Patients' willingness to trade off between the duration and frequency of rheumatoid arthritis treatments

Factors influencing choice of b/ts DMARDs in managing inflammatory arthritis from a patient perspective: a systematic review of global evidence and a patient-based survey from Hong Kong

OBJECTIVES

To investigate factors concerning patients regarding biological/target synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/ts DMARDs) in treating inflammatory arthritis (IA).

DESIGN

This study consists of a systematic review and a cross-sectional survey in Hong Kong. A systematic review of literature following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane and Embase between 1 January 2000 and 1 January 2022. Content analysis was conducted to summarise factors grouped by four themes-social aspects (SA), clinical aspects (CA), medicine characteristics (MC) and financial aspects (FA) in the decision-making process. One cross-sectional survey among Hong Kong patients with IA was conducted to add to global evidence.

SETTING

A systematic review of global evidence and a patient-based survey in Hong Kong to complement scarce evidence in Asia regions.

RESULTS

The systematic review resulted in 34 studies. The four themes were presented in descending order consistently but varied with frequency throughout decision-making processes. During decision-making involving medication initiation, preference and discontinuation, MC (reported frequency: 83%, 86%, 78%), SA (56%, 43%, 78%) and FA (39%, 33%, 56%) were the three most frequently reported factors, whereas CA was less studied. Local survey also revealed that MC factors such as treatment efficacy and the probability of severe adverse events, and SA factors such as the availability of government or charity subsidy, influenced patients' initiation and preference for b/ts DMARDs. Meanwhile, self-estimated improvement in disease conditions (SA), drug side effects (MC) and drug costs (FA) were associated with treatment discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

Global and local evidence consistently indicate that MC and SA are important considerations in patients' decisions regarding novel DMARDs. Health policies that reduce patients' financial burden and enhances healthcare professionals' engagement in decision-making and treatment delivery should be in place with an efficient healthcare system for managing IA optimistically.

Physical function and severe side effects matter most to patients with RA (< 5 years): a discrete choice experiment assessing preferences for personalized RA treatment

AIM

Early assessment of patient preferences has the potential to support shared decisions in personalized precision medicine for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of this study was to assess treatment preferences of patients with RA (< 5 years) with previous experience of inadequate response to first-line monotherapy.

METHOD

Patients were recruited (March-June 2021) via four clinics in Sweden. Potential respondents (N = 933) received an invitation to answer a digital survey. The survey included an introductory part, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and demographic questions. Each respondent answered 11 hypothetical choice questions as part of the DCE. Patient preferences and preference heterogeneity were estimated using random parameter logit models and latent class analysis models.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 182) assessed the most important treatment attributes out of physical functional capacity, psychosocial functional capacity, frequency of mild side effects and likelihood of severe side effects. In general, patients preferred a greater increase in functional capacity and decreased side effects. However, a substantial preference heterogeneity was identified with two underlying preference patterns. The most important attribute in the first pattern was the 'likelihood of getting a severe side effect'. Physical functional capacity was the most important attribute in the second pattern.

CONCLUSION

Respondents focused their decision-making mainly on increasing their physical functional capacity or decreasing the likelihood of getting a severe side effect. These results are highly relevant from a clinical perspective to strengthen communication in shared decision making by assessing patients' individual preferences for benefits and risks in treatment discussions.

Systematic review of quantitative preference studies of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis among patients and at-risk populations

Treatments used for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are under investigation for their efficacy to prevent RA in at risk groups. It is therefore important to understand treatment preferences of those at risk. We systematically reviewed quantitative preference studies of drugs to treat, or prevent RA, to inform the design of further studies and trials of RA prevention. Stated preference studies for RA treatment or prevention were identified through a search of five databases. Study characteristics and results were extracted, and the relative importance of different types of treatment attributes was compared across populations. Twenty three studies were included 20 of RA treatments (18 of patients; 2 of the general public) and 3 prevention studies with first-degree relatives (FDRs). Benefits, risks, administration method and cost (when included) were important determinants of treatment choice. A benefit was more important than a risk attribute in half of the studies of RA treatment that included a benefit attribute and 2/3 studies of RA prevention. There was variability in the relative importance of attributes across the few prevention studies. In studies with non-patient participants, attributes describing confidence in treatment effectiveness/safety were more important determinants of choice than in studies with patients. Most preference studies relating to RA are of treatments for established RA. Few studies examine preferences for treatments to prevent RA. Given intense research focus on RA prevention, additional preference studies in this context are needed. Variation in treatment preferences across different populations is not well understood and direct comparisons are needed.

Parturients' Stated Preferences for Labor Analgesia: A Discrete Choice Experiment

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to investigate the extent to which treatment benefits, risks and costs affected parturients' preferences for labor analgesia.

METHODS

We recruited 248 healthy parturients prior to labor at an antenatal ward and administered a discrete choice experiment survey. Parturients were asked to choose among four hypothetical forms of labor analgesia: epidural analgesia, pethidine, Entonox and no analgesia, which were defined by: pain score, duration of second stage of labor, risks of instrumental delivery, back pain and permanent nerve injury, and out-of-pocket cost. We used mixed logit model to calculate the relative importance of each attribute (out of 100).

