocol adherence. The proportions of patients with high BASDAI and ASDAS disease activity fulfilling Central Sensitization Inventory and fibromyalgia syndrome criteria were similar. The correlation with fatigue was moderate for both BASDAI (Spearman's rho 0.64) and ASDAS (Spearman's rho 0.54) disease states. A high ASDAS was strongly correlated with increased CRP (relative risk 6.02, 95% CI 3.0-12.09), while this correlation was not seen for BASDAI (relative risk 1.13, 95% CI 0.74-1.74). CONCLUSION: Our study showed moderate and comparable construct validity for BASDAI- and ASDAS-based disease activity states, with the expected exception of association with CRP. Therefore, no strong preference can be given for either measure, although the ASDAS seems marginally more valid.

Steps towards implementation of protocolized dose reduction of adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab for psoriasis in daily practice.

BACKGROUND: Dose reduction (DR) of adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab has proven to be (cost-)effective in psoriasis patients with low disease activity. Further implementation is needed to establish application of DR for eligible patients. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the implementation of protocolized biologic DR in daily practice. METHODS: A pilot implementation study was performed in 3 hospitals during 6 months. By combining education and protocol development, involved healthcare providers (HCPs) were directed toward the adoption of protocolized DR. DR of adalimumab, etanercept, and ustekinumab was achieved by stepwise injection interval prolongation. Implementation outcomes (fidelity, feasibility) were assessed. Factors for optimizing implementation were explored in interviews with HCPs. Uptake was measured in patients by chart review. RESULTS: The implementation strategy was executed as planned. Implementation fidelity was less than 100% as not all provided tools were used across study sites. HCPs indicated the feasibility of implementing protocolized DR, although time investment was needed. Identified additional factors for successful implementation included support for patients, uptake of DR into guidelines, and supportive electronic health record systems. During the 6 months intervention period, 52 patients were eligible for DR of whom 26 (50%) started DR. The proposed DR protocol was followed in 22/26 patients (85%) on DR. CONCLUSION: Additional staff for support, extra time during consultations, education on DR for HCPs and patients, and effective tools such as a feasible protocol can lead to more patients on biologic DR.

Patients' perspectives towards biologic dose reduction in psoriasis: a qualitative study.

Dose reduction of biologics for psoriasis could contribute to more efficient use of these expensive medicines. Evidence on opinions of patients with psoriasis regarding dose reduction is sparse. The objective of this study was therefore to explore patients' perspectives towards dose reduction of biologics for psoriasis. A qualitative study was conducted, comprising semi-structured interviews with 15 patients with psoriasis with different characteristics and treatment experiences. Interviews were analyzed by inductive thematic analysis. Perceived benefits of biologic dose reduction according to patients were minimizing medication use, lowering risks of adverse effects and lowering societal healthcare costs. Patients reported to have experienced a large impact of their psoriasis, and expressed concerns about loss of disease control due to dose reduction. Fast access to flare treatment and adequate monitoring of disease activity were among reported preconditions. According to patients, they should have confidence in dose reduction effects and should be willing to change their effective treatment. Moreover, addressing information needs and involvement in decision-making were deemed important among patients. In conclusion, addressing patients' concerns, fulfilling information needs, providing the possibility of resuming standard dose, and involving patients in decision-making are important according to patients with psoriasis when considering biologic dose reduction.

Dose Tapering of Biologics in Patients with Psoriasis: A Scoping Review.

INTRODUCTION: Biologics serve as a cornerstone in psoriasis treatment, with low disease activity or sometimes even clinical remission as a realistic treatment outcome. So far, it is unclear whether biologics should be tapered when this target is achieved. Dose tapering could offer potential benefits by decreasing side effects, the burden of repetitive injections and costs of biological therapy. However, clinical guidelines on dose tapering of biologicals in psoriasis patients are lacking. This scoping review was conducted to provide an overview of the current literature on dose tapering and offer guidance for clinicians in daily clinical practice. METHODS: Dose tapering is defined as the administration of a lower dose per administration, or the prolongation of the regular dose interval, after initial treatment according to the standard dosing. Four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science) were systematically searched for literature on tapering of biologics in adult patients with psoriasis from 1 January 2000. RESULTS: We included 19 original articles on biologic tapering in psoriasis patients: four randomized controlled trials and 15 observational studies. Tapering eligibility criteria, tapering strategies, tapering outcomes, and recapture of response after relapse were assessed. Furthermore, the available evidence on possible predictors for successful tapering, and the effect of tapering on safety, quality of life and costs is summarized. The definition of low disease activity as a measure for tapering eligibility varied widely. Beside tapering criteria, tapering strategies were also heterogeneous. Of note, quality-of-life measurements were barely integrated in the evaluation of tapering outcomes. Literature on regaining response after relapse due to tapering was limited, but restored remission has been described. The included studies did not proclaim a significant effect of tapering on the occurrence of (severe) adverse events. Even though cost savings have been reported, no proper cost-effectiveness analysis has been conducted yet. CONCLUSION: Biologic tapering seems to be effective and safe in psoriasis patients with stable low disease activity or clinical remission. Available data on biologic dose tapering in patients with psoriasis are promising, but more research is warranted to fill the current gaps in knowledge.

