Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Research article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Factors affecting patient satisfaction related to cost and treatment effectiveness in rheumatoid arthritis: results from the multicenter observational cohort study, FRANK Registry

Arthritis Research & Therapy volume 24, Article number: 53 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

To further improve rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment, it is necessary to understand each RA patient’s satisfaction and to identify the factors affecting their satisfaction. Despite the rise in medical costs for RA, little is known about the factors that influence patient satisfaction with the cost of treatment in RA patients.

Methods

This is a multicenter observational study of Japanese RA patients from the FRANK Registry with data analyzed from March 2017 to August 2020. We collected data on demographic characteristics, clinical data, quality of life which was evaluated using the EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire (EQ5D), and patient satisfaction. The four categories of patient satisfaction were evaluated individually (i.e., cost, treatment efficacy, activities of daily living [ADL], and global treatment satisfaction). We analyzed the factors that affected each patient’s satisfaction, such as age, sex, EQ5D, disease duration, disease activity, and treatment.

Results

This study included 2235 RA outpatients (406 males, 1829 females). In RA patients, “very satisfied” and “satisfied” were given for nearly half of each satisfaction aspect (cost 49%; efficacy 72%; ADL 58%; global treatment 66%) at the time of the initial registration. To investigate the factors influencing each satisfaction, multivariate analysis has revealed that the use of b/tsDMARDs increased satisfaction of treatment effect (odds ratio [OR] 0.66) and ADL (OR 0.78) but decreased cost satisfaction (OR 2.21). Age (50–64 years; OR 0.91; 65–74 years, 0.55: ≥ 75 years, 0.35), female (OR 0.81), and history of musculoskeletal surgery (OR 0.60) all increased cost satisfaction. Patients with lower disease activity and higher EQ5D scores had higher levels of satisfaction in all areas.

Conclusions

In this study, patient satisfaction in terms of cost, treatment effect, ADL, and overall treatment was generally higher, but some patients were dissatisfied. The cost of satisfaction increased with age and a history of musculoskeletal surgery, while it decreased with a lower EQ5D score and the use of b/tsDMARDs.

Introduction

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a progressive inflammatory autoimmune disease that primarily affects the joints and potentially impairs the patient’s quality of life (QOL). In the last decade, a paradigm shift has been seen in the treatment of RA, the so-called treat-to-target (T2T) strategy, which involves more aggressive, tightly controlled therapy early in the disease course guided by a structured assessment of disease activity, with the ultimate goal of reaching remission [1]. The advances in understanding the pathogenesis of RA have given rise to new therapeutic target agents. Nowadays, there are several options for the combination of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs), biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs), and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) [2]. These improvements in treatment could dramatically alter the patients’ QOL and ability to carry out activities of daily living (ADL).

The recent availability of effective therapies has been linked with beneficial outcomes and improved QOL in RA patients, but long-lasting pharmacological treatment may become a chronic burden, especially regarding cost and safety concerns. In the T2T approach for RA treatment, it is necessary that patients comprehend the T2T recommendations and properly communicate with their physicians. However, several reports have presented discordances between patients and physicians regarding their opinions on treatment outcomes, satisfaction, and ADL [3,4,5,6,7]. Increased patient satisfaction has influenced RA treatment adherence and continuation [8, 9], and this has been enhanced by successful treatments decided on by both the patient and physician [10, 11]. Thus, understanding patient satisfaction could lead to the overall improvement of RA treatment. Treatment satisfaction of patients with RA has reportedly been improved by the use of bDMARDs, low disease activity, and better communication with their physicians, whereas satisfaction was reduced by unfavorable treatment costs [12, 13]. High treatment costs have been found to reduce patient satisfaction, but it is critical to further characterize patient satisfaction in terms of treatment effectiveness and cost separately following the T2T strategy and to eventually improve treatment adherence [14,15,16,17]. So far, no reports have examined RA patient satisfaction in terms of cost and treatment effectiveness in a large cohort study.

Using the initial registration data from a regional observational cohort registry, we assessed RA patient satisfaction in terms of cost, treatment effectiveness, current ADL, and overall treatment in the current study.

This study aimed at identifying factors influencing satisfaction in RA patients, as well as to investigate factors associated with each dimension of patient satisfaction to describe various aspects of RA treatment.

Materials and methods

Data collection

In 2018, we launched a multicenter prospective observational cohort study of RA patients at Kyushu University, using data from the Fukuoka Rheumatoid Arthritis Network (FRANK) Registry. The Kyushu University ethics committee approved the FRANK Registry (approval number: 29-277). The FRANK Registry includes data from a total of nine associated institutions (Kyushu University, Kondo Clinic of Rheumatology and Orthopedic Surgery, National Hospital Organization, Kyushu Medical Center, Fukuoka Red Cross Hospital, PS Clinic, Chiyoda Hospital, Hamanomachi Hospital, and Chihaya Hospital), including clinics and hospitals located in the suburbs of Fukuoka Prefecture in the south of Japan since March 2018. Clinical data were submitted to the data center in Kyushu University Hospital through the Clinical Research Internet Network (CRIN-Q) [18]. After obtaining informed consent, we enrolled each RA patient during his/her clinic or hospital visits. Our study included Japanese patients over the age of 18 who were diagnosed with RA using the 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification criteria. These RA patients were treated by rheumatologists who followed the guidelines of the Japan College of Rheumatology. Each year, the rheumatologists gathered the following demographic and clinical data from each patient: age, sex, body mass index, job, disease duration, Steinbrocker stage, physician visual analog scales (VAS), tender 28-joint count (TJC), swollen 28-joint count (SJC), C-reactive protein (CRP) level, erythrocyte sedimentation ratio (ESR), rheumatoid factor positivity, anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody positivity, treatment, and comorbidities (e.g., cardiovascular disorder, a pulmonary disorder, osteoporosis, and malignancy). Steinbrocker stage was determined by radiographic abnormalities of the hand in patients with RA as follows: stage I, no destructive changes; stage II, slight cartilage and/or subchondral bone destruction and osteoporosis; stage III, cartilage and/or bone destruction and osteoporosis; and stage IV, osseous ankylosis [19, 20]. Regarding the present and past treatments, we analyzed the patients’ medication use and history of musculoskeletal surgery, such as the use and dose of csDMARDs (e.g., methotrexate), the use and dose of prednisolone, the use of b/tsDMARDs, the number of previously administered b/tsDMARDs, the reasons for discontinuation or non-use of b/tsDMARDs, and the history of musculoskeletal surgery associated with RA, such as arthroplasty [21, 22]. The enrolled patients were asked to complete the self-administered questionnaires each year. The questionnaires consisted of pain VAS and general VAS, Modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ) [23], EuroQol 5-Dimensional Questionnaire (EQ5D) [24], and patient satisfaction questionnaires. The utility index scores of the EQ5D were calculated using the Japanese version of the EQ5D [25]. We separated the subjective variables evaluated by RA patients (i.e., pain VAS, general VAS, and EQ5D score) and the objective variables assessed by a physician (i.e., TJC, SJC, log-transformed CRP, physician VAS, history of musculoskeletal surgery, a dose of prednisolone, use of methotrexate, and use of b/tsDMARDs) in this study to investigate the factors influencing each satisfaction showing the subjective result.