RESULTS

Parturients preferred receiving labor analgesia over not receiving analgesia and those who had positive past experience with epidural preferred epidural over other modalities. Out-of-pocket cost (28%), duration of second stage of labor (26%) and pain score following treatment (18%) were the most important attributes.

CONCLUSION

Out-of-pocket cost was a major concern. Parturients prioritized having lower pain and shorter labor experience over risks associated with epidural analgesia. Parturients should be presented with realistic range of risks of side-effects so that they can decide how to balance risks against benefits and costs associated with child labor.

Functional capacity vs side effects: treatment attributes to consider when individualising treatment for patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Introduction

Individualisation of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment needs to take account of individual patients’ preferences to increase patient-centeredness in treatment decisions. The aim of this study was to identify patient-relevant treatment attributes to consider when individualising treatment for patients with RA.

Method

Patients with RA in Sweden were invited to rank the most important treatment attributes in an online survey (April to May 2020). Semi-structured interviews were conducted (October to November 2020) to further identify and frame potential attributes for shared decision-making. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic framework analysis. Patient research partners and rheumatologists supported the selection and framing of the treatment attributes across the assessment.

Results

The highest ranked attributes (N = 184) were improved functional capacity, reduced inflammation, reduced pain and fatigue and the risk of getting a severe side effect. The framework analysis revealed two overarching themes for further exploration: treatment goals and side effects. ‘Treatment goals’ emerged from functional capacity, revealing two dimensions: physical functional capacity and psychosocial functional capacity. ‘Side effects’ revealed that mild and severe side effects were the most important to discuss in shared decision-making.

Conclusions

Functional capacity (physical and psychosocial) and potential side effects (mild and severe) are important treatment attributes to consider when individualising RA treatment. Future research should assess how patients with RA weigh benefits and risks against each other, in order to increase patient-centeredness early on the treatment trajectory.

A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiment Studies in Rheumatoid Arthritis Biological Medicines

Objective:

Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic disease with various clinical characteristics. The introduction of biological drugs has enhanced the efficacy and increased diversity of treatment options. Considering the patients’ preferences in decision-making about treatment can improve their adherence. A discrete choice experiment is a type of conjoint method that can elicit preferences in more realistic scenarios. This article reviewed discrete choice experiment (DCE) studies to extract which attributes and levels were included in surveys. In addition, we focused on the process of designing surveys and the method that they used. Method: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Ovid (Medline) and ProQuest were systematically searched in order to find studies that evaluated rheumatoid arthritis patients’ preferences about biological medicines. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals between 1/1/1990 and 12/31/2019 were included. The included studies were analyzed using a narrative synthesis method and descriptive statistics.

Results:

A total of 7124 studies were initially found. After deleting irrelevant and duplicate studies, 15 studies were included. The most common attributes that were used in surveys were efficacy, adverse effect, route of administration, frequency of administration, and cost. Most studies used a literature review for developing attributes and levels. The median number of included attributes and levels were seven and three, respectively. Eight studies explained their experimental design while seven studies did not. Conditional logit and mixed logit were the most common methods for modeling reciprocally.

Conclusion:

Several aspects of DCE studies investigating biological drugs in RA were assessed. Explaining the sample size, experimental design, and qualitative work for developing attributes can improve this type of study.

Towards Personalising the Use of Biologics in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Introduction

There have been promising developments in technologies and associated algorithm-based prescribing (‘stratified approach’) to target biologics to sub-groups of people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The acceptability of using an algorithm-guided approach in practice is likely to depend on various factors.

Objective

This study quantified preferences for an algorithm-guided approach to prescribing biologics (termed ‘biologic calculator’).

Methods

An online discrete choice experiment (DCE) was designed to elicit preferences from patients and the public for using a ‘biologic calculator’ compared with conventional prescribing. Treatment approaches were described by five attributes: delay to starting treatment; positive and negative predictive value (PPV/NPV); risk of infection; and cost saving to the UK national health service. Each survey contained six choice sets asking respondents to select their preferred option from two hypothetical biologic calculators or conventional prescribing. Background questions included sociodemographics, health status and healthcare experiences. DCE data were analysed using mixed logit models.

Results

Completed choice data were collected from 292 respondents (151 patients with RA and 142 members of the public). PPV, NPV and risk of infection were the most highly valued attributes to respondents deciding between prescribing strategies.

Conclusion

Respondents were generally receptive to personalised medicine in RA, but researchers developing personalised approaches should pay close attention to generating evidence on both the PPV and the NPV of their technologies.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40271-021-00533-z.

Rate and causes of noncompliance with disease-modifying antirheumatic drug regimens in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES

To determine the prevalence and factors associated with medication noncompliance by Thai patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

This prospective cohort study enrolled 443 adult RA patients (≥ 18 years) who were followed up at the outpatient rheumatology clinics of Siriraj Hospital and Phramongkutklao Hospital between May 2018 and December 2019. Medication noncompliance was assessed using the Compliance Questionnaire for Rheumatology-19 (CQR-19). A score of 0 indicated complete noncompliance, whereas a score of 100 indicated a perfect compliance. An unsatisfactory compliance was arbitrarily defined as a taking compliance of ≤ 80%.

