Mapping Perceptions of Lupus Medication Decision-Making Facilitators: The Importance of Patient Context

Development of the American College of Rheumatology Patient-Reported Outcome Quality Measures for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

OBJECTIVE

As part of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-funded American College of Rheumatology (ACR) initiative, we sought to develop quality measures related to Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) use for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) clinical care.

METHODS

An expert workgroup composed of physician, patient, and researcher representatives convened to identify patient-reported outcome (PRO) domains of greatest importance to people with SLE. A patient advisory panel separately ranked domains. PROMs assessing priority domains were identified through structured literature review, and detailed psychometric reviews were conducted for each PROM. In a Delphi process, the expert workgroup rated PROMs on content validity, psychometric quality, feasibility of implementation, and importance for guiding patient self-management. The patient advisory panel reviewed PROMs in parallel and contributed to the final recommendations.

RESULTS

Among relevant PRO domains, the workgroup and patient partners ranked depression, physical function, pain, cognition, and fatigue as high-priority domains. The workgroup recommended at least once yearly measurement for (1) assessment of depression using the Patient Health Questionnaire or Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression scales; (2) assessment of physical function using PROMIS physical function scales or the Multi-Dimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire; and (3) optional assessments of fatigue and cognition. Pain scales evaluated were not found to be sufficiently superior to what is already assessed in most SLE clinic visits.

CONCLUSION

Expert workgroup members and patient partners recommend that clinicians assess depression and physical function at least once yearly in all people with SLE. Additional PROMs addressing cognition and fatigue can also be assessed. Next steps are to incorporate PROM-based quality measures into the ACR The Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness registry.

Barriers and facilitators to medical care retention for pediatric systemic lupus erythematosus in South Africa: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a life-threatening, chronic, autoimmune disease requiring long term subspecialty care due to its complex and chronic nature. Childhood-onset SLE (cSLE) is more severe than adult-onset, and the cSLE population in South Africa has been reported to have an even higher risk than patients elsewhere. Therefore, it is critical to promptly diagnose, treat, and manage cSLE. In this paper, we aim to describe and evaluate barriers and enablers of appropriate long-term care of cSLE South Africa from the perspective of caregivers (parents or family members).

METHODS

Caregivers (n = 22) were recruited through pediatric and adult rheumatology clinics. Individuals were eligible if they cared for youth (≤ 19 years) who were diagnosed with cSLE and satisfied at least four of the eleven ACR SLE classification criteria. Individual in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted between January 2014 and December 2014, and explored barriers to and facilitators of ongoing chronic care for cSLE. Data were analyzed using applied thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Four barriers to chronic care engagement and retention were identified: knowledge gap, financial burdens, social stigma of SLE, and complexity of the South African medical system. Additionally, we found three facilitators: patient and caregiver education, robust support system for the caregiver, and financial support for the caregiver and patient.

CONCLUSION

These findings highlight multiple, intersecting barriers to routine longitudinal care for cSLE in South Africa and suggest there might be a group of diagnosed children who don't receive follow-up care and are subject to loss to follow-up. cSLE requires ongoing treatment and care; thus, the different barriers may interact and compound over time with each follow-up visit. South African cSLE patients are at high risk for poor outcomes. South African care teams should work to overcome these barriers and place attention on the facilitators to improve care retention for these patients and create a model for other less resourced settings.

Barriers and facilitators to medical care retention for pediatric systemic lupus erythematosus in South Africa: a qualitative study

Background: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a life-threatening, chronic, autoimmune disease requiring long term subspecialty care due to its complex and chronic nature. Childhood-onset SLE (cSLE) is more severe than adult-onset, and the cSLE population in South Africa has been reported to have an even higher risk than patients elsewhere. Therefore, it is critical to promptly diagnose, treat, and manage cSLE. In this paper, we aim to describe and evaluate barriers and enablers of appropriate long-term care of cSLE South Africa from the perspective of caregivers (parents or family members). Methods: Caregivers (n=22) were recruited through pediatric and adult rheumatology clinics. Individuals were eligible if they cared for youth ( < 19 years) who were diagnosed with cSLE and satisfied at least four of the eleven ACR SLE classification criteria. Individual in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted between January 2014 and December 2014, and explored barriers to and facilitators of ongoing chronic care for cSLE. Data were analyzed using applied thematic analysis. Results: Four barriers to chronic care engagement and retention were identified: knowledge gap, financial burdens, social stigma of SLE, and complexity of the South African medical system. Additionally, we found three facilitators: patient and caregiver education, robust support system for the caregiver, and financial support for the caregiver and patient. Conclusion: These findings highlight multiple, intersecting barriers to routine longitudinal care for cSLE in South Africa and suggest there might be a group of diagnosed children who don't receive follow-up care and are subject to attrition. cSLE requires ongoing treatment and care; thus, the different barriers may interact and compound over time with each follow-up visit. South African cSLE patients are at high risk for poor outcomes. South African care teams should work to overcome these barriers and place attention on the facilitators to improve care retention for these patients and create a model for other less resourced settings.