Patient satisfaction questionnaire contents

RA patient satisfaction with treatment effectiveness and with tolerability was established to measure in a 4-point scale (very satisfied, rather satisfied, rather unsatisfied, and very unsatisfied) [10, 11], and we segmented these scales of satisfaction into 6-point Likert scales with the response [26,27,28,29]. Each self-administered satisfaction questionnaire was assessed using a 6-point scale as follows: very satisfied (1 point), satisfied (2 points), somewhat satisfied (3 points), somewhat unsatisfied (4 points), unsatisfied (5 points), and very unsatisfied (6 points). Furthermore, patient satisfaction was individually assessed in terms of the following four categories: (1) cost of treatment, (2) effect of treatment, (3) ADL, and (4) global treatment.

Patients included in the analysis

Between March 2018 and August 2020, a total of 2370 patients were registered on the FRANK Registry. This was a cross-sectional analysis of information collected and registered by August 2020. At the time of their initial registration, all patients were 18 or older. The following patients were excluded: (1) participants who did not fulfill the 2010 ACR/European League Against Rheumatism and the 1987 ACR criteria for RA (N = 38), (2) those who lacked data on the four-dimension satisfaction questionnaires (N = 91), (3) those with malignancy upon initial registration (N = 5), and (4) patients with errors in their obtained information (N = 1). After exclusion, the data of 2235 patients were analyzed in this study (Fig. 1). To examine the test-retest reliability of each satisfaction survey, 68 out of 2235 patients were randomly selected and were required to score each aspect of satisfaction during two consecutive visits within 3 months.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of the selection of rheumatoid arthritis patients from the initial registration data of the FRANK Registry

Full size image

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the characteristics of the patients included in the study. Because this cohort included the majority of patients with low disease activity and remission (Table 1), the normal distribution was skewed when statistically analyzing the dichotomizing measurement data. An ordered logistic regression model was used to analyze the association between satisfaction score and the following variables: age (i.e., < 50, 50–64, 65–74, and ≥ 75 years), sex, RA disease duration (dichotomized at median value), subjective variables (i.e., pain VAS [cm] dichotomized at median value, general VAS [cm] dichotomized at a median value, and EQ5D score categorized in quartiles), and objective variables (i.e., TJC [0 or ≥ 1], SJC [0 or ≥ 1], log-transformed CRP [mg/dL] as a continuous variable, physician VAS [cm] dichotomized at a median value, history of musculoskeletal surgery, a dose of prednisolone [over 5 mg or not], and use of b/tsDMARDs). First, we confirmed the association between these patient satisfaction and subjective variables. Afterward, we analyzed the association between these aspects of satisfaction and objective variables. Two separate models (subjective and objective) were used in the multivariate ordered logistic regression analysis [30] to assess the factors associated with each aspect of satisfaction as explanatory variables; all models included age, sex, and disease duration as common covariates. The odds ratio (OR) was set to increase according to dissatisfaction. To analyze the interactions of each variable, we examined the statistical significance of the interactions between two of the dichotomous explanatory variables, adding product terms of all pairs of the two covariates into the multivariate model using instrumental variable analysis (Table 6). To evaluate the statistical significance of the interaction between the EQ5D score (four indicator variables) and one of the dichotomous covariates, a likelihood ratio test was used, comparing a multivariate model that included the four product terms to a model without them. Test-retest reliability was assessed using kappa statistics. The association of each satisfaction was measured using Spearman correlation coefficients. SAS version 9.4 was used to conduct all statistical analyses (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the included patients
Full size table

Results

Patient characteristics

A total of 2235 Japanese patients with RA from the FRANK Registry were evaluated in this study (Fig. 1). Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics and clinical information. The median age and disease duration at the time of initial registration were 65 (range 19–98) years and 11 (range 0–70) years, respectively. Each median TJC, SJC, serum CRP, and ESR were 0 (range 0–28), 0 (range 0–13), 0.11 (range 0–21.9) mg/dL, and 14 (range 0–10) mm/h, respectively, indicating that almost all patients had lower disease activity in this cohort. Prednisolone was administered to 896 patients (40 percent), methotrexate was administered to 1614 patients (72%), and b/tsDMARDs were administered to 697 patients (31%). The patients with a history of musculoskeletal surgery were 463 patients (21%), and 246 patients of whom (11%) had undergone joint prosthesis. The patients undergone spine surgery or others including arthrodesis, arthroplasty, synovectomy, surgery for tendon, or surgery associated with fracture were 48 patients (2%) or 186 patients (8%), respectively. The patients having surgery for joint prosthesis less than 5 years were 77 patients (31%), and 169 patients (69%) had been over 5 years. The median disease activity score 28-ESR (DAS28-ESR), simple disease activity index, and clinical disease activity index were 2.3 (range 0–7.1), 2.9 (range 0–43.3), and 2.7 (range 0–39.5), respectively. The patients with low disease activity and remission have consisted of over 80% of this cohort. The median mHAQ score was 1.1 (range 1–4), while the median EQ5D score was 0.8 (range 0.03–1.0). Figure 2 depicts the distributions for each aspect of satisfaction. For nearly half of each satisfaction aspect, scores of “very satisfied” (1 point) and “satisfied” (2 points) were assigned (cost of treatment, 49%; effect of treatment, 72%; ADL, 58%; global treatment, 66%). Figure 3 depicts the mean ± standard deviation of EQ5D score in scores (i.e., “very satisfied,” “satisfied,” “somewhat satisfied,” “somewhat unsatisfied,” “unsatisfied,” and “very unsatisfied”) of each satisfaction (i.e., cost of treatment, the effect of treatment, ADL, and global treatment). Internal reliability of patient-estimated satisfaction was analyzed using kappa statistics: 0.75 for cost, 0.53 for treatment effect, 0.60 for ADL, and 0.58 for global treatment. Because these surveys for each satisfaction were obtained independently, we have not evaluated the combined analysis of each satisfaction. Additional file 1: Table S1 shows the correlation coefficients for each satisfaction. Satisfaction for the cost of treatment had a weaker relationship with other satisfactions (effect of treatment: r = 0.32; ADL: r = 0.25; global treatment: r = 0.43); on the other hand, satisfaction for the effect of treatment, ADL, and global treatment presented a strong relationship with each other (effect of treatment and ADL: r = 0.69; effect of treatment and global treatment: r = 0.76; ADL and global treatment: r = 0.74).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Distribution of satisfaction ratings from the initial registration data of the FRANK Registry. Each self-administered satisfaction rating was evaluated via a 6-step score (very satisfied, 1 point; satisfied, 2 points; somewhat satisfied, 3 points; somewhat unsatisfied, 4 points; unsatisfied, 5 points; very unsatisfied, 6 points). A Satisfaction for the cost of treatment. B Satisfaction for the effect of treatment. C Satisfaction for ADL. D Satisfaction for global treatment

