Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a heterogeneous disease, which current treatment guidelines insufficiently accommodate, as they predominantly emphasise the suppression of disease activity. However, a step towards personalised medicine is preferred to further optimise treatment and requires homogeneous subgroups with similarities in pathophysiological mechanisms and treatment responses. Prior research has already demonstrated notable differences in the pathophysiology of patients with autoantibody-positive and autoantibody-negative RA, as well as differences in treatment responses, which may serve as a strong basis for personalised medicine. Additionally, there is evidence suggesting that an early treatment response is indicative of future courses. Based on these findings, we designed a personalised medicine trial in RA that compares the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a tailor-made approach with routine care.

The PeRsonalIsed Medicine in RA (PRIMERA) trial is a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial that includes 300 adult patients with newly diagnosed, DMARD-naïve RA, according to 2010 American College of Rheumatology/EULAR criteria. Patients are randomised into either routine care or a tailor-made approach. Both management approaches use a treat-to-target strategy, aiming for low disease activity (LDA, Disease Activity Score using 44 joints (DAS) ≤2.4). In routine care, initial treatment consists of methotrexate along with a single intramuscular dose of glucocorticoids (GCs) and treatment can be intensified after 3, 7 and 10 months if LDA is not reached. Conversely, initial treatment in the tailor-made approach depends on the presence of autoantibodies, with patients with autoantibody-positive and autoantibody-negative RA starting with hydroxychloroquine or methotrexate together with a single intramuscular dose of GCs, respectively. Medication intensifications will be allowed at months 1, 3, 4, 7 and 10. Intensifications at months 1 and 4 depend on whether patients have an early sufficient response to GCs and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tsDMARDs), respectively. The tailor-made approach is superior to routine care if no more biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) or tsDMARDs are used after 10 months of treatment, while the mean DAS over time is lower. Our primary outcome is the proportional difference in bDMARD or tsDMARD usage after 10 months of treatment between routine care and the tailor-made approach. Secondary outcomes are DAS over time, time to achieve LDA, cost-effectiveness and patient-reported outcome measurements over time.

Ethical approval has been granted by Erasmus MC Medical Ethics Review Committee (MEC-2020-0825). The results will be disseminated through peer-review journals and medical congresses.

ISRCTN16170070.

Post-COVID syndrome manifests with a diverse array of symptoms for which no standard care plan currently exists. Many questions were raised by patients, which underscored the need for a validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). Therefore, a post-COVID module was developed to be included in the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC-) tool. The ABCC-tool evaluates and visualises the perceived physical, emotional and social burden of one or multiple chronic disease(s) using a balloon diagram and aims to facilitate person-centred care and structured discussions between patients and healthcare professionals. This study explores the patients’ perspective on the content of the ABCC-tool for post-COVID and the tool’s usability in a home-based setting.

All patients who completed the ABCC-tool for post-COVID were invited for an online semi-structured interview. We selected post-COVID patients who had used the tool in the past three months. Interviews were audio recorded and analysed using a thematic approach with Atlas.ti version 23.

Nineteen post-COVID patients (10 males, mean age 56) were interviewed between May and August 2024. The tool was regarded as user-friendly, and patients indicated they would use the tool again in the future. Patients valued the tool’s broad range of topics, some of which are often overlooked in standard healthcare consultations. The tool was comprehensible and relevant according to all patients. The balloon diagram was easy to understand, but a legend explaining the colours of the balloons was preferred. Other suggestions for improvement included adding open-text fields and periodic reminders to increase usability and adding long-term data.

The ABCC-tool is a promising instrument for post-COVID patients, offering a structured way to monitor and communicate experienced burden in addition to standard healthcare consultations. Refinements addressing usability and comprehensiveness are recommended to facilitate its integration into clinical practices.