When should targeted therapies be used in the treatment of lupus nephritis: Early in the disease course or in refractory patients?

Although the prognosis of lupus nephritis (LN) has improved over the last few decades, 5-20% of patients still progress to kidney failure. Hence, there is an unmet need to improve the management of LN. Two novel drugs, belimumab and voclosporin, have been recently approved for LN and obinutuzumab is in the late stage of development. In randomised controlled trials (RCTs), all these drugs, added to the standard-of-care, were more effective than standard-of-care alone in achieving renal response. Now the question is: should these new drugs be used early in the disease course or just in refractory patients? The main reasons supporting the early use are based on the RCTs that demonstrated benefits when combinatory regimen was initiated early in incident and relapsing patients leading to a higher proportion of patients to achieve renal response, hence reducing nephron loss and the risk of kidney failure. The main reasons supporting the use of the combinatory regimens primarily in relapsing/refractory patients acknowledge that many patients responded well even without add-on medications, allowing a more economic use of innovative and costly drugs. However, good predictors of renal response to standard-of-care are lacking and, thus, the decision of adding new treatments early or just in refractory or relapsing patients has to consider drug access, risks of over or undertreatment, and preservation of kidney function in high-risk individuals.

Understanding Physicians’ Perceptions of Patient-Identified Barriers to Osteoporosis Medication Initiation: A Cognitive Mapping Approach

Objective

Interventions to initiate medication and increase adherence for postmenopausal women who have had a fragility fracture were not always successful. The purpose of this study was to derive an empirical framework for patient-identified barriers to osteoporosis medication initiation and adherence from physician experts.

Methods

A cognitive mapping approach involving nominal group technique (NGT) meetings and a card sorting and rating task were used to obtain formative data. We first conducted four NGT meetings with 18 women patients who were not on osteoporosis treatment to identify barriers to osteoporosis medication, then invited 27 osteoporosis physicians to sort and rate 25 patients identified barriers. Descriptive analysis, multidimensional scaling analysis, and hierarchical cluster analysis were applied for data analysis.

Results

A two-dimensional five-cluster cognitive map was derived to provide an organizational framework for understanding patients perceived barriers to medication initiation and adherence. The five clusters were concerns about side effects, experience of side effects, lifestyle changes, medication access and complexity, and patient uncertainty about treatment and trust in the provider. The two dimensions were interpreted as internal to patients (X-axis) and external to patients (Y-axis).

Conclusions/Implications

Views of patients solicited in a structured format provided directions to help in designing interventions to improve osteoporosis medication initiation and adherence.

Shared Decision-making in Dermatology: A Scoping Review

Importance

Shared decision-making (SDM) can improve the quality of care for patients. The extent to which this tool has been used and the evidence supporting its use in dermatology have not been systematically examined.

Objective

To perform a scoping review of the literature regarding SDM in dermatology.

Evidence Review

Searches of Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Sciverse Scopus, and EBM Reviews were conduced on July 11, 2019, and March 6, 2020. There were no limits on date, type of article, language, or subject for the initial search. A total of 1673 titles and abstracts were screened by 2 independent reviewers in the Covidence mixed-methods platform. Forty-one full-text studies were assessed for eligibility. For inclusion, articles needed to include a dermatologic diagnosis as well as discussion of SDM or patient decision aids. Two independent reviewers screened 29 full-text articles for inclusion and extracted qualitative data using a set of 26 predefined codes. Qualitative coding was applied to excerpts to categorize the article, define and describe advantages and disadvantages of SDM, understand patient and physician requests for SDM, and discuss methods of implementation.

Findings

Despite a small number of articles on SDM (n = 29) in dermatology, the selected literature provided consistent messages regarding the importance of SDM for dermatology and a number of strategies and tools for implementation. Medical dermatology was the most common subspecialty studied, with melanoma, psoriasis, and connective tissue diseases most examined. Only 5 publications introduced SDM tools specifically for dermatologic conditions; of these, only 2 tools were validated. Barriers to implementation that were cited included time and a lack of training for clinicians, although the literature also provided potential solutions to these issues. All articles emphasized the value of SDM for both patients and physicians.