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Distribution of EQ5D score in each satisfaction rating from the initial registration data of the FRANK Registry. A EQ5D score in satisfaction for the cost of treatment. B EQ5D score in satisfaction for the effect of treatment. C EQ5D score in satisfaction for ADL. D EQ5D score in satisfaction for the global treatment

Full size image

Factors associated with satisfaction with cost of treatment

Table 2 shows the univariate and multivariate analyses of the subjective and objective factors associated with satisfaction of cost of treatment. Compared with the patients under the age of 50 years old as a reference, satisfaction with the cost of treatment improved with aging in both subjective (50–64 years: OR 0.78 [p = 0.037]; 65–74 years: OR 0.43 [p < 0.001]; ≥ 75 years: OR 0.25 [p < 0.001]) and objective (65–74 years: OR 0.55 [p < 0.001]; ≥ 75 years: OR 0.35 [p < 0.001]) factors. Having lower EQ5D score significantly increased dissatisfaction with the cost of treatment (0.9–1.0, referent; 0.85–0.89: OR 1.52 [p = 0.004]; 0.75–0.84: OR 1.54 [p < 0.001]; 0–0.74: OR 1.27 [p = 0.044]). In the multivariate analysis of objective factors, the presence of SJC (OR 1.36 [p = 0.002]), higher physician VAS (> 0.5; OR 1.33 [p = 0.003]), and the use of b/tsDMARDs (OR 2.21 [p < 0.001]) significantly increase dissatisfaction. Interestingly, higher CRP level (OR 0.92 [p = 0.006]) and having a higher history of musculoskeletal surgery (OR 0.60 [p < 0.001]) significantly increased satisfaction. Each level of serum CRP and medication (i.e., prednisolone use and dose, methotrexate use and dose, and b/tsDMARDs use) in each score of satisfaction of cost of treatment is presented in Additional file 1: Table S2. The kinds of musculoskeletal surgery (i.e., prosthesis, spine surgery, and others) and postoperative duration (< 5 years, ≥ 5 years) in each score of satisfaction of cost of treatment were shown in Additional file 1: Table S3. The comorbidities (i.e., cardiovascular disorder, a pulmonary disorder, and osteoporosis) in each score of satisfaction of cost of treatment were shown in Additional file 1: Table S5. In the subjective model, significant interactions were observed in disease duration, pain VAS, and EQ5D. Additionally, significant interactions in the objective model were seen for age, sex, disease duration, physician VAS, CRP, history of musculoskeletal surgery, and use of b/tsDMARDs (Table 6).

Table 2 Factors associated with satisfaction with treatment cost
Full size table

Factors associated with satisfaction with the effect of treatment

As shown in Table 3, compared with patients under the age of 50 years old, satisfaction with the effect of treatment decreased with aging (50–64 years) (OR 1.41 [p = 0.006] and OR 1.30 [p = 0.037]), high pain VAS (OR 2.63 [p < 0.001]) and general VAS (OR 1.28 [p = 0.020]), lower EQ5D score (0.85–0.89: OR 1.90 [p < 0.001]; 0.75–0.84: OR 2.89 [p < 0.001]; 0–0.74: OR 4.55 [p < 0.001]), presence of TJC (OR 1.75 [p < 0.001]) and SJC (OR 1.41 [p < 0.001]), higher CRP level (OR 1.10 [p = 0.002]), elevated physician VAS (OR 2.21 [p < 0.001]), and Steinbrocker stages 3 and 4 (OR 1.32 [p = 0.010]). The use of methotrexate (OR 0.80 [p = 0.0145]) and b/tsDMARDs (OR 0.66 [p < 0.001]) improved satisfaction with the effect of treatment. The comorbidities in each score of satisfaction of effect of treatment were shown in Additional file 1: Table S5. Interactions in the subjective model were significantly seen for disease duration, pain VAS, and EQ5D, while interactions in the objective model were observed for TJC and a history of musculoskeletal surgery (Table 6).

Table 3 Factors associated with satisfaction with treatment effect
Full size table

Factors associated with satisfaction with ADL

Compared with under 50 years old, dissatisfaction with ADL increased with aging (50–64 years) (OR 1.55 [p < 0.001] and OR 1.52 [p < 0.001]), longer disease duration (≥ 11; OR 1.25 [p = 0.009]), high pain VAS (OR 2.63 [p < 0.001]) and general VAS (OR 1.35 [p = 0.003]), lower EQ5D score (0.85–<0.9: OR 3.24 [p < 0.001]; 0.75 to < 0.85: OR 3.90 [p < 0.001]; < 0.75: OR 9.96 [p < 0.001]), presence of TJC (OR 2.02 [p < 0.001]) and SJC (OR 1.34 [p = 0.004]), higher CRP level (OR 1.10 [p = 0.004]), elevated VAS physician (OR 2.41 [p < 0.001]), Steinbrocker stages 3 and 4 (OR 1.56 [p < 0.001]), history of musculoskeletal surgery (OR 1.40 [p = 0.002]), and higher dose of prednisolone (OR 1.52 [p = 0.027]) (Table 4). On the other hand, the use of b/tsDMARDs increased satisfaction with ADL of RA patients (OR 0.78 [p = 0.008]). Additional file 1: Table S4 displays the types of musculoskeletal surgery (i.e., prosthesis, spine surgery, and others) and postoperative (< 5 years, ≥ 5 years) in each score of ADL satisfaction. The comorbidities in each score of satisfaction of ADL were shown in Additional file 1: Table S5. Sex, disease duration, VAS pain, VAS general, and EQ5D were statistically interacted in the subjective model (Table 6).

