P065 Patient-initiated follow up in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors: Alveyn Edward , Crowder Rory , Perry Mark , Norton Sam , Galloway James 
Published: April 2024

Abstract

Background/Aims
Inflammatory arthritides including rheumatoid arthritis (RA) typically require lifelong outpatient care. Patient-initiated follow up (PIFU) has been employed to alleviate burdens on over-stretched rheumatology clinics, aiming to eliminate unnecessary clinic visits and reduce waiting times. There is a paucity of robust data to establish whether clinical outcomes differ under PIFU compared to clinician-mandated follow up. We examined the effect of PIFU on key outcomes in patients with inflammatory arthritis.

Methods
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CENTRAL for randomised controlled trials comparing PIFU (and similar patient-directed strategies) with clinician-mandated follow up in patients with inflammatory arthritis. Publications were screened in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and included based on pre-specified criteria. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROB2 tool. Outcome measures analysed were disease activity, serum C-reactive protein, disability, service use and satisfaction with care. Standardised mean differences (SMD) were used to account for variable use of outcome measures between papers.

Results
Six studies were included with a total of 1,059 patients, all of whom had RA, followed up for between one and six years. Two trials were conducted in Denmark, two in the UK and one each in Sweden and the Netherlands. Two involved two sites; four were single centre. Three studies were deemed to be at high risk of bias, two at moderate risk and one at low risk. The data demonstrated a reduced burden of clinic visits for patients under PIFU (all studies; SMD -0.56, [95% CI -0.85 to -0.28]) equivalent to a reduction in approximately one clinic visit for every two patients over the course of the study period. This was balanced by an increased number of telephone consultations (4 studies, 817 patients; SMD 0.40 [0.13 to 0.66]) equating to an extra consultation per 2.5 patients under PIFU. Non-significant trends were seen towards higher patient satisfaction (all studies; SMD 0.28 [-0.12 to 0.68]) for patients under PIFU. However, there were also trends towards higher CRP (three studies, 490 patients; SMD 0.22 [-0.08, 0.52]) and DAS28 score (4 studies, 658 patients; SMD 0.08[-0.20, 0.36]. No significant difference was seen in patient-reported disability. There was substantial statistical heterogeneity between studies.

Conclusion
PIFU is associated with a reduction in outpatient clinic appointments but increased numbers of telephone consultations, while maintaining patient satisfaction. Current data do not exclude the possibility of inferior long-term clinical outcomes for patients receiving PIFU. Transition to PIFU risks reducing services’ capacity to assess and modify clinically important parameters (e.g. cardiovascular risk) through regular scheduled review. These studies highlight the challenges in conducting meaningful trials on this question due to the heterogeneity of interventions and outcomes and the already-widespread use of some aspects of PIFU in routine care.

Disclosure
E. Alveyn: Other; Educational support from UCB. R. Crowder: None. M. Perry: None. S. Norton: None. J. Galloway: Honoraria; from AbbVie, Celgene, Chugai, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche and UCB.