Conclusions and Relevance

The literature regarding SDM in dermatology consistently suggests that it is a useful tool for providing patient-centered care. Established tools have been proposed since 2012. More research is needed to implement better practices, especially in dermatologic subspecialties. However, there are substantial suggestions from the literature for strategies and tools with which to begin a shared decision-making practice.

Unsupervised clustering analysis of data from an online community to identify lupus patient profiles with regards to treatment preferences

OBJECTIVE

Lupus is a chronic complex autoimmune disease. Non-adherence to treatment can affect patient outcomes. Considering patients' preferences into medical decisions may increase acceptance to their medication. The PREFERLUP study used unsupervised clustering analysis to identify profiles of patients with similar treatment preferences in an online community of French lupus patients.

METHODS

An online survey was conducted in adult lupus patients from the Carenity community between August 2018 and April 2019. Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) was used with three unsupervised clustering methods (hierarchical, kmeans and partitioning around medoids). Several indicators (measure of connectivity, Dunn index and Silhouette width) were used to select the best clustering algorithm and choose the number of clusters.

RESULTS

The 268 participants were mostly female (96%), with a mean age of 44.3 years 83% fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) self-reported diagnostic criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Overall, the preferred route of administration was oral (62%) and the most important feature of an ideal drug was a low risk of side-effects (32%). Hierarchical clustering identified three clusters. Cluster 1 (59%) comprised patients with few comorbidities and a poor ability to identify oncoming flares; 84% of these patients desired oral treatments with limited side-effects. Cluster 2 (13%) comprised younger patients, who had already participated in a clinical trial, were willing to use implants and valued the compatibility of treatments with pregnancy. Cluster 3 (28%) comprised patients with a longer lupus duration, poorer control of the disease and more comorbidities; these patients mainly valued implants and injections and expected a reduction of corticosteroid intake.

CONCLUSIONS

Different profiles of lupus patients were identified according to their drug preferences. These clusters could help physicians tailor their therapeutic proposals to take into account individual patient preferences, which could have a positive impact on treatment acceptance and then adherence. The study highlights the value of data acquired directly from patient communities.

Implementing the DEcision-Aid for Lupus (IDEAL): study protocol of a multi-site implementation trial with observational, case study design : Implementing the DEcision-Aid for Lupus

Objective

To provide the details of the study protocol for an observational, case study design, implementation trial.

Methods

Implementing the DEcision-Aid for Lupus (IDEAL) study will put into practice a shared decision-making (SDM) strategy, using an individualized, culturally appropriate computerized decision-aid (DA) for lupus patients in 15 geographically diverse clinics in the USA. The overarching frameworks that guide this implementation study are the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Powell’s typology of implementation strategies. All 15 clinics will receive standardized capacity-building activities for lupus DA implementation in the clinic, including education, training, technical assistance, re-training, and incorporation of a clinic champion in the core team of each site. In addition, clinics will also choose among clinic-targeted activities to integrate the DA into existing work processes and/or patient-targeted activities to raise awareness and educate patients about the DA. These activities will be chosen to stimulate participant recruitment and retention activities that support the implementation of the DA at their clinic. In study aim 1, using surveys and semi-structured interviews with clinic personnel in 15 lupus clinics, we will assess stakeholder needs and identify clinic and contextual characteristics that inform the implementation strategy component selection and influence implementation effectiveness. Study aim 2 is to implement and assess the effectiveness of the IDEAL (standardized and tailored) strategy in 15 lupus clinics by examining the changes in our primary outcome of penetration, i.e., the proportion of all eligible patients in the clinic that receive the lupus DA, and secondary outcomes include DA appropriateness, acceptability, success, permanence, and feasibility. Study aim 3 is to identify ways to sustain and disseminate our lupus DA via semi-structured debriefing interviews with key clinic personnel and patients.

Discussion

The study will enroll at least 500 patient participants with lupus across all 15 sites and assess the effectiveness in implementing the DA in various clinic settings across the USA.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03735238. Protocol version number: 15, date 6/8/2020

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-021-00118-9.

