Preferences for treatments to prevent rheumatoid arthritis in Canada and the influence of shared decision-making

Stakeholder perceptions of preventive approaches to rheumatoid arthritis: qualitative study of healthcare professionals' perspectives on predictive and preventive strategies

BACKGROUND

There is increasing research interest in the development of preventive treatment for individuals at risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Previous studies have explored the perceptions of at-risk groups and patients about predictive and preventive strategies for RA, but little is known about health care professionals' (HCPs) perspectives.

METHODS

One-to-one semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted (face-to-face or by telephone) with HCPs. Audio recordings of the interviews were transcribed, and the data were analysed by thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Nineteen HCPs (11 female) were interviewed, including ten GPs, six rheumatologists and three rheumatology nurse specialists. The thematic analysis identified four organising themes: 1) Attributes of predictive and preventive approaches; 2) Ethical and psychological concerns; 3) Implementation issues and 4) Learning from management of other conditions. Theme 1 described necessary attributes of predictive and preventive approaches, including the type and performance of predictive tools, the need for a sound evidence base and consideration of risks and benefits associated with preventive treatment. Theme 2 described the ethical and psycho-social concerns that interviewees raised, including the potential negative economic, financial and psychological effects of risk disclosure for 'at-risk' individuals, uncertainty around the development of RA and the potential for benefit associated with the treatments being considered. Theme 3 describes the implementation issues considered, including knowledge and training needs, costs and resource implications of implementing predictive and preventive approaches, the role of different types of HCPs, guidelines and tools needed, and patient characteristics relating to the appropriateness of preventive treatments. Theme 4 describes lessons that could be learned from interviewees' experiences of prediction and prevention in other disease areas, including how preventive treatment is prescribed, existing guidelines and tools for other diseases and issues relating to risk communication.

CONCLUSIONS

For successful implementation of predictive and preventative approaches in RA, HCPs need appropriate training about use and interpretation of predictive tools, communication of results to at-risk individuals, and options for intervention. Evidence of cost-efficiency, appropriate resource allocation, adaptation of official guidelines and careful consideration of the at-risk individuals' psycho-social needs are also needed.

To treat or not to treat? Current attitudes on treatment aimed at modifying the disease burden in clinically suspect arthralgia: a survey among participants of the TREAT EARLIER trial and healthcare professionals

OBJECTIVES

While awaiting therapies accomplishing rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-prevention in individuals at-risk, recent evidence supports that a 1-year methotrexate treatment may lead to sustained reduction in disease burden and subclinical joint inflammation in patients with clinically suspect arthralgia (CSA). We aimed to study the previously unexplored attitudes of CSA patients and rheumatologists on 1-year DMARD treatment in the arthralgia phase to reduce the disease burden, while not preventing RA.

METHODS

CSA patients who participated in the TREAT EARLIER trial, thus being expert by experience, were informed on the trial results. Thereafter they completed an anonymous questionnaire about their attitudes on treatment in the CSA phase. We used the same approach for Dutch healthcare professionals in rheumatology.

RESULTS

The majority of trial participants (85%) considered the effects of the 1-year treatment as found in the TREAT EARLIER trial, beneficial in the symptomatic at-risk stage. 79% would recommend a 1-year methotrexate course to others with comparable joint complaints. Two-thirds indicated RA prevention and improving disease burden to be equally important treatment goals in the CSA phase. Most healthcare professionals (88%) were inclined to prescribe 1-year treatment to CSA patients aimed at long-term improvement of symptoms and functioning, while not preventing RA development. 59% believed the profits of a 1-year methotrexate course to outweigh disadvantages, for example, side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable willingness exists among CSA patients and rheumatologists to start a 1-year treatment resulting in long-term improvement of symptoms and functioning, while not preventing RA. This emphasises the need for more research optimising treatment regimens and disease monitoring in individuals at-risk to facilitate such treatment decisions in the future, while avoiding an intervention, either limited or for a prolonged period, which may have harms that outweigh benefits.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The Netherlands Trials Registry (NTR4853-trial-NL4599). EudraCT number: NL2014-004472-35.