Table 4 Factors associated with satisfaction with activities of daily living
Full size table

Factors associated with for satisfaction with global treatment

In comparison with patients younger than 50 years old, subjective (65–74 years: OR 0.71 [p = 0.007]; 75 years: OR 0.55 [p = 0.001]) and objective (65–74 years: OR 0.75 [p = 0.025]; 75 years: OR 0.64 [p = 0.003]) factors of satisfaction with global treatment improved with age (Table 5). Satisfaction with the overall treatment was lower in patients with high VAS pain (OR 2.16 [p 0.001]), low EQ5D score (0.85–0.9: OR 2.14 [p 0.001]; 0.75–0.85: OR 2.79 [p 0.001]; 0.75: OR 5.93 [p 0.001]), presence of TJC (OR 1.70 [p 0.001]) and SJC (OR 1.24 [p = 0.040]), and higher CRP level. The comorbidities in each score of global satisfaction were shown in Additional file 1: Table S5. Interactions in the subjective model were significantly seen for VAS pain and EQ5D, whereas those in the objective model were observed for age, Steinbrocker stage, and use of b/tsDMARDs (Table 6).

Table 5 Factors associated with global treatment satisfaction
Full size table
Table 6 Results of the instrumental variable analysis for each aspect of satisfaction
Full size table

Discussion

Because there are currently no large cohort studies investigating patient satisfaction focusing on the cost of treatment, we used the data of 2235 RA patients to separately evaluate patient satisfaction regarding different aspects (i.e., cost of treatment, treatment effect, ADL, and global treatment). On multivariate analysis, we discovered several patient-related factors influencing each aspect of satisfaction. Because recent T2T treatments have resulted in low disease activity and remission, the majority of FRANK Registry participants had low disease activity and was remission. Good disease control has also revealed that they were “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with their current treatment in terms of cost and effectiveness, ADL, and global treatment upon initial registration, yet there were still “somewhat satisfied,” “somewhat unsatisfied,” “unsatisfied,” and “very unsatisfied” patients in each satisfaction (Fig. 2). As even some patients achieving low disease activity or remission have remained symptoms, so-called an unmet need, especially concerning improving pain, fatigue, and function [31], the factors causing the dissatisfaction have been required to elucidate in treatment for RA. Although few studies have examined RA patient satisfaction in large cohorts, a German biological register study of 10,646 RA patients using b/tsDMARDs discovered that tapering glucocorticoids was positively associated with patient satisfaction [10]. Furthermore, because treatment costs were negatively related to satisfaction [14,15,16] and because the health care costs of RA patients are higher than those of controls matched for age, sex, and medical history [32], it is important to understand their satisfaction regarding the cost of long periods of RA treatment. In a Chinese registry of RA, patients with a low proportion of treatment cost to income were more satisfied than those with a high proportion [17]. As a result, we looked into patient satisfaction with the cost of treatment separately. Aging, a high EQ5D score, the absence of SJC, an elevated serum CRP level, a history of musculoskeletal surgery, and nonuse of b/tsDMARDs were all associated with increased cost satisfaction (Table 2). On the other hand, factors like aging, higher disease activity (each VAS, presence of TJC or SJC, elevated serum CRP level), Steinbrocker stages 3 and 4, a history of musculoskeletal surgery, and higher prednisolone dose were related to lower satisfaction with treatment, ADL, and global treatment.

We found that cost of satisfaction increased with aging in both subjective and objective models of the multivariate analysis. In the Japanese health care system, the government typically covers 70% of treatment costs, with patients responsible for the remaining 30%. However, co-payment has been adjusted to 10–30% depending on the family’s income and age (< 65 years, 30%; 65–74 years, 20%; ≥ 75 years, 10% co-payment). As a result, because older patients pay a lower percentage of co-payment than younger patients, cost satisfaction may markedly increase with age. The statistical significance of the interaction was seen in age and b/tsDMARDs using in the satisfaction of cost of treatment (Table 6), which suggests that satisfaction cost of treatment affected by b/tsDMARDs was modified by aging. For this reason, the satisfaction of cost in b/tsDMARDs might be different with aging. In addition, patients with a history of musculoskeletal surgery were more satisfied with the cost of treatment. The rate of patients with the operation of the prosthesis was higher in “very satisfied” (21%) and “satisfied” (13%) of satisfaction for cost, and there was no difference in the patients who undergone spine surgery and other surgeries (Additional file 1: Table S3). However, the rate of patients undertaking prostheses was increased due to dissatisfaction with ADL (Additional file 1: Table S4). Taken together, patients undertaking musculoskeletal surgery might feel disability, and patients with disabilities are given medical coverage by the government, suggesting that patients with a history of musculoskeletal surgery might have increased satisfaction with cost due to the presence of some disabilities. Patients, who had musculoskeletal surgery more than 5 years ago, have accounted for more than half of this cohort, and there was no difference in the distribution of cost satisfaction and ADL (Table 1 and Additional file 1: Tables S3 and S4). The history of musculoskeletal surgery has also shown the interaction with disease duration or b/tsDMARDs use (Table 6), suggesting that the musculoskeletal surgery on the satisfaction of cost might be affected with disease duration or use of b/tsDMARDs. QOL of RA patients was evaluated by EQ5D score [33]. In agreement with previous evidence [7, 13, 34, 35], the EQ5D score in our cohort also affected all aspects of satisfaction (treatment cost, efficacy, ADL, and global treatment), indicating that the improvement of EQ5D should be critical for better RA treatment and patient satisfaction. Because EQ5D showed interacted with disease duration, VAS pain, and VAS general in terms of treatment cost, treatment effect, ADL, and global treatment, the satisfaction associated with EQ5D can be separately assessed by each factor. Treatment with b/tsDMARDs improves treatment outcomes and QOL in RA patients [36,37,38], and the T2T strategy with b/tsDMARDs is recommended. Better QOL and the use of b/tsDMARDs have been shown to be positive predictors of overall treatment satisfaction. Indeed, the use of b/tsDMARDs increased satisfaction regarding treatment effect and ADL in our cohort but decreased cost satisfaction significantly. In satisfaction of cost of treatment in our study, the rate of methotrexate use was slightly lower in patients with “unsatisfied” and “very unsatisfied;” on the other hand, the rate of b/tsDMARDs use was elevated depending on unsatisfaction (Additional file 1: Table S2). Because the high cost of b/tsDMARDs is a burden on health care budgets, the use of biosimilars has been widely approved with reported benefits, such as cost-effectiveness [39,40,41,42,43,44]. However, our cohort consisted only a few biosimilars. As a result, the increased use of biosimilars may have an impact on cost satisfaction in our cohort. Because the use of b/tsDMARDs interacted with age and history of musculoskeletal surgery in terms of satisfaction with cost and global treatment (Table 6). These factors may have an impact on these aspects of satisfaction. Methotrexate, the main treatment for RA, affected satisfaction for the effect of treatment but had less effect for satisfaction for cost, ADL, and global treatment. In a previous study compared with bDMARDs and methotrexate for treatment with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, bDMARDs increased satisfaction more than MTX [45]. Taken together, our finding also suggested that the use of b/tsDMARDs improved patient satisfaction more than methotrexate except for satisfaction for cost.