RESULTS

The prevalence of medication noncompliance was 22.1%. The most common cause was forgetting to take medications due to a busy work schedule. In a univariate analysis, the factors that were significantly related to medication noncompliance were age, income, number of comorbidities, functional status as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), number of prescribed pills per day, and number of types of prescribed medications per day. In a subsequent backward stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis, only 2 factors were found to be negatively associated with medication noncompliance: age (risk ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.96-0.99; p, 0.048) and HAQ (risk ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.98; p, 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

Medication noncompliance is common in patients with RA. As this may lead to unfavorable outcomes, patient education related to drug compliance should be addressed and emphasized in daily practice. Key Points • Medication noncompliance is common in patients with RA. • Forgetting to take pills was the most frequent explanation offered for noncompliance. • All patients should be strongly encouraged to comply with the recommended drug regimens.

What Matters Most to Patients and Rheumatologists? A Discrete Choice Experiment in Rheumatoid Arthritis

INTRODUCTION

To determine patient and rheumatologist preferences for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment attributes in Spain and to evaluate their attitude towards shared decision-making (SDM).

METHODS

Observational, descriptive, exploratory and cross-sectional study based on a discrete choice experiment (DCE). To identify the attributes and their levels, a literature review and two focus groups (patients [P] = 5; rheumatologists [R] = 4) were undertaken. Seven attributes with 2-4 levels were presented in eight scenarios. Attribute utility and relative importance (RI) were assessed using a conditional logit model. Patient preferences for SDM were assessed using an ad hoc questionnaire.

RESULTS

Ninety rheumatologists [52.2% women; mean years of experience 18.1 (SD: 9.0); seeing an average of 24.4 RA patients/week (SD: 15.3)] and 137 RA patients [mean age: 47.5 years (SD: 10.7); 84.0% women; mean time since diagnosis of RA: 14.2 years (SD: 11.8) and time in treatment: 13.2 years (SD: 11.2), mean HAQ score 1.2 (SD: 0.7)] participated in the study. In terms of RI, rheumatologists and RA patients viewed: time with optimal QoL: R: 23.41%/P: 35.05%; substantial symptom improvement: R: 13.15%/P: 3.62%; time to onset of treatment action: R: 16.24%/P: 13.56%; severe adverse events: R: 10.89%/P: 11.20%; mild adverse events: R: 4.16%/P: 0.91%; mode of administration: R: 25.23%/P: 25.00%; and added cost: R: 6.93%/P: 10.66%. Nearly 73% of RA patients were involved in treatment decision-making to a greater or lesser extent; however, 27.4% did not participate at all.

CONCLUSION

Both for rheumatologists and patients, the top three decision-making drivers are time with optimal quality, treatment mode of administration and time to onset of action, although in different ranking order. Patients were willing to be more involved in the treatment decision-making process.

Patient Perceptions of Unmet Medical Need in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Cross-Sectional Survey in the USA

INTRODUCTION

Many rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients do not achieve their treatment goals and experience symptoms that affect psychosocial outcomes and daily activities. This study aimed to identify and quantify the unmet needs perceived by US patients with RA currently taking a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD).

METHODS

A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted with RA patients recruited through CreakyJoints, an online patient support community, and ArthritisPower®, an online patient research registry, from December 2017 to January 2018. Participant patients were aged ≥ 21 years, failed ≥ 1 DMARDs, and were receiving their current DMARD(s) for ≥ 6 months; they answered 50 questions about treatment history, RA symptoms, and flares and completed the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) questionnaire and the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM). Treatment satisfaction was defined by a TSQM global satisfaction score ≥ 80.

RESULTS

Of 415 patients screened, 258 (62%) were eligible and completed the survey; 87% were women, and 87% white, with mean (SD) age of 54.5 (11.4) years. A total of 232 patients (90%) had current or past biologic DMARD (bDMARD) use, with 67% currently on a bDMARD, 65% on ≥ 1 conventional synthetic DMARD, and 40% on methotrexate. Forty-three percent of patients reported daily/almost daily use of prescription pain medications, and 44% reported a current flare. Mean (SD) TSQM scores were 59 [20] for effectiveness, 59 [26] for side effects, 72 [18] for convenience, and 65 [21] for global satisfaction. The mean (SD) RAID overall score was 5.1 (2.0) on a 0-10 scale. Only 26% (67 patients) were satisfied with their RA treatment. Patients not satisfied with treatment reported higher RAID scores overall and by domain, and approximately half reported a current flare.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this real-world survey suggest that three-fourths of RA patients are not satisfied with treatments, which include bDMARDs. Patients continued to experience bothersome symptoms that impacted their daily activities and life. There remains a need for improved disease management among currently treated RA patients.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company (Indianapolis, IN, USA).

