Patients' preferences and economic considerations play an important role in treatment decisions: a discrete choice experiment among rheumatologists

Can Intra-articular Injection of Glucocorticoids Be an Alternative Intervention to Achieve Remission in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Exhibiting Low Disease Activity? A Single-Center Longitudinal Study

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

This study aimed at investigating whether a single intra-articular (IA) injection of triamcinolone acetonide (TA) could facilitate to achieve clinical remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) exhibiting low disease activity (LDA).

METHODS

This longitudinal study included 22 patients with RA exhibiting LDA involving wrist arthritis at our institution between April 2016 and March 2019. A single IA injection of 20 mg TA was administered into the symptomatic wrist joint. Efficacy was assessed by the primary end point of proportion of patients reaching clinical remission. Secondary end points included Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, adverse events, and ultrasonographic assessment of the injected wrist joints.

RESULTS

Remission rates were 40% and 50% at weeks 4 and 12, respectively, and were maintained at approximately 50% until week 24. The secondary outcomes of CDAI, SDAI, and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index were improved significantly at week 4, and the improvements in CDAI and SDAI continued up to week 24. Ultrasonography showed that synovial hypertrophy, power Doppler signals, and the combined score were significantly reduced at weeks 4, 12, and 24 compared with the baseline. No patient developed severe, irreversible adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately half of the patients with RA exhibiting LDA who received a single IA injection of TA into the wrist joints achieved clinical remission without serious adverse events in the midterm period, suggesting that IA injection of TA might be considered as an alternative intervention to achieve remission in patients with RA exhibiting LDA.

Patient and physician preferences for non-invasive diagnostic cardiovascular imaging technologies: a discrete choice experiment

Purpose

Diagnostic imaging techniques have to be selected for their accuracy, efficiency, cost-efficiency, and impact on outcome. But beyond that, the choice of non-invasive cardiovascular imaging tests for diagnosing coronary artery disease also has to respect patient safety and comfort. In this study, we investigated patient and physician preference in relation to the choice of cardiovascular imaging tests.

Results

A total of 211 subjects (148 cardiac patients and 63 physicians) were enrolled and completed a discrete choice experiment. Tests and modalities were deconstructed into 6 attributes (risks and side effects, diagnostic accuracy, patient out-of-pocket cost, type of procedure, type of scanner and test duration). A Sawtooth software choice-based conjoint analysis with hierarchical Bayes estimation was performed and showed the risks and side effects attribute was assigned the most relative importance (30%) when considering patients’ preference. Patients gave notably high value to tests with milder side effects, while preferring to avoid exposure to ionizing radiation and risks associated the use of pharmacological agents inducing direct coronary arteriolar vasodilation. Physicians allocated more importance to the patient out-of-pocket cost attribute (29%). Both patients and physicians valued tests’ risks and side effects, diagnostic accuracy, patient out-of-pocket cost as the three most important attributes, but in diverging order. A market simulation comparing current cardiovascular imaging tests revealed breathing maneuver-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance had the highest shares of preference in both patients (59.6%) and physicians (32.7%).

Conclusion

A patients’ preference for a particular cardiovascular imaging test was most determined by the risks and side effects, while physicians prioritized less costly tests for their patients. In shared decision-making with patients, physicians should therefore focus on a balanced discussion of risks and side effects associated with cardiovascular imaging tests. Both, patients and physicians would prefer a cardiovascular MR imaging test using a vasoactive breathing maneuver instead of currently used alternatives that require intravenous contrast agents, pharmacological stress, or radiation.

Drug Survival of Biologic Therapy in Elderly Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Compared With Nonelderly Patients: Results From the Korean College of Rheumatology Biologics Registry

OBJECTIVE

Although the proportion of elderly patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is increasing, the persistency of biologic therapy in elderly patients requires additional investigation. This study evaluated the drug survival of biologic therapy and associated factors in elderly compared with nonelderly patients.

METHODS

This longitudinal observational study included RA patients who were enrolled in the Korean College of Rheumatology Biologics Registry (NCT01965132, started from January 1, 2013) between 2013 and 2015. We compared the retention rate of biologic therapy between elderly (age ≥70 years) and nonelderly (age <70 years) patients, and investigated the causes and predictors of biologic withdrawal in both groups.

