A randomised, controlled study of outcome and cost effectiveness for RA patients attending nurse-led rheumatology clinics: Study protocol of an ongoing nationwide multi-centre study

Academic & Clinical Unit for Musculoskeletal Nursing, Leeds Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
International journal of nursing studies (Impact Factor: 2.9). 02/2011; 48(8):995-1001. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.01.010
Source: PubMed


The rise in the number of patients with arthritis coupled with understaffing of medical services has seen the deployment of Clinical Nurse Specialists in running nurse-led clinics alongside the rheumatologist clinics. There are no systematic reviews of nurse-led care effectiveness in rheumatoid arthritis. Few published RCTs exist and they have shown positive results for nurse-led care but they have several limitations and there has been no economic assessment of rheumatology nurse-led care in the UK.
This paper outlines the study protocol and methodology currently being used to evaluate the outcomes and cost effectiveness for patients attending rheumatology nurse-led clinics.
A multi-centred, pragmatic randomised controlled trial with a non-inferiority design; the null hypothesis being that of 'inferiority' of nurse-led clinics compared to physician-led clinics. The primary outcome is rheumatoid arthritis disease activity (measured by DAS28 score) and secondary outcomes are quality of life, self-efficacy, disability, psychological well-being, satisfaction, pain, fatigue and stiffness. Cost effectiveness will be measured using the EQ-5D, DAS28 and cost profile for each centre. POWER CALCULATIONS: In this trial, a DAS28 change of 0.6 is considered to be the threshold for clinical distinction of 'inferiority'. A sample size of 180 participants (90 per treatment arm) is needed to reject the null hypothesis of 'inferiority', given 90% power. Primary analysis will focus on 2-sided 95% confidence interval evaluation of between-group differences in DAS28 change scores averaged over 4 equidistant follow up time points (13, 26, 39 and 52 weeks). Cost effectiveness will be evaluated assessing the joint parameterisation of costs and effects.
The study started in July 2007 and the results are expected after July 2011.
The International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN29803766.

Download full-text


Available from: Mwidimi Ndosi, Apr 21, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Rheumatological care in Germany is influenced by limited resources and education and qualification of health professionals is a way to optimize utilization of these resources.The curriculum for rheumatology health professionals of the Academy of the German Association of Rheumatologists (DGRh) was developed to qualify clinical nursing specialists of rheumatology clinics as well as specialized rheumatology hospitals on a systematic basis.Since 2006 499 participants have each been trained over 4 weekends and certification was achieved by examinations. The topics cover the principles of anatomy and the pathology of diseases up to modern diagnostic methods and treatment, including practical skills. Additional specialized courses for nurses of rheumatology hospitals and refresher courses give the participants the opportunity to increase their depth of knowledge.After 8 of the basic courses questionnaires were sent to all participants for evaluation and 143 (51%) out of 277 participants responded. Of the responders 95% found that their knowledge of understanding rheumatic diseases improved considerably or very considerably, 90% found that their ability to determine urgent cases and 86% to correctly judge emergency situations had improved and 50% agreed with the statement that their field of work and their tasks had changed after the training courses. Increased responsibilities, documentations of patient history, involvement in clinical trials and infusions and information of the patients about their disease or the treatment were listed as new tasks of the participants. In conclusion the evaluation shows that the curriculum for rheumatology health professionals is an effective step towards qualification for clinical nursing specialists. We believe that this will support the work of medical doctors in rheumatology and will improve the quality of care for patients with rheumatic diseases.
    Zeitschrift für Rheumatologie 10/2011; 70(8):670-7. DOI:10.1007/s00393-011-0840-4 · 0.61 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: To provide a state of the art of economic analyses applied to rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: A systematic literature review on economic consequences and pharmacoeconomic issues of RA was performed. Results: 127 valid articles were examined in this review. Generally, the financial impact of RA is substantial for health-care systems and society worldwide, although differences exist among national economies. Both direct and indirect (i.e. loss of productivity) costs contribute to economic burden of RA and must be taken into account when estimating overall impact to society. Disease severity, disease activity, age and socioeconomic status have been found to be the most relevant predictors of cost increase in RA. Moreover, introduction of biological anti-rheumatic agents has significantly raised direct medical costs in certain patients, but has also led to marked improvements in reducing disease activity, joint damage, and productivity loss in many of these patients. RA has also a significant impact on all aspects of quality of life; recent publications on health utility scores showed RA to be one of the diseases associated with poorest quality of life. Conclusions: RA represents a clinical and economic burden for healthcare systems. Although attributable RA costs have been extensively evaluated over the last decades, several issues, especially concerning the use of expensive therapies, must be addressed and frequently updated. Future research should also provide health economic evidence from usual practice settings, and on the economic impact of different therapeutic approaches to pursue specific clinical targets in individual patients.
    Clinical and experimental rheumatology 10/2012; 30(4). · 2.72 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of nurse-led care (NLC) for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In a multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled trial, the assessment of clinical effects followed a non-inferiority design, while patient satisfaction and cost assessments followed a superiority design. Participants were 181 adults with RA randomly assigned to either NLC or rheumatologist-led care (RLC), both arms carrying out their normal practice. The primary outcome was the disease activity score (DAS28) assessed at baseline, weeks 13, 26, 39 and 52; the non-inferiority margin being DAS28 change of 0.6. Mean differences between the groups were estimated controlling for covariates following per-protocol (PP) and intention-to-treat (ITT) strategies. The economic evaluation (NHS and healthcare perspectives) estimated cost relative to change in DAS28 and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) derived from EQ5D. Demographics and baseline characteristics of patients under NLC (n=91) were comparable to those under RLC (n=90). Overall baseline-adjusted difference in DAS28 mean change (95% CI) for RLC minus NLC was -0.31 (-0.63 to 0.02) for PP and -0.15 (-0.45 to 0.14) for ITT analyses. Mean difference in healthcare cost (RLC minus NLC) was £710 (-£352, £1773) and -£128 (-£1263, £1006) for PP and ITT analyses, respectively. NLC was more cost-effective with respect to cost and DAS28, but not in relation to QALY utility scores. In all secondary outcomes, significance was met for non-inferiority of NLC. NLC had higher 'general satisfaction' scores than RLC in week 26. The results provide robust evidence to support non-inferiority of NLC in the management of RA. ISRCTN29803766.
    Annals of the rheumatic diseases 11/2014; 73(11):1975-82. DOI:10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203403 · 10.38 Impact Factor
Show more