Background To quantify adherence to oral therapies in ethnically diverse and economically disadvantaged patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using electronic medication monitoring, and to evaluate the clinical consequences of low adherence. Methods 107 patients with RA enrolled in a 2-year prospective cohort study agreed to have their oral RA drug therapy intake electronically monitored, with the Medication Events Monitoring System (MEMS®). Adherence to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and prednisone were determined as the percentage of days (or weeks for methotrexate) in which the patient took the correct dose as prescribed by the physician. Patient outcomes were assessed including the Modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (MHAQ), the Disease Activity Index 28 (DAS28), quality of life and radiological damage using Sharp-van der Heijde scores. Results Adherence to the treatment regimen as determined by percent of correct doses was 64% for DMARDs and 70% for prednisone. Patients who had better mental health were statistically more likely to be adherent. Only 23 (21%) of the patients had an average adherence to DMARDs ≥ 80%. These patients showed significantly better disease activity scores across 2 years of follow-up than those who were less adherent (DAS28 3.3±1.3 vs. 4.1±1.2, p<0.02). Radiological scores were also worse in non-adherent patients at baseline and 12 months. Conclusions Only one fifth of the RA patients had an overall adherence of at least 80%. Less than two thirds of the prescribed DMARD doses were correctly taken. Adherent patients had lower disease activity and radiological damage scores across the 2 years of follow-up.

Electronic monitoring demonstrated that only one-fourth of the patients had an adherence rate ≥80%. Polypharmacy and depression were associated with non-adherence.

Objective. Total knee replacement (TKR) rates have significantly increased in the past decade. While the procedure itself might be costly, the cost-effectiveness and potential offset costs from patient and societal benefits have not been clearly established. The objective of this study was to perform an economic evaluation of TKR in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods. We conducted a 6-month prospective cohort study of 212 patients with knee OA who underwent TKR at a single hospital in Houston, Texas. We included patient-level data from hospital billing databases and the patients' self-reported direct and indirect costs. The clinical outcome measure was pain and function measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire; we used the minimum clinically important difference (MCID; >20-point change) and the WOMAC 20% (WOMAC20), 50% (WOMAC50), and 70% (WOMAC70) relative improvement criteria. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated using direct and indirect costs and WOMAC improvement. A societal perspective was used and multiple sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the principal analysis. Results. The total incremental cost per TKR was $20,133. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for improvement at 6 months were $33,345, $25,255, $35,274, and $56,908 for the MCID, WOMAC20, WOMAC50, and WOMAC70, respectively. Best-and worst-case scenario sensitivity analyses did not have a significant impact on the ICERs. Patient time lost was the most influential variable in the multiway sensitivity analysis. Conclusion. TKR is an effective intervention in reducing pain and improving functional status among patients with knee OA and is cost effective at both low and high levels of improvement.

Different treatment attributes had a significant and different influence in rheumatoid-arthritis patients' choice of biological agents. This type of study can not only inform about patients' preferences but also about the trade-offs among different possible treatments or process-related attributes.

Early arthritis clinics are a useful tool to identify and treat patients with different forms of joint involvement.