Exploring perceptions of using preference elicitation methods to inform clinical trial design in rheumatology: A qualitative study and OMERACT collaboration

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial design requires value judgements and understanding patient preferences may help inform these judgements, for example when prioritizing treatment candidates, designing complex interventions, selecting appropriate outcomes, determining clinically important thresholds, or weighting composite outcomes. Preference elicitation methods are quantitative approaches that can estimate patients' preferences to quantify the absolute or relative importance of outcomes or other attributes relevant to the decision context. We aimed to explore stakeholder perceptions of using preference elicitation methods to inform judgements when designing clinical trials in rheumatology.

METHODS

We conducted 1-on-1 semi-structured interviews with patients with rheumatic diseases and rheumatology clinicians/researchers, recruited using purposive and snowball sampling. Participants were provided pre-interview materials, including a video and a document, to introduce the topic of preference elicitation methods and case examples of potential applications to clinical trials. Interviews were conducted via Zoom and were audio-recorded and transcribed. We used thematic analysis to analyze our data.

RESULTS

We interviewed 17 patients and 9 clinicians/researchers, until data and inductive thematic saturation were achieved within each group. Themes were grouped into overall perceptions, barriers, and facilitators. Patients and clinicians/researchers generally agreed that preference elicitation studies can improve clinical trial design, but that many considerations are required around preference heterogeneity and feasibility. A key barrier identified was the additional resources and expertise required to measure and incorporate preferences effectively in trial design. Key facilitators included developing guidance on how to use preference elicitation to inform trial design, as well as the role of external decision-makers in developing such guidance, and the need to leverage the movement towards patient engagement in research to encourage including patient preferences when designing trials.

CONCLUSION

Our findings allowed us to consider the potential applications of patient preferences in trial design according to stakeholders within rheumatology who are involved in the trial process. Future research should be conducted to develop comprehensive guidance on how to meaningfully include patient preferences when designing clinical trials in rheumatology. Doing so may have important downstream effects for shared decision-making, especially given the chronic nature of rheumatic diseases.

Preferences for preventive treatments for rheumatoid arthritis: discrete choice survey in the UK, Germany and Romania

OBJECTIVE

To quantify preferences for preventive therapies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) across three countries.

METHODS

A web-based survey including a discrete choice experiment was administered to adults recruited via survey panels in the UK, Germany and Romania. Participants were asked to assume they were experiencing arthralgia and had a 60% chance of developing RA in the next 2 years and completed 15 choices between no treatment and two hypothetical preventive treatments. Treatments were defined by six attributes (effectiveness, risks and frequency/route of administration) with varying levels. Participants also completed a choice task with fixed profiles reflecting subjective estimates of candidate preventive treatments. Latent class models (LCMs) were conducted and the relative importance of attributes, benefit-risk trade-offs and predicted treatment uptake was subsequently calculated.

RESULTS

Completed surveys from 2959 participants were included in the analysis. Most participants preferred treatment over no treatment and valued treatment effectiveness to reduce risk more than other attributes. A five-class LCM best fitted the data. Country, perceived risk of RA, health literacy and numeracy predicted class membership probability. Overall, the maximum acceptable risk for a 40% reduction in the chance of getting RA (60% to 20%) was 21.7%, 19.1% and 2.2% for mild side effects, serious infection and serious side effects, respectively. Predicted uptake of profiles reflecting candidate prevention therapies differed across classes.

CONCLUSION

Effective preventive pharmacological treatments for RA were acceptable to most participants. The relative importance of treatment attributes and likely uptake of fixed treatment profiles were predicted by participant characteristics.

Prevention of rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic literature review of preventive strategies in at-risk individuals

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease characterized by symmetrical peripheral polyarthritis in the hands and/or feet, leading to long-term disability if not treated effectively. RA is preceded by a preclinical phase, in which genetically predisposed individuals accumulate environmental risk factors, and during which autoimmunity develops, followed by the emergence of non-specific signs and symptoms before arthritis becomes manifest. Early treatment in at-risk individuals - i.e. before the disease is fully established - has the theoretical potential to delay or prevent disease onset, with a positive impact on both patients' life and society.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to understand the feasibility of preventive treatment in at-risk individuals, taking into account recently performed studies and ongoing clinical trials, as well as patient perspectives.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review (SLR) on Medline and Embase, searching articles published between 2010 and 2021 with the following key-words: "Rheumatoid arthritis", "arthralgia", "pre-treatment" or "prevent".