Insights into the choice between intravenous infusion and subcutaneous injection: physician and patient characteristics driving treatment in SLE

Introduction/objectives

Multiple modes of administration are available for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) treatments. This study examined patient and physician characteristics associated with the choice of weekly subcutaneous (SC) injection or monthly intravenous (IV) infusion for an unspecified SLE treatment.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional, US web-based survey using a direct elicitation, stated-preference methodology (HO-16-16706). Two hundred patients and 200 physicians were asked to choose between IV or SC administration in a hypothetical scenario. Pairwise and multivariate analyses estimated the odds ratio (OR) for the likelihood of choosing SC over IV for respondent characteristics.

Results

Among patients, taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs increased the likelihood of choosing SC injection (OR 3.884), whilst having SLE-related skin problems, a fear of needles or self-injection, and never needing help around the house decreased the likelihood (OR 0.28, 0.13, 0.12, respectively; all p ≤ 0.05). Among physicians, > 95% recommended SC injection for patients who live or work far from an infusion center, prefer SC administration, and never or rarely miss medication doses. Physician characteristics including age and treatment practice also influenced choice.

Conclusions

Patient and physician characteristics influence choice of SC versus IV therapy for SLE. These findings might inform shared decision-making, which could lead to improved patient outcomes.

Key Points • Data regarding patient and physician preference for different modes of administration of SLE therapy are sparse. • This cross-sectional, US web-based study showed that patient and physician characteristics influence choice of SC versus IV therapy for SLE. • A degree of disconnect exists between how factors influence patients’ choice and how those characteristics influence physicians’ choice of SLE treatment mode of administration. • The findings from this study might inform shared decision-making, which could improve alignment between treatment choice and patient preferences, treatment satisfaction, adherence, and improved patient outcomes.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10067-020-05226-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Factors influencing implementation of a computerized, individualized, culturally tailored lupus decision aid in lupus clinics: a qualitative semi-structured interview study

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors that might facilitate or impede the implementation of a shared decision-making in lupus electronic tool (SMILE) in clinics by assessing perspectives of clinicians, clinic champions, and patient advocacy organization leaders.

METHODS

We conducted a series of semi-structured telephone interviews (25-45 minutes) about facilitators and barriers of implementing the SMILE decision-aid tool with 23 lupus care providers (18 physicians, 5 champions), and leaders of two patient advocacy organizations. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed.

RESULTS

Physicians and clinic champions were from 18 geographically diverse US clinics. The patient advocacy leaders were from the Lupus Foundation of America and the Arthritis Foundation. Most of the clinics were rheumatology specialty (94%), at university-based academic centers (72%), located in urban areas (72%), had a specialized lupus clinic (72%), were very interested (72%) in the SMILE tool and were ready to implement it (89%). Several specific factors, composed as four themes, were identified that could either facilitate or impede the implementation of the SMILE tool: (1) patient-related theme: patient recruitment and education, and the clinic visit time; (2) clinic-related theme: staff work-load and time, and physical space to view and use the SMILE tool; (3) technology-related theme: Wi-Fi connection and iPad navigation; and (4) management-related theme: influence on the clinics' daily workflow, the need of a study champion and coordination, and leadership support.

CONCLUSION

Physicians, staff, and patient advocacy leaders perceived the SMILE as a promising tool to facilitate patient-provider communication and quality improvement in lupus. Identification of the patient-, clinic-, technology-, and management-related barriers to the SMILE implementation will allow its integration into busy clinical practice workflow. Key Points • Physicians, staff and patient advocacy leaders perceived computerized lupus decision aid to be a promising tool to facilitate shared decision-making for lupus treatment. • Stakeholder identified patient-related, clinic-resource-related, technology-related and clinic-management related themes as barriers or facilitators to viewing computerized lupus decision aid during regular clinic visits.

Individualized decision aid for diverse women with lupus nephritis (IDEA-WON): A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Treatment decision-making regarding immunosuppressive therapy is challenging for individuals with lupus. We assessed the effectiveness of a decision aid for immunosuppressive therapy in lupus nephritis.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