Patient Perspectives on Intravenous Biologics for Rheumatologic Disease

OBJECTIVE

Two surveys were conducted with patients with rheumatologic diseases to evaluate perceptions of different routes of administration (intravenous [IV] or subcutaneous [SC]) for biologic therapy.

METHODS

In Survey I, patient preferences toward biologic treatment were evaluated at a rheumatology practice in Buffalo, New York. In Survey II, Canadian patients enrolled in the BioAdvance patient support program and scheduled to receive IV biologic therapy were asked about their opinions of IV treatment.

RESULTS

In Survey I, 243 rheumatology patients participated. Median patient age was 60 years, 76% were female, and 44% were naive to treatment with biologic agents. Among biologic-naive patients, the majority (56%) were open to either SC or IV treatment; biologic-naive women were more likely than men to express a preference for the route of administration. In Survey II, 1,598 patients from the BioAdvance program (including 306 rheumatology patients) completed the full survey. Among the rheumatology patients, the median age was 49 years, 58% were female, and 61% had not previously taken biologics before enrolling in the BioAdvance program. The median rating of IV favorability (on a 10-point scale, with higher numbers indicating increased favorability) recalled by rheumatology patients was 5 prior to their first program infusion, which increased to 9 after multiple treatment infusions.

CONCLUSION

These survey results indicate that patients with rheumatoid arthritis are generally open to IV treatment and express high satisfaction with IV therapy. Additional patient and provider education may improve shared decision-making regarding biologic therapy administration options.

Patient Preferences for Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drug Treatment in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review

Objective.

To summarize patients’ preferences for disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods.

We conducted a systematic review to identify English-language studies of adult patients with RA that measured patients’ preferences for DMARD or health states and treatment outcomes relevant to DMARD decisions. Study quality was assessed using a published quality assessment tool. Data on the importance of treatment attributes and associations with patient characteristics were summarized across studies.

Results.

From 7951 abstracts, we included 36 studies from a variety of countries. Most studies were in patients with established RA and were rated as medium- (n = 19) or high-quality (n = 12). The methods to elicit preferences varied, with the most common being discrete choice experiment (DCE; n = 13). Despite the heterogeneity of attributes in DCE studies, treatment benefits (disease improvement) were usually more important than both non-serious (6 of 8 studies) and serious adverse events (5 of 8), and route of administration (7 of 9). Among the non-DCE studies, some found that patients placed high importance on treatment benefits, while others (in patients with established RA) found that patients were quite risk averse. Subcutaneous therapy was often but not always preferred over intravenous therapy. Patient preferences were variable and commonly associated with the sociodemographic characteristics.

Conclusion.

Overall, the results showed that many patients place a high value on treatment benefits over other treatment attributes, including serious or minor side effects, cost, or route of administration. The variability in patient preferences highlights the need to individualize treatment choices in RA.

Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future

OBJECTIVES

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly advocated as a way to quantify preferences for health. However, increasing support does not necessarily result in increasing quality. Although specific reviews have been conducted in certain contexts, there exists no recent description of the general state of the science of health-related DCEs. The aim of this paper was to update prior reviews (1990-2012), to identify all health-related DCEs and to provide a description of trends, current practice and future challenges.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify health-related empirical DCEs published between 2013 and 2017. The search strategy and data extraction replicated prior reviews to allow the reporting of trends, although additional extraction fields were incorporated.

RESULTS

Of the 7877 abstracts generated, 301 studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent data extraction. In general, the total number of DCEs per year continued to increase, with broader areas of application and increased geographic scope. Studies reported using more sophisticated designs (e.g. D-efficient) with associated software (e.g. Ngene). The trend towards using more sophisticated econometric models also continued. However, many studies presented sophisticated methods with insufficient detail. Qualitative research methods continued to be a popular approach for identifying attributes and levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of empirical DCEs in health economics continues to grow. However, inadequate reporting of methodological details inhibits quality assessment. This may reduce decision-makers' confidence in results and their ability to act on the findings. How and when to integrate health-related DCE outcomes into decision-making remains an important area for future research.

Preferences of patients with rheumatoid arthritis regarding disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Although patients have different treatment preferences, these individual preferences could often be grouped in subgroups with shared preferences. Knowledge of these subgroups as well as factors associated with subgroup membership supports health care professionals in the understanding of what matters to patients in clinical decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

To identify subgroups of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) based on their shared preferences toward disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and to identify factors associated with subgroup membership.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment to determine DMARD preferences of adult patients with RA was designed based on a literature review, expert recommendations, and focus groups. In this multicenter study, patients were asked to state their preferred choice between two different hypothetical treatment options, described by seven DMARD characteristics with three levels within each characteristic. Latent class analyses and multinomial logistic regressions were used to identify subgroups and the characteristics (patient characteristics, disease-related variables, and beliefs about medicines) associated with subgroup membership.