RESULTS

Our SLR identified a total of 1821 articles. Articles were independently screened by two researchers. A total of 14 articles were included after screening, and an additional 8 reports were manually included. We identified ten relevant clinical trials performed in at-risk individuals, or in individuals with undifferentiated inflammatory arthritis. Although no treatment was shown to prevent RA onset, early treatment with rituximab and abatacept delayed onset of full-blown RA, and both conventional and biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) decreased disease-related physical limitations and increased DAS28-defined remission, at least temporarily.

CONCLUSIONS

This SLR demonstrates that early treatment of at-risk individuals may be effective in delaying RA onset, thereby decreasing disease-related limitations in individuals in the pre-clinical phase of RA. Whether this may ultimately lead to prevention of RA remains to be determined.

Acceptable risks of treatments to prevent rheumatoid arthritis among first-degree relatives: demographic and psychological predictors of risk tolerance

OBJECTIVES

To quantify tolerance to risks of preventive treatments among first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Preventive treatments for RA are under investigation. In a preference survey, adult FDRs assumed a 60% chance of developing RA within 2 years and made choices between no treatment and hypothetical preventive treatment options with a fixed level of benefit (reduction in chance of developing RA from 60% to 20%) and varying levels of risks. Using a probabilistic threshold technique, each risk was increased or decreased until participants switched their choice. Perceived risk of RA, health literacy, numeracy, Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire and Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire-General were also assessed. Maximum acceptable risk (MAR) was summarised using descriptive statistics. Associations between MARs and participants' characteristics were assessed using interval regression with effects coding.

RESULTS

289 FDRs (80 male) responded. The mean MAR for a 40% reduction in chance of developing RA was 29.08% risk of mild side effects, 9.09% risk of serious infection and 0.85% risk of a serious side effect. Participants aged over 60 years were less tolerant of serious infection risk (mean MAR ±2.06%) than younger participants. Risk of mild side effects was less acceptable to participants who perceived higher likelihood of developing RA (mean MAR ±3.34%) and more acceptable to those believing that if they developed RA it would last for a long time (mean MAR ±4.44%).

CONCLUSIONS

Age, perceived chance of developing RA and perceived duration of RA were associated with tolerance to some risks of preventive RA therapy.

Preferences and Insights for Participation in a Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Prevention Trial: A Mixed‐Methods Study

Objective

In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), anti–citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) can be elevated prior to inflammatory arthritis (IA). The potential to intervene in people with ACPA positivity underpins the development of prevention trials in RA. The Research Participation Influences Study examined factors influencing the decisions of individuals who are ACPA(+) to participate in a prevention trial using qualitative and quantitative methods.

Methods

Individuals with ACPA positivity without IA were provided information regarding their risk for future RA, were provided a description of a clinical prevention trial using hydroxychloroquine, and were asked if they would participate in the trial. After agreeing to or declining participation, they were surveyed on what influenced their decision using Likert scales and open‐response questions.

Results

Thirty‐nine individuals who agreed to trial participation (enrollees) and 31 individuals who declined (nonenrollees) completed surveys. Enrollees expressed greater perceived risk for RA and greater perception of benefit to themselves or others than nonenrollees. Nonenrollees expressed greater concern about medication effects and less personal or family experience with RA than enrollees. There was a higher proportion of first‐degree relatives (FDRs) of people with RA in enrollees versus nonenrollees (54% vs. 23%, P = 0.01).

Conclusion

Enrollees were more likely than nonenrollees to be FDRs, exhibit stronger concern for personal risk for RA, and have less concern about adverse effects. Further exploration is needed to determine why these differences were present, including exploration of symptoms and the role of family history. Understanding these issues will better inform researchers and individuals who are candidates for prevention.

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.

