Effect of Dysmetabolisms and Comorbidities on the Efficacy and Safety of Biological Therapy in Chronic Inflammatory Joint Diseases

Cometi, Laura; Bruni, Cosimo; Chiti, Nicolò; Tofani, Lorenzo; Nacci, Francesca; Bartoli, Francesca; Bellando-Randone, Silvia; Melchiorre, Daniela; Fiori, Ginevra; Guiducci, Serena; Matucci‐Cerinic, Marco

doi:10.3390/jcm9051310

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Patient-centered care and the importance of psychosocial domains are increasingly recognized in the management strategy of PsA [ 2 ]. This paradigm stems from the observations that, on an individual level, the impact of disease extends beyond the skin and joint [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ]. It has been shown that achieving minimal disease activity in PsA leads to better quality of life and productivity [ 10 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Real-World Data from a Multi-Center Study: Insights to Psoriatic Arthritis Care

Batko

Kucharz

Stajszczyk³

et al. 2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Real-world data indicate disparities in biologic access across Europe. Objectives: To describe the national structure of PsA care in Poland, with a particular focus on the population of inadequate responders (IRs) and difficulties associated with biologic therapy access. Methods: A pool of rheumatologic and dermatologic care centers was created based on National Health Fund contract lists (n = 841), from which 29 rheumatologic and 10 dermatologic centers were sampled randomly and successfully met the inclusion criterium. Additionally, 33 tertiary care centers were recruited. For successful center recruitment, one provider had to recruit at least one patient that met the criteria for one of the four pre-defined clinical subgroups, in which all patients had to have active PsA and IR status to at least 2 conventional synthetic disease-modifying drugs (csDMARDs). Self-assessment questionnaires were distributed among physicians and their patients. Results: Barriers to biologic DMARD (bDMARD) treatment are complex and include stringency of reimbursement criteria, health care system, logistic/organizational, and personal choice factors. For patients who are currently bDMARD users, the median waiting time from the visit, at which the reimbursement procedure was initiated, to the first day of bDMARD admission was 9 weeks (range 2–212; 32% < 4 weeks, 29% 5–12 weeks, 26% 13–28 weeks, 13% with >28 weeks delay). Out of all inadequate responder groups, bDMARD users are the only group with “good” therapeutic situation and satisfaction with therapy. Patient satisfaction with therapy is not always concordant with physician assessment of therapeutic status. Conclusions: Despite the fact that over a decade has passed since the introduction of biologic agents, in medium welfare countries such as Poland, considerable healthcare system barriers to biologic access are present. Out of different IR populations, patient satisfaction with treatment is often discordant with physician assessment of disease status.

show abstract