RESULTS

Among 325 participating patients with RA, three subgroups were identified: an administration-driven subgroup (45.6%), a benefit-driven subgroup (29.7%), and a balanced subgroup (24.7%). Patients who were currently using biologic DMARDs were significantly more likely to belong to the balanced subgroup than the administration-driven subgroup (relative risk ratio (RRR): 0.50, 95% CI: 0.28-0.89). Highly educated patients were significantly more likely to belong to the benefit-driven subgroup than the balanced subgroup (RRR: 11.4, 95% CI: 0.97-133.6). Patients' medication-related concerns did not contribute significantly to subgroup membership, whereas a near-significant association was found between patients' beliefs about medication necessity and their membership of the benefit-driven subgroup (RRR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.00-1.23).

CONCLUSION

Three subgroups with shared preferences were identified. Only biologic DMARD use and educational level were associated with subgroup membership. Integrating patient's medication preferences in pharmacotherapy decisions may improve the quality of decisions and possibly medication adherence.

Patient and physician preferences for attributes of biologic medications for severe asthma

OBJECTIVE

Despite the increased availability of biologic treatments indicated for severe asthma, patient and physician preferences for these medications remains largely unknown. The purpose of this study was to understand perceptions of biologic therapies, barriers to care with biologic medications, and preferences for biologic therapy attributes.

METHODS

This mixed-methods study involved quantitative surveys and qualitative telephone interviews with patients and physicians from the United States. Participants described preferences for relevant attributes, and barriers to use of biologic medications. Participants rated, ranked, and indicated importance of preferences for different levels of key attributes including: mode of administration, administration setting, dosing frequency, number of injections, and time to onset of effect. Other attributes unique to each group were also included.

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients and 25 physicians participated. Patients ranked out-of-pocket costs, mode of administration, time to onset of efficacy, and administration setting as the most important attributes. Physicians ranked mode of administration, time to onset of efficacy, dosing frequency, and insurance reimbursement/access as most important. Both groups expressed preferences for less frequent administrations (Q8W over Q4W or Q2W) (all P<0.01) and subcutaneous (SC) over intravenous injection (both P<0.0001). Key patient barriers to biologic medications include location of treatment, administration time, scheduling, cost/insurance coverage, number of injections, and mode of administration. Physicians identified patient candidacy, convincing patients, administration setting, mode of administration, cost, and administrative burden as key barriers to initiating therapy; and efficacy, speed of onset, convenience of administration, cost, and patient compliance as barriers to staying on therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and physicians expressed strong preferences for less frequent dosing, SC administration, and faster onset. Cost/insurance coverage and convenience issues were key barriers to use. Increased awareness and understanding of preferences and barriers may be useful in facilitating physician-patient conversations with the goal of individualizing treatment.

Satisfaction with Subcutaneous Golimumab and its Auto-Injector among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients with Inadequate Response to Adalimumab or Etanercept

Background

Patient perceptions of treatment success, including satisfaction/preference, may complement clinical efficacy assessments.

Objective

Our objective was to evaluate satisfaction with subcutaneous golimumab and its auto-injector in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate adalimumab/etanercept response.

Methods

In the multicenter, assessor-blinded GO-SAVE study, 433 patients with active RA (28-joint Disease Activity Score incorporating erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR] ≥ 3.6 and six or more swollen and six or more tender joints) despite methotrexate and past adalimumab/etanercept treatment received open-label subcutaneous golimumab 50 mg every 4 weeks (q4w) through week 12. Week 16 responders (DAS28-ESR improvement from baseline > 1.2 and score ≤ 3.2) continued therapy through week 52; nonresponders were randomized (1:2) to double-blind subcutaneous golimumab 50 mg q4w or intravenous golimumab 2 mg/kg [weeks 16, 20, every 8 weeks (q8w)]. Patients rated satisfaction with their injection experience on a 5-point scale (1 = very dissatisfied; 5 = very satisfied) at screening, week 8 (all enrolled patients), and week 44 (for patients continuing open-label subcutaneous golimumab 50 mg q4w). Discomfort, pain, stinging, burning, and redness related to injection were assessed (none, mild, moderate, severe).

Results

Similar proportions of patients (N = 433) had most recently received adalimumab (50.3%) or etanercept (49.7%) prior to golimumab. Overall satisfaction (somewhat/very) with the golimumab injection experience was reported by 84.4% of patients at week 8 versus 63.4% of patients who were satisfied with prior adalimumab/etanercept. Patients receiving open-label subcutaneous golimumab through week 44 (N = 75) reported much less discomfort (60.9%), redness (60.9%), pain (59.4%), stinging (67.2%), and burning (65.6%) with the golimumab injection than with their previous tumor necrosis factor antagonist medication injection.

Conclusion

Most patients with RA receiving golimumab following adalimumab/etanercept inadequate response were satisfied with their overall golimumab experience, including its auto-injector versus their previous injection device.