Perspectives of at-Risk Individuals on Preventive Intervention for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Mini Review

There has been intense research focus on the biological mechanisms underlying the transition from health to disease for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) over recent years, and it is now well established that a state of autoimmunity precedes the development of symptoms for a large proportion of patients. This has led to an increased interest in the identification of at-risk groups and the potential for preventive intervention. The ability of several immunomodulatory agents to delay or prevent RA is under investigation and novel cellular therapies are in development. Preventive approaches are also being assessed in other chronic autoimmune diseases. For example, an anti-CD3 antibody has recently been shown to delay progression to type 1 diabetes in non-diabetic relatives of patients identified as being at high risk. The identification and treatment of individuals as being at risk of a disease where there is a degree of uncertainty around the potential for benefit is socially and ethically challenging. Recently reported difficulties in recruitment to RA prevention trials have underlined the importance of understanding the perspectives of at-risk individuals to identify barriers and facilitators that need to be addressed in order for preventive strategies to be acceptable. Understanding of their preferences for benefits and risks of preventive interventions can inform efficient intervention prioritization, prevention trial design and the development of informational resources for those at risk. In this review we summarize current knowledge of preferences for RA prevention and make recommendations for further research needed to ensure efficient development of preventive therapies and clinical implementation.

Rheumatoid arthritis is a preventable disease: 11 ways to reduce your patients' risk

New evidence shows that up to 40% of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) cases are attributable to exposure to potentially modifiable factors. We can now identify people at higher risk of RA (pre-RA) through their family history, risk factors, autoantibodies and symptoms. Counselling these patients to act to modify factors known to be associated with RA risk could prevent the development of RA, and evidence shows that informing individuals of their risk and of ways to reduce it leads to positive behavioural change and is not harmful. This consumer-focused narrative review is targeted at primary care providers and physicians to describe 11 changes that can be made, based on current evidence linking potentially modifiable factors to RA risk. These evidence-based recommendations are: Cease smoking Reduce exposure to inhaled silica, dusts and occupational risks Maintain a healthy weight Increase leisure time physical activity Maintain good dental hygiene Maximise breastfeeding if able Maximise dietary quality, and avoid high salt diets Consume high levels of Omega-3 fatty acids and fish Reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened soft drinks Consume moderate levels of alcohol Remain Vitamin D replete This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Patients' Perceptions of Person-Centered Care in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Qualitative Study

Objective

Most research on patient experiences of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) care is performed with patients who have established RA and less often with patients with early RA. Experiences of and expectations about health care may change over time, which is why the aim was to explore patients’ perceptions of person‐centered care (PCC) early in the RA disease course.

Methods

Thirty‐one patients with early RA were interviewed in this qualitative study. An abductive qualitative content analysis was conducted based on the framework of McCormack and McCance (1,2). The four constructs, prerequisites, care environment, person‐centered processes, and person‐centered outcomes, constituted the four categories in the deductive part of the study. An inductive analysis generated 11 subcategories exploring the content of PCC.

Results

For patients with early RA, PCC was described in terms of 1) prerequisites including being treated with respect, meeting dedicated health care professionals, and meeting professional competence; 2) care environment including having access to a multidisciplinary team, having access to health care, and encountering a supportive organization; 3) person‐centered processes including being listened to, being supported, and being involved in decision‐making; and 4) person‐centered outcomes including being satisfied with received health care and achieving optimal health.

Conclusion

Genuine PCC is important for patients early in the RA disease course, supporting the implementation of a person‐centered approach during all stages in the health care system. This study contributes to information about how to further develop person‐centeredness in rheumatology care.

Treatment preferences for preventive interventions for rheumatoid arthritis: protocol of a mixed methods case study for the Innovative Medicines Initiative PREFER project