Biologics are effective in treating psoriasis amongst other diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn's disease. However, biologics are costly, and can cause side effects, such as an increased risk of infection. In patients with rheumatoid arthritis, it is not uncommon to lower the dose of these biologics (also called "dose tapering"), once stable low disease activity, or even remission, is reached. However, in psoriasis patients, dose tapering of biologics is not common practice. In this "scoping review," we provide an overview of the available literature on dose tapering of biologics in adult patients with plaque psoriasis in order to address the current gaps in literature. We found 19 studies that addressed dose tapering. These studies used different criteria to determine which patients were eligible for tapering, which led to various interpretations of tapering success. This made it difficult for us to draw general conclusions on which tapering criteria and strategies should be further investigated. Dose tapering seems to be effective and safe in patients with a stable low disease activity, although more (high-quality) research is needed. Future studies should focus on generating more data on long-term safety, finding predictors for successful tapering, calculating the cost-effectiveness of dose tapering, and evaluating dose tapering in the newest generation of biologics.

Cost-effectiveness of five different anti-tumour necrosis factor tapering strategies in rheumatoid arthritis: a modelling study.

Objective: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of five different tumour necrosis factor inhibitor tapering strategies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and stable low disease activity, using a modelling design.Method: Using Markov models based on data from the DRESS and STRASS randomized controlled trials, and the Nijmegen RA cohort, five tapering strategies for etanercept and adalimumab were tested against continuation: 1, four-step tapering (DRESS strategy); 2, five-step tapering; 3, tapering without withdrawal; 4, use of a stricter flare criterion; and 5, use of a theoretical predictor for successful tapering. We also examined how well a biomarker should be able to predict in order for strategy 5 to become cost-effective compared to the other strategies.Results: All examined tapering strategies were cost saving (range: EUR 5128 to 7873) but yielded more short-lived flares compared to continuation. The change in utilities compared to continuation was minimal and not clinically relevant (range: -0.005 to 0.007 quality-adjusted life-years). Strategy 1 was cost-effective compared to all other strategies [highest incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB)]. However, there was a large overlap in credible intervals, especially between strategies 1 and 2. Scenario analyses showed that 50% reduction of drug prices would result in the highest iNMB for strategy 2. A biomarker only becomes cost-effective when it is inexpensive and has a sensitivity and specificity of at least 84%.Conclusion: Because our study showed a comparable iNMB for tapering in four or five steps (including discontinuation), we recommend a choice between these strategies, based on shared decision making.

Implementation of protocolized tight control and biological dose optimization in daily clinical practice: results of a pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of education, guideline development, and individualized treatment advice on rheumatologist adherence to tight control-based treatment and biological dose optimization in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and spondyloarthropathy (SpA) patients. METHOD: This pilot study, among two rheumatologists and two specialized nurses in a general hospital, combined education, feedback, local guideline development, and individualized treatment advice. Outcomes (baseline and 1 year post-intervention) were the percentage of patients with a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) or Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) measured during the visit, mean DAS28/BASDAI, and the percentage of patients using a reduced biological dose. DAS28 outcomes only applied to RA and PsA patients, BASDAI outcomes only applied to SpA patients whereas outcomes on biological dose applied to all patients. RESULTS: A total of 232 patients (67% RA, 15% PsA, 18% SpA; 58% female, mean age 56 ± 15 years) were included in the study. The percentage of DAS28 and BASDAI measurements performed increased after the intervention [DAS28 15-51%, odds ratio (OR) 3.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1-5.5; BASDAI 23-50%, OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.0-5.5], with mean DAS28 and BASDAI scores remaining similar (DAS28: mean difference 0.1, 95% CI -0.3 to 0.5; BASDAI: mean difference 0.03, 95% CI -1.8 to 1.9). Use of a reduced biological dose increased from 10% to 61% (OR 3.9, 95% CI 2.4-6.5). CONCLUSIONS: A multicomponent intervention strategy aimed at rheumatologists can lead to improved adherence to tight control-based treatment and a reduction in the use of biologicals in RA, SpA, and PsA patients.