Clinical trials.gov

NCT01004432; EudraCT 2009-010582-23.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40271-018-0297-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis in the Eastern Mediterranean region: an adolopment of the 2015 American College of Rheumatology guidelines

Clinical practice guidelines can assist rheumatologists in the proper prescription of newer treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The objective of this paper is to report on the recommendations for the management of patients with RA in the Eastern Mediterranean region. We adapted the 2015 American College of Rheumatology guidelines in two separate waves. We used the adolopment methodology, and followed the 18 steps of the "Guidelines 2.0" comprehensive checklist for guideline development. For each question, we updated the original guidelines' evidence synthesis, and we developed an Evidence Profile (EP) and an Evidence to Decision (EtD) table. In the first wave, we adoloped eight out of the 15 original questions on early RA. The strength changed for five of these recommendations from strong to conditional, due to one or more of the following factors: cost, impact on health equities, the balance of benefits, and harms and acceptability. In the second wave, we adoloped eight out of the original 44 questions on established RA. The strength changed for two of these recommendations from strong to conditional, in both cases due to cost, impact on health equities, balance of benefits and harms, and acceptability. The panel also developed a good practice recommendation. We successfully adoloped 16 recommendations for the management of early and established RA in the Eastern Mediterranean region. The process proved feasible and sensitive to contextual factors.

Perspectives of patients, first-degree relatives and rheumatologists on preventive treatments for rheumatoid arthritis: a qualitative analysis

Background

There is growing evidence that it may be possible to identify people at high risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Assuming that effective interventions were available, this could mean that treatments introduced in the pre-symptomatic phase could prevent or delay the onset of the disease. Our study aimed to identify the potential attributes involved in decision-making around whether or not to take preventive treatment for RA, in order to inform the development of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to ascertain consumer preferences for a preventive treatment program for RA.

Methods

We conducted a focus group study to develop conceptual attributes, refine their meaning, and develop levels. Participants included RA patients, first-degree relatives of RA patients, and rheumatologists who were 18 years of age and over, could read and speak English, and could provide informed consent. Candidate attributes were refined through iterative rounds of data collection and analysis. All focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed, and then analyzed using the Framework Method to identify, compare, and contrast key conceptual attributes.

Results

Attributes identified from analysis included: accuracy of the test, certainty in estimates, method of administration, risk of RA and risk of reduction with treatment, risk and seriousness of side effects, person recommending the test, and opinion of the health care professional. Patients with RA, first-degree relatives of patients, and rheumatologists all valued the accuracy of testing due to concerns about false positives, and valued certainty in estimates of the test and preventive treatment. Patients and first-degree relatives desired this evidence from a range of sources, including discussions with people with the disease and health care professionals, and their preferences were modified by the strength of recommendation from their health care professional.

Conclusions

The role of the person who recommends a test and the opinion of a health care professional are novel potential attributes involved in decisions around whether or not to take preventive treatment for RA, that have not been included in previous DCEs.

Patient preferences for nutritional supplementation to improve fracture healing: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVE

Vitamin D is often prescribed as an adjuvant therapy to aid fracture healing due to its biological role in bone health. However, the optimal frequency, dosage and duration of vitamin D supplementation for non-osteoporotic fracture healing has not been established. The objective of this study was to determine patient preferences for fracture healing relative to hypothetical vitamin D supplementation dosing options.

DESIGN

Discrete choice experiment.

SETTING

Level 1 trauma centre in Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

199 adult (18-60 years) patients with a fracture.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Parameter estimates of utility for fracture healing relative to dosing regimens were analysed using hierarchical Bayesian modelling.

RESULTS

A reduced risk of reoperation (34.3%) and reduced healing time (24.4%) were the attributes of greatest relative importance. The highest mean utility estimates were for a one-time supplementation dose (ß=0.71, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.00) followed by a reduced risk of reoperation (ß=0.41 per absolute % reduction, 95% CI 0.0.36 to 0.46). Supplementation for 24 weeks in duration (ß=-0.83, 95% CI -1.00 to -0.67) and a daily supplement (ß=-0.29, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.11) had the lowest mean utilities. The 'no supplement' option had a large negative value suggesting supplementation was generally desirable in this sample population. Among other possible clinical scenarios, patients expected a 2% reduction in the absolute risk of reoperation or a 3.1-week reduction in healing time from the baseline to accept a treatment regimen requiring two separate doses of supplementation, two blood tests and a cost of $20 within 3 months of injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with orthopaedic trauma demonstrated strong willingness to take a vitamin D supplement that would decrease risk of reoperation and reduce healing time. Furthermore, these findings specify the required decrease in reoperation risk and reduction in healing time patients would expect to adhere to possible vitamin D dosing regimens.

A discrete choice experiment on preferences of patients with rheumatoid arthritis regarding disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: the identification, refinement, and selection of attributes and levels

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively describe the identification, refinement, and selection of attributes and levels for a discrete choice experiment (DCE) on preferences of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) regarding disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

METHODS

A mixed-methods approach, consisting of three consecutive steps: a literature review, expert recommendations, and focus groups. Attributes and levels were identified by a scoping review and compiled into a list that was evaluated on its relevance by an expert panel. The list that resulted thereafter was used to inform three focus groups, including 23 patients with RA. New attributes and levels could be identified during the focus groups. Also, a ranking exercise was performed. The patients individually ranked the attributes (ie, the ones on the list and newly identified attributes) by relevance. The patients' individual rankings were summed to derive a ranking at group level and make an a priori selection of the most relevant attributes. The group discussions were transcribed for qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Nineteen attributes, each specified by two to seven levels, were identified by the scoping review. The expert recommendations resulted in the removal of one attribute. Furthermore, two new attributes and levels were identified and two attributes were split into two. One new attribute was identified during the focus groups. The results of the ranking exercise and qualitative analysis led to the refinement and selection of the following attributes: route of administration, frequency of administration, chance of efficacy, onset of action, risk of serious infections, risk of liver injury, and risk of cancer. Each attribute was specified by three levels.