According to several studies, disease activity influences treatment effectiveness and patient satisfaction, whereas treatment cost is an independent factor of treatment satisfaction [10, 12, 13, 46]. High disease activity, in particular, reduces treatment satisfaction. In our cohort, disease activity, including SJC, TJC, each VAS, and serum CRP level, correlated with increased dissatisfaction with treatment effect, ADL, and overall treatment. Only elevated serum CRP levels, on the other hand, reduced dissatisfaction with treatment costs. The statistical significance of the interaction was seen in log-transformed CRP and sex or physician VAS in the satisfaction of cost of treatment (Table 6), indicating that satisfaction of cost of treatment affected by CRP level was influenced by sex or physician VAS. Serum CRP level and medical therapy (i.e., use and dose of prednisolone, and dose of methotrexate) in each score of satisfaction of cost of treatment have shown no difference (Additional file 1: Table S2), suggesting that the reason for the higher satisfaction of cost related with elevated CRP levels was not due to lower intake and cost of medication. Although this study could not determine the reason, the median (0.11 mg/dL) and average ± standard deviation (0.40 ± 1.0 mg/dL) of serum CRP level in our cohort were low, indicating that slightly increased serum CRP level might provide good cost performance for RA patients.

Schäfer et al. [10] found that tapering prednisolone was associated with higher levels of satisfaction in RA patients taking b/tsDMARDs. Prednisolone treatment, particularly low doses, is safe and effective [47], but continuous use of higher doses should be avoided due to the risk of infection, osteoporosis, diabetes mellitus, thrombotic stroke, cardiovascular disease, and death [48,49,50,51]. In a recent study [47], however, only nearly half of 508 patients with early RA were able to discontinue prednisolone; inability to taper prednisolone has been reported as one of the characteristics of difficult-to-treat RA [52]. In this study, less than half of the patients with RA (40%) were treated with prednisolone to control disease activity, suggesting that these patients might have difficult-to-treat RA. This may imply a decreased capacity to perform ADL, indicating that the use of higher doses of prednisolone led to decreased ADL satisfaction.

Surprisingly, differences in satisfaction were revealed as people aged. We discovered that as people aged, their treatment costs and overall satisfaction increased, but their treatment effect and ADL satisfaction decreased. Previous studies have shown lower EQ5D scores with aging due to poorer physical function and capacity to perform ADL [53, 54], leading to decreased life satisfaction. In our study, satisfaction with treatment effect and ADL was lower in the age group of 50–64 years old in particular. The lower cost of treatment and disease activity in our cohort may have increased global treatment satisfaction with aging. Previous research has shown that a longer disease duration of RA was associated with impaired ADL [55]. Similarly, in our study, longer disease duration and higher Steinbrocker stage were associated with lower ADL satisfaction.

There are several limitations to this study. First, patient satisfaction in this study was evaluated using a Likert scale instead of a validated scoring system, such as the treatment satisfaction questionnaire for medication (TSQM) [56]. As the FRANK longitudinal registry has been collected in the outpatient department every year, it makes it difficult to fill numerous questionnaires each time. These separate simple questionnaires on the cost of treatment, the effect of treatment, ADL, and global treatment established the differentiation of each satisfaction. Secondly, because this was a cross-sectional study using data from the initial registrants of the FRANK Registry, the changes of variables in satisfaction were unclear. Further study is needed to elucidate these changes by accumulating the registered longitudinal follow-up data in this large cohort of Japanese RA patients. Moreover, our study could show the meaningful outcome affecting various satisfactions by using a large cohort. Third, our cohort consisted primarily of patients in remission or with low disease activity. Because of the widespread use of csDMARDs and bDMARDs, the T2T strategy has resulted in a greater number of patients achieving lower disease activity. However, there are still patients who are dissatisfied with the effect of treatment, cost of treatment, ADL, and global treatment, and thus, the analysis of satisfaction in RA patients is important and meaningful to further improve their treatment. Actually, the rates of the use of methotrexate and b/tsDMARDs were 72% and 31% each. Finally, the duration of the last treatment might be possible to affect each satisfaction; however, this study did not include the analysis of the time of last treatment in the medication. In this initial registration, we have only obtained the content of past b/tsDMARDs, but not the duration of their last medication because the majority of the registered patients had a long history of treatment. Since this observational cohort study has accumulated the history of medication every year after initial registration, we could analyze the relationship with each satisfaction and the duration of medication hereafter.