RESULTS

Of 682 patients, 122 were aged 70 years or older. The retention rate of biologic therapy at 24 months was 57.8% and 46.5% in nonelderly and elderly patients, respectively (p = 0.027). Biologic withdrawal due to adverse events and inefficacy within 24 months was not significantly different between the 2 groups, although adverse events were more common in elderly patients (20.6% vs 12.8%, p = 0.360). Drug withdrawal due to patient refusal was more common in elderly patients (9.8% vs 1.8%, p < 0.001). In elderly patients, biologic withdrawal was associated with current smoking and older age at disease onset, whereas the use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, nonuse of methotrexate, and combination of corticosteroid were important in nonelderly patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly RA patients are more likely to discontinue biologic agents within 24 months. To increase the retention rate of biologic therapy, rheumatologists should consider patient characteristics before and during biologic therapy.

Treatment patterns and sequencing in patients with rheumatic diseases: a retrospective claims data analysis

OBJECTIVES

Long-term real-world management of inflammatory rheumatic diseases remains unclear, especially with the advent of new treatment options. This study characterizes the number of advanced treatments used by patients with selected rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis [RA], psoriatic arthritis [PsA], ankylosing spondylitis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis) and provides a contemporary portrait of treatment patterns and therapeutic sequencing among patients with RA and PsA.

METHOD

Patients were selected from a large US claims database and classified into disease subsamples based on the latest rheumatic diagnosis recorded before/on the day of initiation of the first advanced treatment (index date). The total number of advanced treatments was assessed within the first 5 years following the index date. Treatment patterns and therapeutic sequencing were assessed over the first 2 years.

RESULTS

Approximately 20% of patients received ≥2 distinct advanced treatments during the first year following index date - the proportion increased to almost 50% among patients with 5 years of observation. Most patients (RA: 76.8%; PsA: 88.7%) initiated a tumor necrosis factor as the first advanced treatment. Over the first 2 years after the index date, 1/3 of RA and PsA patients switched to another advanced treatment. More than 50% initiated a second treatment with the same mechanism of action (MOA). A small proportion of patients received a biosimilar.

CONCLUSION

Despite advent of treatments with different MOA, cycling between treatments with the same MOA was common. Further studies with longer data follow-up would be needed to assess the impact of higher adoption of biosimilars on treatment patterns/sequencing.

Comparative Risk of Nonvertebral Fractures Among Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated With Biologic or Targeted Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the incidence rate of nonvertebral osteoporotic fractures (NVFs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating one of the nine biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs).

METHODS

We analyzed claims data from Optum (2008 to March 2019), Medicare, and MarketScan (2008-2017) to identify adults with RA who newly initiated b/tsDMARDs. Adalimumab was the most frequently used and was thus selected as a reference. The primary outcome was a composite of incident NVFs, including hip, humerus, pelvis, and wrist fractures, based on validated algorithms. We adjusted for greater than 70 potential confounders in each database through propensity score-based inverse probability treatment weighting. Follow-up time started the day after cohort entry until the first occurrence of one of the following: outcome, treatment discontinuation, switching, nursing home admission, death, disenrollment, or end of study period. For each drug comparison, weighted Cox proportional hazards models estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Secondary analyses were conducted in patients switching from a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor to a different b/tsDMARD.

RESULTS

A total of 134,693 b/tsDMARD initiators were identified across three databases. The adjusted HRs showed similar risk of composite NVFs in all b/tsDMARD exposures compared with adalimumab: abatacept, HR 1.03 (95% CI 0.82-1.30); certolizumab, HR 1.08 (95% CI 0.79-1.49); etanercept, HR 1.12 (95% CI 0.89-1.40); golimumab, HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.59-1.39); infliximab, HR 1.03 (95% CI 0.84-1.28); rituximab, HR 1.07 (95% CI 0.74-1.55); tocilizumab, HR 1.24 (95% CI 0.71-2.17); and tofacitinib, HR 1.07 (95% CI 0.69-1.64). Secondary analyses showed similar results.

CONCLUSION

This multidatabase cohort study found no differences in the risk of NVFs across individual b/tsDMARDs for RA, which provides reassurance to physicians prescribing b/tsDMARDs, especially to patients at high risk of developing NVFs.

Patient perspectives on biological treatments for inflammatory arthritis: A multi-center study in Korea

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the patient’s perception of the use of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and provide a basis for physicians to understand the patient’s perspective.

Patients and methods: Between December 2018 and June 2019, a total of 307 patients (162 males, 145 females; mean age: 48 years; range, 18 to 81 years) were included in this investigator-initiated, multi-center, observational, and cross-sectional study in six rheumatology centers. We asked patients using bDMARDs to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or ankylosing spondylitis (AS) to complete a questionnaire regarding major considerations and satisfaction with bDMARDs, preferred administration route, knowledge about bDMARDs, experiences of adverse events, non-adherence, and expectations of their healthcare provider. The satisfaction of physician and clinical information on the patient's disease and treatment were also collected.

