The impact of adequate psychopharmacotherapy on the efficiency of treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis
Mental disorders (MDs) of the anxiety-depressive spectrum (ADS) and cognitive impairment (CI) substantially deteriorate the course and efficiency of therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There have been practically no studies on the impact of psychopharmacotherapy (PPT) for MDs on the efficacy of standard disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biological agents (BAs). Objective: to investigate the impact of adequate PPT for MDs of ADS on the efficacy of DMARDs and BAs in patients with RA. Subjects and methods. The investigation included 128 patients (13% men and 87% women) with documented RA in accordance with the 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria. The patients’ mean age was 47.4+0.9 years; the median duration of RA was 96 [48; 228] months. DAS28 averaged 5.34+0.17. 75.1% of the patients received DMARDs. The diagnosis of MDs was based on the ICD-10 codes, by applying a semi-structured interview and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Changes in the pattern and severity of ADS were evaluated using the Hamilton Anxiety Scale and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. Clinical and psychological procedures were used to diagnose CI. At baseline, ADS was detected in 123 (96.1%) patients: major depression in 41 (32.1%), minor depression in 53 (41.4%), and anxiety disorders in 29 (22.6%). CI was diagnosed in 88 (68.7%). PPT was offered to all the patients with MDs; 52 agreed to treatment and 71 refused. The following therapeutic groups were identified according to the performed therapy: 1) DMARDs (n = 39); 2) DMARDs + PPT (n = 43); 3) DMARDs + BAs (n = 32); 4) DMARDs + BAs + PPT (n = 9). The dynamics of MDs and the outcomes of RA were estimated in 112 (91.0%) and in 83 (67.5%) of the 123 patients at one- and five-year follow-ups, respectively. The efficiency of RA therapy was evaluated from the changes in DAS28 and SDAI. Results and discussion. One year later, the patients who had received the complete cycle of PPT and took DMARDs achieved a satisfactory effect twice more frequently (58.1 and 32.3%, respectively; relative risk (RR) = 0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.2-1.39; p = 0.024) and did not respond to therapy 3 times less often (21.0 and 58.1%, respectively; RR = 2.41; 95% CI, 0.87-6.71; p = 0.001) according to the EULAR criteria than those who had refused PPT. The patients with MDs who received DMARDs + PPT during one year were unresponsive to therapy significantly less frequently than those who received DMARDs and BAs without PPT (21 and 44.8%, respectively; RR = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.21-1.7; p = 0.029). After 5 years of follow-up, the probability of no response to RA therapy in MD patients who received only DMARDs was 3.6 times higher than in those who had PPT (66.7% and 10.4%, respectively; RR = 3.58; 95% CI 0.82-15.5; p < 0.001). The patients adequately treated with DMARDs and BAs for MDs according to the DAS28 showed 1.3-fold more frequently good and satisfactory results (100 and 76.2%, respectively; p = 0.14) than those who refused PPT, but these differences were not statistically significant because the DMARD+BA+PPT group was small. Five-year follow-up indicated that DAS28 remission was more common in the patients receiving DMARDs and PPT than in those who had DMARDs and no PPT (34.5 and 8.3%, respectively; RR = 1.79; 95% CI, 0.34-9.24; p = 0.024). DAS28 remission was somewhat more frequently observed among the patients receiving DMARDs, BAs, and PPT than among those taking DMARDs and BAs (33.3 19.0%, respectively; RR = 1.64; 95% CI, 0.28-9.57; p = 0.34), but these differences were insignificant. Remissions according to the 2011 ACR/EULAR criteria were achieved by only the patients having DMARDs and PPT (6.9% and 13.8% after 1 and 5 years, respectively). Conclusion. Adequate treatment of MDs in RA patients results in a significant increase in the efficiency of antirheumatic therapy.