Conclusion

We have conducted a large cohort observational study using patients in the FRANK Registry in the south of Japan. We assessed patient satisfaction in terms of cost, treatment effect, ADL, and global treatment and identified the factors influencing each of these aspects. Aging was linked to higher costs and overall treatment satisfaction, and global treatment satisfaction, but also with decreased treatment and ADL satisfaction. Female sex and having a history of musculoskeletal surgery improved cost satisfaction, whereas a lower EQ5D score and higher disease activity were associated with lower overall satisfaction. Using b/tsDMARDs reduced cost satisfaction while increasing treatment effect and ADL satisfaction.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available.

Abbreviations

DMARD:

Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug

RA:

Rheumatoid arthritis

ADL:

Activity of daily living

EQ5D:

EuroQol 5-Dimensional Questionnaire

QOL:

Quality of life

T2T:

Treat-to-target

FRANK:

Fukuoka Rheumatoid Arthritis Network

VAS:

Visual analog scales

TJC:

Tender 28-joint count

SJC:

Swollen 28-joint count

CRP:

C-reactive protein

ESR:

Erythrocyte sedimentation ratio

mHAQ:

Modified Health Assessment Questionnaire

OR:

Odds ratio

References

  1. Smolen JS, Breedveld FC, Burmester GR, Bykerk V, Dougados M, Emery P, et al. Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: 2014 update of the recommendations of an international task force. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;75(1):3–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Aletaha D, Smolen JS. Diagnosis and management of rheumatoid arthritis: a review. Jama. 2018;320(13):1360–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Barton JL, Imboden J, Graf J, Glidden D, Yelin EH, Schillinger D. Patient-physician discordance in assessments of global disease severity in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010;62(6):857–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Cho SK, Sung YK, Choi CB, Bang SY, Cha HS, Choe JY, et al. What factors affect discordance between physicians and patients in the global assessment of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis? Mod Rheumatol. 2017;27(1):35–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lindström Egholm C, Krogh NS, Pincus T, Dreyer L, Ellingsen T, Glintborg B, et al. Discordance of global assessments by patient and physician is higher in female than in male patients regardless of the physician’s sex: data on patients with rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, and psoriatic arthritis from the DANBIO Registry. J Rheumatol. 2015;42(10):1781–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Smolen JS, Strand V, Koenig AS, Szumski A, Kotak S, Jones TV. Discordance between patient and physician assessments of global disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis and association with work productivity. Arthritis Res Ther. 2016;18(1):114.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Kaneko Y, Sato M, Cai Z, Sato M. Assessment of discordance of treatment satisfaction between patients with rheumatoid arthritis in low disease activity or in remission and their treating physicians: a cross-sectional survey. Mod Rheumatol. 2021;31(2):326–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bartlett SJ, De Leon E, Orbai AM, Haque UJ, Manno RL, Ruffing V, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in RA care improve patient communication, decision-making, satisfaction and confidence: qualitative results. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2020;59(7):1662–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kelly A, Tymms K, Tunnicliffe DJ, Sumpton D, Perera C, Fallon K, et al. Patients’ attitudes and experiences of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritis: a qualitative synthesis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2018;70(4):525–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Schäfer M, Albrecht K, Kekow J, Rockwitz K, Liebhaber A, Zink A, et al. Factors associated with treatment satisfaction in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: data from the biological register RABBIT. RMD Open. 2020;6(3):e001290.