INTRODUCTION

Amidst growing consensus that stakeholder decision-making during drug development should be informed by an understanding of patient preferences, the Innovative Medicines Initiative project 'Patient Preferences in Benefit-Risk Assessments during the Drug Life Cycle' (PREFER) is developing evidence-based recommendations about how and when patient preferences should be integrated into the drug life cycle. This protocol describes a PREFER clinical case study which compares two preference elicitation methodologies across several populations and provides information about benefit-risk trade-offs by those at risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for preventive interventions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This mixed methods study will be conducted in three countries (UK, Germany, Romania) to assess preferences of (1) first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with RA and (2) members of the public. Focus groups using nominal group techniques (UK) and ranking surveys (Germany and Romania) will identify and rank key treatment attributes. Focus group transcripts will be analysed thematically using the framework method and average rank orders calculated. These results will inform the treatment attributes to be assessed in a survey including a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a probabilistic threshold technique (PTT). The survey will also include measures of sociodemographic variables, health literacy, numeracy, illness perceptions and beliefs about medicines. The survey will be administered to (1) 400 FDRs of patients with RA (UK); (2) 100 FDRs of patients with RA (Germany); and (3) 1000 members of the public in each of UK, Germany and Romania. Logit-based approaches will be used to analyse the DCE and imputation and interval regression for the PTT.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the London-Hampstead Research Ethics Committee (19/LO/0407) and the Ethics Committee of the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (92_17 B). The protocol has been approved by the PREFER expert review board. The results will be disseminated widely and will inform the PREFER recommendations.

Designing Discrete Choice Experiments Using a Patient-Oriented Approach

Patient-oriented research is a process whereby patients or caregivers are included as research partners so that research focusses on topics that are priorities and lead to findings that translate into practice. Using a case study of preferences for stem cell transplant in scleroderma, we report on a patient-oriented research approach to developing a discrete choice experiment. Our patient-oriented research application followed the four guiding principles in Canada's Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research: inclusiveness, support, mutual respect and co-build. In this case study, patient partners were involved at different levels of engagement to match individual availability, skillset and roles in the team. They advised, to different degrees, on all aspects of the study from design to analyses. Using a patient-oriented research approach led to the inclusion of attributes that would likely have been excluded (e.g. support from a multidisciplinary team), and realistic framing of patient-relevant and sometimes sensitive attributes (e.g. mortality and cost). Meeting locations and times were adjusted to accommodate all-team circumstances. Institutional constraints on the reimbursement for patient partners influenced the timing and extent of involvement. We found that adopting a patient-oriented research approach to discrete choice experiment design injected unique knowledge and expertise into the team, improved the representativeness of the sample recruited, minimised researcher biases, and ensured appropriate attribute selection and descriptions. The patient-oriented research approach highlighted some constraints of discrete choice experiment designs and, while not a solution, might ensure the methodological trade-offs remain patient relevant. Institutional challenges must be addressed to progress patient-oriented health economics research.

Patient-provider communication about medication cost in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the perceived importance and frequency with which out-of-pocket medication costs are discussed between rheumatologists and patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Canada.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was distributed to patients with RA and rheumatologists; both were asked to rate their perceived importance of discussing medication costs, and how often these discussions occurred. Predictors of (1) patients discussing costs with their rheumatologist and (2) the perceived importance of discussing medication cost for patients were explored.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight patients and 64 rheumatologists completed the survey; 68% patients and 75% of physicians rated the perceived importance of discussing medication costs as "quite" or "very important"; 22% of patients reported never talking about medication cost, but no physicians reported never discussing costs with patients. The only predictor of talking about cost among patients (at 10% level) was whether they perceived it as highly important (p = 0.058). Higher perceived importance of discussing out-of-pocket costs was associated with a more positive attitude to shared decision-making (p = 0.044).

CONCLUSION

Discussions about cost do not always happen, even with diseases with potentially high medication costs like RA. Cost was more likely to be discussed by patients who perceived it as "very important," suggesting the onus might be on patients to initiate these conversations. Without any significant predictors regarding what may make physicians more likely to think it was important to discuss medication costs, there is a need to reinforce recommendations that all physicians seek to discuss costs with all of their patients when suggesting medications. Key Points • There is a need for patients and physicians to discuss costs in the treatment decision-making process. Our findings suggest this does not always happen. • Among patients, medication cost was more likely to be discussed by those who perceived it as "very important" and higher perceived importance of discussing out-of-pocket costs was associated with a more positive attitude to shared decision-making. • Our results did not reveal any significant predictors regarding what may make physicians more likely to think it was important to discuss medication costs, suggesting that there is a need to reinforce recommendations that all physicians seek to discuss medication costs with all of their patients when suggesting medications.