Results: Of the patients, 139 had RA and 168 had AS. Median disease duration was six years in RA and five years in AS. A total of 80.1% of the patients and 77.1% of the physicians indicated being satisfied or very satisfied with the therapeutic effect of the current bDMARD. Most patients were open to intravenous or subcutaneous injection, with the most preferred route of administration being subcutaneous (41.3%), followed by intravenous (32.0%), and oral (26.7%). The patients considered therapeutic effect to be more important than cost or convenience while choosing a bDMARD (69.3%), and most were willing to be educated about therapeutic effects (46.1%). Only 35.2% of the patients reported well and/or very well knowledge about the therapeutic effects, side effects, and administration methods of their current bDMARD, and 86.6% cited their physician as the primary source of information about biological treatment.

Conclusion: Patients value therapeutic effect more than cost or convenience while selecting a bDMARD, and consider their physicians to be the primary information source. Therefore, it is important for physicians to provide appropriate education and encourage patients to cooperate actively with treatment.

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug prescription patterns in adult rheumatoid arthritis patients in routine clinical practice in Spain

OBJECTIVE

To describe disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) patterns in routine clinical practice in adult rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients and to ascertain the reasons for methotrexate (MTX) discontinuation.

METHODS

A cross-sectional observational study was conducted from March to October 2014 at the Rheumatology Units of seven hospitals in Spain. In a single visit, the treating rheumatologist completed an online case report form. This report contained sociodemographic and RA variables. This study was conducted in accordance with Good Clinical Practice and local and national research legislations.

RESULTS

A total of 301 patients (71% women) with a mean age of 56.7±14.0 years and disease duration of 3.6±1.5 years were examined. The patients had RA with moderate disease activity, at least one poor prognostic factor, and comorbidities. The mean time between RA diagnosis and prescription of the first conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) was 2.4±6.0 months. A total of 295 patients (98%) started the first csDMARD on monotherapy. MTX was the most-prescribed first-line drug (n=233, 79%). The mean treatment time of the first-line csDMARD was 27.0±19.4 months. Of these patients, 98% progressed to a second-line csDMARD; 118 patients were changed to another DMARD, mainly due to inefficacy (51, 37%), adverse events (AEs, 37, 27%), or intolerance (18, 13%). The use of MTX as second-line therapy reduced from 79% to 51%. At the time of the study, 200 patients (66%) received a csDMARD as monotherapy and 45 (15%) a combination of ≥2 csDMARDs. Fifty-five (18%) patients were being treated with a biological drug in monotherapy (16, 29%) or in a combination with a csDMARD (39, 71%), mainly MTX, 147 patients (57%) received steroids. Biological DMARD were prescribed as the second line for 42% of patients and 51% of patients received the third-line therapy or beyond. The rate of AEs that motivated a change in the csDMARD was 34%.

CONCLUSION

MTX was the most-used csDMARD as first and second-line therapy together with corticosteroids. The combination of two or more csDMARDs as first-line treatment was very infrequent. MTX toxicity and intolerance were higher and more significant than inefficacy but progressively decreased with use.

Physician Adherence to Treat-to-Target and Practice Guidelines in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Principles of treat-to-target (T2T) have been widely adopted in both multinational and regional guidelines for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Several questionnaire studies among physicians and real-world data have suggested that an evidence-practice gap exists in RA management. Investigating physician adherence to T2T, which requires a process measure, is difficult. Different practice patterns among physicians are observed, while adherence to protocolized treatment declines over time. Rheumatologist awareness, agreement, and claims of adherence to T2T guidelines are not always consistent with medical records. Comorbidities, a difficult disease course, communication barriers, and individual preferences may hinder an intensive, proactive treatment stance. Interpreting deviations from protocolized treatment/T2T guidelines requires sufficient clinical context, though higher adherence seems to improve clinical outcomes. Nonmedical constraints in routine care may consist of barriers in healthcare structure and socioeconomic factors. Therefore, strategies to improve the institution of T2T should be tailored to local healthcare. Educational interventions to improve T2T adherence among physicians may show a moderate, although beneficial effect. Meanwhile, a proportion of patients with inadequately controlled RA exists, while management decisions may not be in accordance with T2T. Physicians tend to be aware of current guidelines, but their institution in routine practice seems challenging, which warrants attention and further study.