In a United States multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial (RCT), adult women with lupus nephritis, mostly from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds with low socioeconomic status (SES), seen in in- or outpatient settings, were randomized to an individualized, culturally tailored, computerized decision aid versus American College of Rheumatology (ACR) lupus pamphlet (1:1 ratio), using computer-generated randomization. We hypothesized that the co-primary outcomes of decisional conflict and informed choice regarding immunosuppressive medications would improve more in the decision aid group. Of 301 randomized women, 298 were analyzed; 47% were African-American, 26% Hispanic, and 15% white. Mean age (standard deviation [SD]) was 37 (12) years, 57% had annual income of <$40,000, and 36% had a high school education or less. Compared with the provision of the ACR lupus pamphlet (n = 147), participants randomized to the decision aid (n = 151) had (1) a clinically meaningful and statistically significant reduction in decisional conflict, 21.8 (standard error [SE], 2.5) versus 12.7 (SE, 2.0; p = 0.005) and (2) no difference in informed choice in the main analysis, 41% versus 31% (p = 0.08), but clinically meaningful and statistically significant difference in sensitivity analysis (net values for immunosuppressives positive [in favor] versus negative [against]), 50% versus 35% (p = 0.006). Unresolved decisional conflict was lower in the decision aid versus pamphlet groups, 22% versus 44% (p < 0.001). Significantly more patients in the decision aid versus pamphlet group rated information to be excellent for understanding lupus nephritis (49% versus 33%), risk factors (43% versus 27%), medication options (50% versus 33%; p ≤ 0.003 for all); and the ease of use of materials was higher in the decision aid versus pamphlet groups (51% versus 38%; p = 0.006). Key study limitations were the exclusion of men, short follow-up, and the lack of clinical outcomes, including medication adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

An individualized decision aid was more effective than usual care in reducing decisional conflict for choice of immunosuppressive medications in women with lupus nephritis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02319525.

How Much Information and Participation Do Patients with Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases Prefer in Interaction with Physicians? Results of a Participatory Research Project

OBJECTIVE

Patient preferences for information and participation in medical decision-making are important prerequisites to realize a shared decision between patients and physicians. This paper aims at exploring these preferences in German patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases and at identifying relevant determinants of these preferences.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional survey, adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SA) or different connective tissue diseases (CTS) filled out a questionnaire. Data were collected via a written questionnaire (1) sent to members of a regional self-help group or (2) handed out to patients at their rheumatologist's appointment, and (3) via an online questionnaire available nationwide. Measurements included information and participation preferences (Autonomy Preference Index; API: 0-100), as well as health-related and sociodemographic variables. Analyses included ANOVAs (group differences) and multiple regression analyses (determinants of preferences). To ensure the analysis was patient-centered we involved a trained representative of the German League Against Rheumatism as a research partner.

RESULTS

1616 patients returned questionnaires [44% response, 79% female, mean age 54 years, diagnoses 63% RA, 28% SA, 19% CTS]. Participants reported a concurring major preference for information but vastly different preferences for participation. A greater preference for participation was associated with female sex, younger age, higher household income, and self-help group membership. Conversely, a lower preference for participation was linked to blue-collar workers, retirement, higher confidence in the rheumatologist, and poorer health literacy.

CONCLUSION

Whereas patients consistently welcome comprehensive information about their disease and its different treatment options, not all patients wish to be involved in therapeutic decisions. Especially older patients with lower education status and lower health literacy, but higher confidence in their rheumatologist tend to leave the decisions rather to the physician. Different preferences should be considered in the doctor-patient communication.

Perspectives of Medical Specialists From Different Disciplines on the Management of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: An Interview Study

OBJECTIVE

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a complex autoimmune disease that can affect multiple organ systems, with specialists from many disciplines often involved, which may lead to inconsistent care. We aimed to describe the attitudes and perspectives of specialists from different medical disciplines on the management of people with SLE.

METHODS

Face-to-face semistructured interviews were conducted with rheumatologists (n = 16), nephrologists (n = 16), and immunologists (n = 11) providing care to adults with SLE from 19 centers across Australia in 2015. All interviews were transcribed and analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Five themes were identified: uncertainties in judgments (hampered by unknown and unclear etiology, inapplicable evidence, comprehending information dispersion), reflexive responses (anchoring to specialty training, anticipating outcomes, avoiding disaster, empathy for the vulnerable), overarching duty to patients (achieving patient priorities, maximizing adherence, controlling the disease, providing legitimate information, having adequate and relevant expertise), safeguarding professional opportunities (diversifying clinical skills, protecting colleagues' interests), and optimizing access to treatment (capitalizing on multidisciplinary care, acquiring breakthrough therapies).

CONCLUSION

Specialists strive to deliver evidence-informed patient-centered care, but recognize that they are anchored by their training. To overcome uncertainties in clinical management due to lack of high-quality evidence and specialty silo structures, specialists translated evidence from other disease settings and collaborated with other specialists in routine care. Developing robust evidence, tools to support evidence-informed decisions, and multidisciplinary shared-care pathways may improve the management of people with this complex disease.