CONCLUSION

This study contributes to the limited literature on the development of attributes and levels. Future research should pay more attention to a comprehensive description of this process. It ensures transparency and thereby allows researchers to judge a DCE's quality and generalizability.

Valuing Meta-Health Effects for Use in Economic Evaluations to Inform Reimbursement Decisions: A Review of the Evidence

OBJECTIVE

This review explores the evidence from the literature regarding how meta-health effects (effects other than health resulting from the consumption of health care) are valued for use in economic evaluations.

METHODS

A systematic review of the published literature (the EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EconLit and SocINDEX databases were searched for publications in March 2016, plus manual searching) investigated the associations between study methods and the resulting values for meta-health effects estimated for use in economic evaluations. The review considered which meta-health effects were being valued and how this differed by evaluation approach, intervention investigated, source of funds and year of publication. Detailed reasons for differences observed between values for comparable meta-health effects were explored, accounting for the method of valuation.

RESULTS

The search of the literature revealed 71 studies of interest; 35% involved drug interventions, with convenience, information and process of care the three meta-health effects most often investigated. Key associations with the meta-health effects were the evaluation method, the intervention, and the source of funds. Relative values for meta-health effects ranged from 0.9% to 68% of the overall value reported in a study. For a given meta-health effect, the magnitude of the effect evaluated and how the meta-health effect was described and framed relative to overall health explained the differences in relative values.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from the literature shows variability in how meta-health effects are being measured for use in economic evaluations. Understanding the sources of that variability is important if decision makers are to have confidence in how meta-health effects are valued.

Comparative effectiveness of treatment options after conventional DMARDs failure in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical effectiveness of two treatment strategies for active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) refractory to conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs): starting TNF inhibitors (TNFIs) or changing csDMARDs.

METHODS

We used two nationwide Korean RA registries for patient selection. TNFI users were selected from the BIOPSY, which is an inception cohort of RA patients starting biologic DMARDs. As a control group, we selected RA patients with moderate or high disease activity from the KORONA database whose treatment was changed to other csDMARDs. After comparing baseline characteristics between the two groups in either unmatched or propensity score matched cohorts, we compared potential differences in the 1-year remission rate as a primary outcome and changes in HAQ-DI and EQ-5D scores as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 356 TNFI starters and 586 csDMARD changers were identified from each registry as unmatched cohorts, and 294 patients were included in the propensity score matched cohort. In the intention-to-treat analysis, TNFI starters had higher 1-year remission rates than csDMARD changers in both unmatched (19.1 vs. 18.4%, p < 0.01) and matched cohorts (19.7 vs. 15.0%, p < 0.01). In per protocol analysis, TNFI starters had much higher remission rates in unmatched (37.2 vs. 28.0%, p = 0.04) and matched cohorts (35.4 vs. 19.1%, p = 0.04). However, in matched cohorts, no significant differences were observed between two groups in HAQ-DI and EQ-5D scores.

CONCLUSIONS

We compared the clinical effectiveness of the two treatment strategies for active RA refractory to csDMARDs. TNFI starters showed higher 1-year remission rates than csDMARD changers.

Medication adherence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: why do patients not take what we prescribe?

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune inflammatory disease which results in extensive articular and extra-articular morbidity and increased mortality from cardiovascular disease. Despite an increasing range of non-biological and biological disease-modifying agents, poor patient adherence with medication is a significant barrier to effective control of the inflammation associated with RA. This review seeks to identify factors that affect patient adherence with medication, examine the effectiveness of interventions to address this issue and offer practical suggestions to improve medication adherence. The impact of health literacy on medication adherence and the novel role of musculoskeletal ultrasound as an educational intervention will also be discussed.

How important is mode of administration in treatments for rheumatic diseases and related conditions?

Many new drugs do not offer clinical benefits over existing treatments but provide potentially more convenient modes of administration. These include how frequently a treatment is given, how it is delivered, who gives the treatment, and whether there are any associated local adverse reactions. We reviewed studies in rheumatology that ask patients and society the value they assign to these aspects of treatment in comparison to the benefits and side effects and costs. We find that mode of administration is generally valued by both patients and society, but the extent depends on the context of the disease and the study participants. Respondents with a more severe disease seem to assign less value to mode and frequency of administration, and prioritize improvement in pain and function. However, patients with chronic, but less severe, disease seem to place greater value on mode of administration. Furthermore, respondents with experience of the treatments perceived to be more inconvenient assigned lower value to more convenient treatments. Unfortunately, we found few examples of studies that reported values in a format that could easily be incorporated into resource allocation decisions by payers.