Japanese patient preferences regarding intermediate to advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treatments

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate Japanese patient preferences regarding features of intermediate or advanced (Progressed) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatments: transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC), and oral anti-cancer therapy. Methods: Patients with HCC, recruited from clinical sites and a patient panel in Japan, completed a cross-sectional web-based survey. Preferences were quantified using best-worst scaling, where patients identified the best and worst among 13 treatment features. Direct elicitation was used to identify preference for TACE, HAIC, or oral therapy, including the likelihood of trying each. Additional items asked for the willingness to try an oral medication that delays progression by six months but has an 8% or 21% risk of severe hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR). Results: The sample (N=119; 29 early stage; 90 Progressed) most preferred "oral medication", "artery branches plugged", and "prevents formation of new blood vessels", and least preferred "risk of liver damage" and "risk of catheter-related complications". Overall, 51%, 40%, and 8% preferred oral therapy, TACE, and HAIC, respectively (p<0.05), and the mean likelihood of trying each were 59%, 52%, and 35%, respectively (p<0.001). Patients with sorafenib or TACE experience most preferred what they had received; however, both groups were equally willing to try the other treatment. Patients preferring oral therapy favored "oral medication" over "artery branches plugged", "surgery is repeated as required when the cancer grows again", and "risk of liver damage", compared to those preferring TACE (p<0.05). Sixty-eight percent would probably try therapy with an 8% risk of severe HFSR, compared to 50% with a 21% risk. Conclusion: Treatment type, mode of action, and risks may drive HCC patient preferences. Such features likely should be incorporated into physician-patient interactions regarding treatment decision-making.

Management of Psoriatic Arthritis: Turkish League Against Rheumatism (TLAR) Expert Opinions

Objectives

This study aims to establish the first national treatment recommendations by the Turkish League Against Rheumatism (TLAR) for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) based on the current evidence.

Patients and methods

A systematic literature review was performed regarding the management of PsA. The TLAR expert committee consisted of 13 rheumatologists and 12 physical medicine and rehabilitation specialists experienced in the treatment and care of patients with PsA from 22 centers. The TLAR recommendations were built on those of European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2015. Levels of evidence and agreement were determined.

Results

Recommendations included five overarching principles and 13 recommendations covering therapies for PsA, particularly focusing on musculoskeletal involvement. Level of agreement was greater than eight for each item.

Conclusion

This is the first paper that summarizes the recommendations of TLAR as regards the treatment of PsA. We believe that this paper provides Turkish physicians dealing with PsA patients a practical guide in their routine clinical practice.

Patients', physicians', nurses', and pharmacists' preferences on the characteristics of biologic agents used in the treatment of rheumatic diseases

OBJECTIVE

To estimate preferences in relevant treatment characteristics evaluated by different groups involved in the management of patients with rheumatic diseases.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We surveyed patients with rheumatic diseases, and rheumatologists, nurses, and pharmacists with experience in treatment with/provision of biologic drugs for these patients. Through a discrete choice experiment, participants evaluated 16 possible scenarios in which pairs of similarly efficacious treatments were described with six characteristics: 1) frequency of administration; 2) mode and place of administration; 3) manner, helpfulness, efficiency, and courtesy of health personnel; 4) frequency of reactions at the site of drug administration; 5) severity of generalized undesired/allergic reactions; and 6) additional cost. The direction and strength of preferences toward each characteristic level and the relative importance of each characteristic were estimated through a random-effects conditional logistic regression model.

RESULTS

In total, 513 patients, 110 rheumatologists, 51 nurses, and 46 pharmacists from 30 centers in Italy participated. Characteristics 3, 4, and 6 were the most important for every subgroup; 1 was least important for patients and rheumatologists, 2 was least important for pharmacists, and 2 and 5 were least important for nurses. For characteristic 2, pharmacists preferred subcutaneous self-injection with a syringe; nurses preferred assisted infusion at an infusion center close to the patient's home; patients and rheumatologists preferred subcutaneous self-injection with a pen.

CONCLUSION

The different preferences for some characteristics shown by the different groups can play an important role, together with purely clinical aspects, in the choice and consequent benefit of treatments, contributing also to a more satisfactory use of resources.

Chronic Disease and Self-Injection: Ethnographic Investigations into the Patient Experience During Treatment

Introduction

Drug administration by self-injection provides an option to treat chronic inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and Crohn’s disease (CD). However, a negative self-injection experience for patients may reduce patient adherence to the recommended treatment regimen. In this study, a holistic approach was used to identify common themes along the treatment pathway and at self-injection that, if changed, could improve patient experience and treatment outcomes.