  11. Mahlich J, Schaede U, Sruamsiri R. Shared decision-making and patient satisfaction in Japanese rheumatoid arthritis patients: a new “preference fit” framework for treatment assessment. Rheumatol Ther. 2019;6(2):269–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Jiang N, Yang P, Liu S, Li H, Wu L, Shi X, et al. Satisfaction of patients and physicians with treatments for rheumatoid arthritis: a population-based survey in China. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2020;14:1037–47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Taylor PC, Ancuta C, Nagy O, de la Vega MC, Gordeev A, Janková R, et al. Treatment satisfaction, patient preferences, and the impact of suboptimal disease control in a large international rheumatoid arthritis cohort: SENSE Study. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2021;15:359–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Marshall NJ, Wilson G, Lapworth K, Kay LJ. Patients’ perceptions of treatment with anti-TNF therapy for rheumatoid arthritis: a qualitative study. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2004;43(8):1034–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wolfe F, Michaud K. Resistance of rheumatoid arthritis patients to changing therapy: discordance between disease activity and patients’ treatment choices. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;56(7):2135–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lofland JH, Johnson PT, Ingham MP, Rosemas SC, White JC, Ellis L. Shared decision-making for biologic treatment of autoimmune disease: influence on adherence, persistence, satisfaction, and health care costs. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017;11:947–58.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Li HB, Wu LJ, Jiang N, Yang PT, Liu SY, Shi XF, et al. Treatment satisfaction with rheumatoid arthritis in patients with different disease severity and financial burden: a subgroup analysis of a nationwide survey in China. Chin Med J (Engl). 2020;133(8):892–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Oyamada A, Matsumoto Y, Wakata Y, Kimura A, Ikuta K, Tsuchiya K, et al. Characteristics of patients with fragility hip fractures in the northern Kyushu district in Japan: a multicenter prospective registry based on an electronic data capture system. J Bone Miner Metab. 2018;36(5):596–604.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Regan-Smith MG, O’Connor GT, Kwoh CK, Brown LA, Olmstead EM, Burnett JB. Lack of correlation between the Steinbrocker staging of hand radiographs and the functional health status of individuals with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1989;32(2):128–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Steinbrocker O, Traeger CH, Batterman RC. Therapeutic criteria in rheumatoid arthritis. J Am Med Assoc. 1949;140(8):659–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Haraguchi A, Nakashima Y, Miyahara H, Esaki Y, Okazaki K, Fukushi JI, et al. Minimum 10-year results of cementless total hip arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Mod Rheumatol. 2017;27(4):598–604.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fujiwara T, Fujimura K, Hamai S, Kamura S, Nakashima Y, Miyahara H. Mid-term clinical outcome of constrained condylar knee prosthesis for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Mod Rheumatol. 2019;29(4):596–601.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pincus T, Summey JA, Soraci SA Jr, Wallston KA, Hummon NP. Assessment of patient satisfaction in activities of daily living using a modified Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum. 1983;26(11):1346–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. EuroQol Group. EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hamashima C, Yoshida K. A study of the reliability of health state valuations in the Japanese EuroQol instrument. Environ Health Prev Med. 2001;6(3):189–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Atkinson MJ, Sinha A, Hass SL, Colman SS, Kumar RN, Brod M, et al. Validation of a general measure of treatment satisfaction, the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM), using a national panel study of chronic disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004;2:12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Mahomed N, Gandhi R, Daltroy L, Katz JN. The self-administered patient satisfaction scale for primary hip and knee arthroplasty. Arthritis. 2011;2011:591253.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Shiomoto K, Hamai S, Motomura G, Ikemura S, Fujii M, Nakashima Y. Influencing factors for joint perception after total hip arthroplasty: Asian cohort study. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35(5):1307–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Harada S, Hamai S, Shiomoto K, Hara D, Fujii M, Ikemura S, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after primary or revision total hip arthroplasty: a propensity score-matched Asian cohort study. PLoS One. 2021;16(5):e0252112.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Hosmer DWLS Jr, Sturdivant RX. Applied logistic regression. 3rd ed. Hoboken: Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics; 2013.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Michaud K, Pope J, van de Laar M, Curtis JR, Kannowski C, Mitchell S, et al. Systematic literature review of residual symptoms and an unmet need in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021;73(11):1606–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Tatangelo M, Tomlinson G, Paterson JM, Keystone E, Bansback N, Bombardier C. Health care costs of rheumatoid arthritis: a longitudinal population study. PLoS One. 2021;16(5):e0251334.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Hoshi D, Tanaka E, Igarashi A, Inoue E, Kobayashi A, Sugimoto N, et al. Profiles of EQ-5D utility scores in the daily practice of Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis; analysis of the IORRA database. Mod Rheumatol. 2016;26(1):40–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. van der Heijde D, Klareskog L, Singh A, Tornero J, Melo-Gomes J, Codreanu C, et al. Patient reported outcomes in a trial of combination therapy with etanercept and methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis: the TEMPO trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2006;65(3):328–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Matsuura E, Origuchi T, Hamasaki M. Association of health-related quality of life with self-management and satisfaction of relationship with healthcare professionals in female patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Mod Rheumatol. 2021;32(1):1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Chen MH, Lee MH, Liao HT, Chen WS, Lai CC, Tsai CY. Health-related quality of life outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis after tapering biologic treatment. Clin Rheumatol. 2018;37(2):429–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Nakashima Y, Kondo M, Shono E, Ishinishi T, Tsukamoto H, Kuroda K, et al. Suppression of joint destruction with subcutaneous tocilizumab for Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice. Mod Rheumatol. 2020;30(5):807–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Smolen JS, Landewé RBM, Bijlsma JWJ, Burmester GR, Dougados M, Kerschbaumer A, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79(6):685–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Glintborg B, Loft AG, Omerovic E, Hendricks O, Linauskas A, Espesen J, et al. To switch or not to switch: results of a nationwide guideline of mandatory switching from originator to biosimilar etanercept. One-year treatment outcomes in 2061 patients with inflammatory arthritis from the DANBIO registry. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78(2):192–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Glintborg B, Sørensen IJ, Loft AG, Lindegaard H, Linauskas A, Hendricks O, et al. A nationwide non-medical switch from originator infliximab to biosimilar CT-P13 in 802 patients with inflammatory arthritis: 1-year clinical outcomes from the DANBIO registry. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(8):1426–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Jørgensen KK, Olsen IC, Goll GL, Lorentzen M, Bolstad N, Haavardsholm EA, et al. Switching from originator infliximab to biosimilar CT-P13 compared with maintained treatment with originator infliximab (NOR-SWITCH): a 52-week, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2017;389(10086):2304–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Smolen JS, Caporali R, Doerner T, Fautrel B, Benedetti F, Pieper B, et al. Treatment journey in rheumatoid arthritis with biosimilars: from better access to good disease control through cost savings and prevention of nocebo effects. RMD Open. 2021;7(2):e001637.

  43. Smolen JS, Choe JY, Prodanovic N, Niebrzydowski J, Staykov I, Dokoupilova E, et al. Safety, immunogenicity and efficacy after switching from reference infliximab to biosimilar SB2 compared with continuing reference infliximab and SB2 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results of a randomised, double-blind, phase III transition study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(2):234–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Yoo DH, Prodanovic N, Jaworski J, Miranda P, Ramiterre E, Lanzon A, et al. Efficacy and safety of CT-P13 (biosimilar infliximab) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: comparison between switching from reference infliximab to CT-P13 and continuing CT-P13 in the PLANETRA extension study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(2):355–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Tollisen A, Flatø B, Selvaag AM, Aasland A, Ingebrigtsen T, Sagen J, et al. Treatment satisfaction with and adherence to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in adult patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021;73(2):221–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Radawski C, Genovese MC, Hauber B, Nowell WB, Hollis K, Gaich CL, et al. Patient perceptions of unmet medical need in rheumatoid arthritis: a cross-sectional survey in the USA. Rheumatol Ther. 2019;6(3):461–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Maassen JM, Dos Santos SR, Bergstra SA, Goekoop R, Huizinga TWJ, Allaart CF. Glucocorticoid discontinuation in patients with early rheumatoid and undifferentiated arthritis: a post-hoc analysis of the BeSt and IMPROVED studies. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021;80(9):1124–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Chester Wasko M, Dasgupta A, Ilse Sears G, Fries JF, Ward MM. Prednisone use and risk of mortality in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: moderation by use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2016;68(5):706–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Fujiwara T, Tokuda K, Momii K, Shiomoto K, Tsushima H, Akasaki Y, et al. Prognostic factors for the short-term mortality of patients with rheumatoid arthritis admitted to intensive care units. BMC Rheumatol. 2020;4(1):64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Schneeweiss S, Setoguchi S, Weinblatt ME, Katz JN, Avorn J, Sax PE, et al. Anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha therapy and the risk of serious bacterial infections in elderly patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;56(6):1754–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Wilson JC, Sarsour K, Gale S, Pethö-Schramm A, Jick SS, Meier CR. Incidence and risk of glucocorticoid-associated adverse effects in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2019;71(4):498–511.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Roodenrijs NMT, de Hair MJH, van der Goes MC, Jacobs JWG, Welsing PMJ, van der Heijde D, et al. Characteristics of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis: results of an international survey. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(12):1705–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Hickson M, Frost G. An investigation into the relationships between quality of life, nutritional status and physical function. Clin Nutr. 2004;23(2):213–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Boccaccio DE, Cenzer I, Covinsky KE. Life satisfaction among older adults with impairment in activities of daily living. Age Ageing. 2021;50(6):2047–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Aletaha D, Ward MM. Duration of rheumatoid arthritis influences the degree of functional improvement in clinical trials. Ann Rheum Dis. 2006;65(2):227–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Atkinson MJ, Kumar R, Cappelleri JC, Hass SL. Hierarchical construct validity of the treatment satisfaction questionnaire for medication (TSQM version II) among outpatient pharmacy consumers. Value Health. 2005;8(Suppl 1):S9–s24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Enago (www.enago.jp) for the English language review.