Examining patient preferences in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis using a discrete-choice approach

BACKGROUND

Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) used in second-line treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are administered parenterally. However, so-called targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) - developed more recently - offer alternative (ie, oral) administration forms in second-line treatment. Since bDMARDs and tsDMARDs can be regarded as equal in terms of efficacy, the present study examines whether such characteristics as route of administration drive RA patients' treatment choice. This may ultimately suggest superiority of some second-line DMARDs over equally effective options, at least according to RA-patient preferences.

OBJECTIVE

The current study assessed the importance of oral administration among other treatment characteristics differing between available second-line DMARDs for RA patients' preferences using a discrete-choice experiment (DCE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The DCE involved scenarios of three hypothetical treatment options in a d-efficient design with varying levels of key attributes (route and frequency of administration, time till onset of drug effect, combination therapy, possible side effects), as defined by focus groups. Further patient characteristics were recorded by an accompanying questionnaire. In the DCE, patients were asked to choose best and worst options (best-worst scaling). Results were analyzed by count analysis and adjusted regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1,588 subjects completed the DCE and were eligible for final analyses. Across all characteristics included in the DCE, "oral administration" was most desired and "intravenous infusion" was most strongly rejected. This was followed by "no combination with methotrexate" being strongly preferred and "intake every 1-2 weeks" being strongly rejected. On average, levels of route of administration showed strongest influences on patients' decisions in post hoc bootstrapping analysis.

CONCLUSION

According to the results, an oral DMARD that does not have to be combined with methotrexate and is not administered (only) every 1-2 weeks appears a highly favorable treatment option for patients with RA. DMARDs meeting these preferences may increase compliance and adherence in RA treatment.

Societal preferences for rheumatoid arthritis treatments: evidence from a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVE

There is a concern that cost-effectiveness analysis using quality-adjusted life years does not capture all valuable benefits of treatments. The objective of this study was to determine the value society places on aspects of RA treatment to inform policymaking.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment was administered to a representative sample of the Canadian general population. The discrete choice experiment, developed using focus groups, had seven attributes (route and frequency of administration, chance of benefit, chance of serious and minor side effects, confidence in evidence and life expectancy). A conditional logit regression model was used to estimate the significance and relative importance of attributes in influencing preferences on the quality-adjusted life years scale.

RESULTS

Responses from 733 respondents who provided rational responses were analysed. Six attribute levels within four attributes significantly influenced preferences for treatments: a willingness to trade a year of life expectancy over a 10-year period to increase the probability of benefiting from treatment, or two-thirds of a year to reduce minor or serious side effects to the lowest level or improve the confidence in benefit/side-effect estimates. There was also some evidence of a preference for oral drug delivery, though a subgroup analysis suggested this preference was restricted to injection-naive respondents.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest society values the degree of confidence in the estimates of risks and benefits of RA treatments and the route of administration, as well as benefits and side effects. This study provides important evidence to policymakers determining the cost-effectiveness of treatments in arthritis.

Understanding patient preferences and willingness to pay for hemophilia therapies

BACKGROUND

Despite clearly improved clinical outcomes for prophylaxis compared to on-demand therapy, on average only 56% of patients diagnosed with severe hemophilia receive prophylactic factor replacement therapy in the US. Prophylaxis rates generally drop as patients transition from childhood to adulthood, partly due to patients becoming less adherent when they reach adulthood. Assessment of patient preferences is important because these are likely to translate into increased treatment satisfaction and adherence. In this study, we assessed preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for on-demand, prophylaxis, and longer acting prophylaxis therapies in a sample of US hemophilia patients.

METHODS

Adult US hemophilia patients and caregivers (N=79) completed a discrete-choice survey that presented a series of trade-off questions, each including a pair of hypothetical treatment profiles. Using a mixed logit model for analysis, we compared the relative importance of five treatment characteristics: 1) out-of-pocket treatment costs (paid by patients), 2) factor dose adjustment, 3) treatment side effects, 4) availability of premixed factor, and 5) treatment effectiveness and dosing frequency. Based on these attribute estimates, we calculated patients' WTP.

RESULTS

Out-of-pocket treatment costs (P<0.001), side effects (P<0.001), and treatment effectiveness and dosing frequency (P<0.001) were found to be statistically significant in the model. Patients were willing to pay US $410 (95% confidence interval: $164-$656) out of pocket per month for thrice-weekly prophylaxis therapy compared to on-demand therapy and $360 (95% confidence interval: $145-$575) for a switch from thrice-weekly to once-weekly prophylaxis therapy.

CONCLUSION

Improvements in treatment effectiveness and dosing frequency, treatment side effects, and out-of-pocket costs per month were the greatest determinants of hemophilia treatment choice and WTP. The positive preferences and WTP for longer acting prophylactic therapies suggest that the uptake is likely to increase adherence, improving treatment outcomes. These preferences should also inform the Food and Drug Administration's assessment of new longer acting hemophilia therapies.