| 000 | 04227cam a2200181 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NMDX6965 | ||
| 008 | 120401t2016 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 022 | _a0315162X | ||
| 100 | _aPalmer, D. | ||
| 240 | _aJournal of Rheumatology | ||
| 245 | _aToward electronic health recording: evaluation of electronic patient-reported outcome measures system for remote monitoring of early rheumatoid arthritis | ||
| 260 | _c2016 | ||
| 500 | _aNMUH Staff Publications | ||
| 500 | _a43 | ||
| 520 | _a<h4 style="font-size: 13px; margin: 0px 0.25em 0px 0px; text-transform: uppercase; float: left; font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">OBJECTIVE:</span></h4><p style="margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; line-height: 1.538em; font-size: 1.04em; font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">To assess the use of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROM) in standard clinical practice for early&nbsp;<span class="highlight">rheumatoid</span>&nbsp;arthritis (RA) management, the ePROM ability to enhance clinical care, and how computing technology can improve the patients' adherence to therapy.</span></p><h4 style="font-size: 13px; margin: 0px 0.25em 0px 0px; text-transform: uppercase; float: left; font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">METHODS:</span></h4><p style="margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; line-height: 1.538em; font-size: 1.04em; font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">In a double-blinded randomized-controlled study, 211 patients with early RA diagnosed according to American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism criteria completed a PROM in paper format at their first clinic visit. Patients were then randomized to Group 1, which completed an ePROM questionnaire monthly, or Group 2, which continued the standard paper PROM format. Over a 12-month period, Group 1 patients were assessed every 3 months in the clinic, whereas Group 2 patients were assessed in the clinic initially monthly for 6 months, then every 3 months. The primary endpoint was the equivalence of outcomes [Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID-3) and 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28)] in both groups. The secondary endpoint was the patients' adherence to their medications.</span></p><h4 style="font-size: 13px; margin: 0px 0.25em 0px 0px; text-transform: uppercase; float: left; font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">RESULTS:</span></h4><p style="margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; line-height: 1.538em; font-size: 1.04em; font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">There was no significant difference between disease activity measures as well as DAS28 and RAPID-3 scores at 3, 6, and 12 months of management, although there was a trend toward lower patient-reported tender joint count and functional disability score in the active group versus the control group. The patients' adherence to antirheumatic therapy was significantly higher (p &lt; 0.01) in the ePROM group, whereas stopping disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for intolerability was significantly higher (p &lt; 0.01) in the control group at 12 months of treatment.</span></p><h4 style="font-size: 13px; margin: 0px 0.25em 0px 0px; text-transform: uppercase; float: left; font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">CONCLUSION:</span></h4><p style="margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; line-height: 1.538em; font-size: 1.04em; font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">We found ePROM equivalent to standard paper PROM format. Further, it enabled the patients to personally monitor how they are doing regarding their disease activity and helped to optimize their adherence to their treatment.</span></p> | ||
| 856 | _uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27633823 | ||
| 856 | _uhttp://ferriman.wufoo.com/forms/journal-article-request/ | ||
| 999 |
_c75981 _d75981 |
||