Examining Rehabilitation Dose in Adults With Rheumatoid Arthritis: Association With Baseline Factors and Change in Clinical Outcomes

• Published in: Arthritis care & research (2010) Vol. 75; no. 6; pp. 1261 - 1268
• Main Authors: Thoma, Louise M., Wellsandt, Elizabeth, Wipfler, Kristin, Michaud, Kaleb
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Boston, USA Wiley Periodicals, Inc 01.06.2023; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: Adult; Arthritis, Rheumatoid - complications; Arthritis, Rheumatoid - diagnosis; Arthritis, Rheumatoid - drug therapy; Clinical outcomes; Fatigue; Fatigue - diagnosis; Fatigue - epidemiology; Fatigue - etiology; Humans; Pain; Regression analysis; Rehabilitation; Rheumatoid arthritis
• ISSN: 2151-464X; 2151-4658
• DOI: 10.1002/acr.25019

Objective To evaluate the association of baseline factors with rehabilitation dose and the association of rehabilitation dose with meaningful change in physical function, pain, and fatigue over 6 months among adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods Using data from the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases registry, we extracted baseline characteristics and self‐reported physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire), pain (visual analog scale [VAS]), fatigue (VAS), rehabilitation dose (low: 1–2 visits, medium: 3–8 visits, high: >8 visits), and follow‐up outcomes 6 months later. Changes in clinical outcomes were categorized as improved, no change, or worsened. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) using proportional odds logistic regression models to examine the association of the baseline factors with rehabilitation dose and the association of rehabilitation dose with changes in clinical outcomes, adjusting for potential confounders. Results The sample included 1,381 adults with a new episode of rehabilitation (dose: low 27%, medium 42%, high 31%). Worse baseline physical function (adjusted OR 1.29 [95% CI 1.04–1.60]), but not pain (adjusted OR 1.04 [95% CI 0.99–1.10]) or fatigue (adjusted OR 0.98 [95% CI 0.93–1.03]), were associated with a higher rehabilitation dose. A high rehabilitation dose was associated with a favorable change in physical function (OR 1.51 [95% CI 1.14–1.98]), pain (OR 1.44 [95% CI 1.06–1.96]), and fatigue (OR 1.45 [95% CI 1.06–1.99]) compared to a low dose; only the association with physical function change persisted in adjusted models (adjusted OR 1.41 [95% CI 1.03–1.92]). Conclusion Using real‐world data, this study supports a higher rehabilitation dose to improve physical function in adults with RA.