Methods

Two ethnographic studies were conducted: Field Insights CODE (FI[CODE]) examined the treatment pathway within the context of the experience of living with RA or CD, and Injection Mission 2020 (IM2020) focused on the moment of self-injection. FI(CODE) used an open ethnographic approach to interview 62 patients and 10 healthcare professionals (HCPs) from the US and UK. IM2020 included a review of over 50 injection device design information sources from the sponsor, and interviews with 9 patients, 8 HCPs, and 5 medical device designers from the US, UK, Canada, and Japan.

Results

FI(CODE) identified suboptimal treatment practices along the treatment pathway in four key areas: treatment team communication, treatment choice, patient empowerment, and treatment delivery. Patients with more treatment options and greater disease understanding were less likely to struggle with the treatment process. IM2020 demonstrated that five related components influenced the self-injection experience: delivery process, emotional state, social perception, educational level, and ritualization of the self-injection process.

Conclusion

These analyses highlight several potential areas for improvement, including aligning the device more to patients’ needs to improve treatment adherence, better accessibility to educational resources to increase patient disease understanding, and guidance to empower patients to develop an optimal personalized self-injection ritual.

Funding

UCB Pharma.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40744-017-0080-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Some medicines used to treat long-term conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis or Crohn’s disease, are injected under the skin. Often, patients can choose to inject medicines themselves (self-injection). This must be done correctly for the medicines to work properly. But, the training surrounding self-injection is uneven and often cannot address the fundamental problems facing all self-injecting patients.

What healthcare improvements could help patients self-inject successfully? To find out, we interviewed people living with rheumatoid arthritis or Crohn’s disease, while others were doctors, nurses, and people who design injection devices.

We found four common problems in the overall healthcare that patients received:

There were communication problems between different healthcare professionals and between healthcare professionals and patients, for example about treatment options or goals.

Each level in the healthcare system (e.g., the nurse, doctor, hospital board, health insurance company) made decisions that limited how many treatment options were presented to patients for consideration.

Patients were not empowered, as they felt they lacked personal input, information, and control in treatment decisions.

Healthcare professionals focused on disease treatment but not patient experience; they did not fully explain how to perform injections (delivery), leaving patients to figure it out by trial and error.

In addition, five factors were identified that affected patients’ experiences of self-injection:

Process of injection: minimal one-on-one instruction for self-injection left some patients anxious and more prone to mistakes.

Emotions: some patients were better than others at ‘overriding’ emotions (e.g., fear) when self-injecting.

Views on injections: there was negative social stigma around injections, but patients had greater trust in more technological, modern devices.

Education: doctors often failed to explain how to manage fear and anxiety.

Developing a ritual: patients with a ritualized routine for when, where, and how to self-inject were more confident.

If doctors and nurses can support patients by providing a greater choice of treatments and injection devices, and teaching more about self-injection, this could improve patients’ experiences and allow medications to work better. Healthcare professionals should help patients to develop their own, optimal routine for self-injection.

Influence of disease activity on RA treatment choices in countries with restricted access to expensive, innovative drugs: a discrete choice experiment among rheumatologists

Objective

To assess the influence of disease activity of patients with rheumatoid arthritis on treatment choices of rheumatologists in countries with restricted access to expensive, innovative drugs.

Methods

Rheumatologists from Hungary, Romania and UK were invited to complete two consecutive discrete choice experiments with hypothetical drug treatments for two different patient profiles: high and moderate disease activity. Rheumatologists were asked to choose repeatedly between two unlabelled treatment options that differed in five attributes: efficacy (expected improvement and achieved disease activity state), safety (probability of serious adverse events), patient's preference (level of agreement), total medication costs and cost-effectiveness. A heteroscedastic discrete choice model using interaction terms between attribute levels and patient profiles (binary variable) was used to assess the preferences of rheumatologists towards each attribute and the influence of the patient profile.

Results

Overall, 148 rheumatologists completed the survey (46% females, mean age 49 years, 49% academic). For both patient profiles, efficacy dominated the treatment choice over patient's preference, safety and economic aspects. However, for patients with high compared with moderate disease activity, the importance of drug efficacy significantly increased (from 48% for moderate to 57% for high disease activity), whereas the importance of patient's preference significantly decreased (from 15% to 11%). No significant differences were observed for economic and safety considerations.

Conclusion

Rheumatologists were willing to give up some efficacy to account for patient's preference when choosing treatments for patients with moderate compared to high disease activity. Disease activity however did not influence importance of economic aspects in treatment choices.