Funding

This work was partially supported by the Grants-in-Aid for Young Scientists (grant number JP18K16626) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kyushu University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, 3-1-1, Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan

    Toshifumi Fujiwara, Hisakata Yamada, Daisuke Hara, Hidetoshi Tsushima, Yukio Akasaki, Satoshi Ikemura, Takuya Sueishi, Masakazu Toya, Takahide Sakuragi, Tomoko Tsutsui, Kazuhiro Kai, Shinkichi Arisumi & Yasuharu Nakashima

  2. Kondo Clinic of Rheumatology and Orthopaedic Surgery, Fukuoka, Japan

    Masakazu Kondo & Hisakata Yamada

  3. Department of Orthopedics Surgery and Rheumatology, National Hospital Organization Kyushu Medical Center, Fukuoka, Japan

    Akihisa Haraguchi, Kenjiro Fujimura, Koji Sakuraba, Satoshi Kamura, Jun-ichi Fukushi & Hisaaki Miyahara

  4. Department of Rheumatology, Fukuoka Red Cross Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan

    Yasushi Inoue

  5. PS Clinic, Fukuoka, Japan

    Tomomi Tsuru

  6. Department of Orthopedics Surgery, Chiyoda Hospital, Miyazaki, Japan

    Toshihide Shuto

  7. Department of Rheumatology, Hamanomachi Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan

    Seiji Yoshizawa

  8. Department of Internal Medicine and Rheumatology, National Hospital Organization Kyushu Medical Center, Fukuoka, Japan

    Eiichi Suematsu & Tomoya Miyamura

  9. Department of Medicine and Biosystemic Science, Kyushu University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Fukuoka, Japan

    Masahiro Ayano, Hiroki Mitoma & Yojiro Arinobu

  10. Department of Medical Education, Kyushu University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Fukuoka, Japan

    Hiroaki Niiro

  11. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chihaya Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan

    Masanobu Ohishi

  12. Medical Information Center, Kyushu University Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan

    Akie Hirata, Shoji Tokunaga & Atsushi Takada

Authors
  1. Toshifumi Fujiwara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Masakazu Kondo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hisakata Yamada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Akihisa Haraguchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kenjiro Fujimura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Koji Sakuraba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Satoshi Kamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jun-ichi Fukushi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Hisaaki Miyahara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Yasushi Inoue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Tomomi Tsuru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Toshihide Shuto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Seiji Yoshizawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Eiichi Suematsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Tomoya Miyamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Masahiro Ayano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Hiroki Mitoma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Yojiro Arinobu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Hiroaki Niiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Masanobu Ohishi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Akie Hirata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Shoji Tokunaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Atsushi Takada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  24. Daisuke Hara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  25. Hidetoshi Tsushima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  26. Yukio Akasaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  27. Satoshi Ikemura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  28. Takuya Sueishi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  29. Masakazu Toya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  30. Takahide Sakuragi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  31. Tomoko Tsutsui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  32. Kazuhiro Kai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  33. Shinkichi Arisumi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  34. Yasuharu Nakashima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: TF, MK, HY, AH, KF, KS, SK, JF, HM, YI, TT, TS, SY, TM, MA, HM, YA, HN, MO, HT, YA, IS, TS, DH, MT, TS, TT, KK, SA, and YN. Acquisition of the data: TF, MK, HY, AH, KF, KS, SK, JF, HM, YI, TT, TS, SY, TM, MA, HM, MA, YA, HN, MO, HT, YA, IS, TS, MT, TS, TT, KK, SA, and YN. Analysis of the data: TF, AH, ST, and AT. Interpretation of the data: TF, AH, ST, HT, YA, IS, and YN. Original draft preparation: TF, AH, ST, HT, YA, IS, and YN. Writing—reviewing and editing: TF, MK, HY, AH, KF, SK, JF, HM, YI, TT, TS, SY, TM, MA, HM, YA, HN, MO, HT, YA, IS, TS, MT, TS, TT, KK, SA, and YN. Supervision: MK, HM, HN, AT, and YN. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Toshifumi Fujiwara.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study approval was obtained from the Kyushu University Institutional Review Board (approval number: 29-277). The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

All patients in the registry were required to provide written informed consent and authorization prior to participating.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Table S1.

The correlation coefficients for each satisfaction. Table S2. Serum CRP levels and medication of each score of satisfaction of cost of treatment at initial registration. Table S3. The kinds of musculoskeletal surgery (i.e., prosthesis, spine surgery, and others) and the postoperative duration (5 years>, 5 years≤) in each score of satisfaction of cost of treatment at initial registration. Others included arthrodesis, arthroplasty, synovectomy, surgery for tendon, or surgery associated with fracture. Table S4. The kinds of musculoskeletal surgery (i.e., prosthesis, spine surgery, and others) and the postoperative duration (5 years>, 5 years≤) in each score of satisfaction of ADL at initial registration. Others included arthrodesis, arthroplasty, synovectomy, surgery for tendon, or surgery associated with fracture. Table S5. The comorbidities (i.e., cardiovascular disorder, pulmonary disorder, and osteoporosis) in each score of satisfaction (i.e., cost of treatment, effect of treatment, ADL, and global treatment) at initial registration.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fujiwara, T., Kondo, M., Yamada, H. et al. Factors affecting patient satisfaction related to cost and treatment effectiveness in rheumatoid arthritis: results from the multicenter observational cohort study, FRANK Registry. Arthritis Res Ther 24, 53 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13075-022-02746-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13075-022-02746-5

Keywords

Arthritis Research & Therapy

ISSN: 1478-6362

Contact us