Can the General Public Be a Proxy for an "At-Risk" Group in a Patient Preference Study? A Disease Prevention Example in Rheumatoid Arthritis

BACKGROUND

When selecting samples for patient preference studies, it may be difficult or impractical to recruit participants who are eligible for a particular treatment decision. However, a general public sample may not be an appropriate proxy.

OBJECTIVE

This study compares preferences for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) preventive treatments between members of the general public and first-degree relatives (FDRs) of confirmed RA patients to assess whether a sample of the general public can be used as a proxy for FDRs.

METHODS

Participants were asked to imagine they were experiencing arthralgia and had screening tests indicating a 60% chance of developing RA within 2 yrs. Using a discrete choice experiment, participants were offered a series of choices between no treatment and 2 unlabeled hypothetical treatments to reduce the risk of RA. To assess data quality, time to complete survey sections and comprehension questions were assessed. A random parameter logit model was used to obtain attribute-level estimates, which were used to calculate relative importance, maximum acceptable risk (MAR), and market shares of hypothetical preventive treatments.

RESULTS

The FDR sample (n = 298) spent more time completing the survey and performed better on comprehension questions compared with the general public sample (n = 982). The relative importance ranking was similar between the general public and FDR participant samples; however, other relative preference measures involving weights including MARs and market share differed between groups, with FDRs having numerically higher MARs.

CONCLUSION

In the context of RA prevention, the general public (average risk) may be a reasonable proxy for a more at-risk sample (FDRs) for overall relative importance ranking but not weights. The rationale for a proxy sample should be clearly justified.

HIGHLIGHTS

Participants from the general public were compared to first-degree relatives on their preferences for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) preventive treatments using a discrete choice experiment.Preferences were similar between groups in terms of the most important and least important attributes of preventive treatments, with effectiveness being the most important attribute. However, relative weights differed.Attention to the survey and predicted market shares of hypothetical RA preventive treatments differed between the general public and first-degree relatives.The general public may be a reasonable proxy for an at-risk group for patient preferences ranks but not weights in the disease prevention context; however, care should be taken in sample selection for patient preference studies when choosing nonpatients.

Exploring preferences of at-risk individuals for preventive treatments for rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Some immunomodulatory drugs have been shown to delay the onset of, or lower the risk of developing, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), if given to individuals at risk. Several trials are ongoing in this area; however, little evidence is currently available about the views of those at risk of RA regarding preventive treatment.

METHOD

Three focus groups and three interviews explored factors that are relevant to first degree relatives (FDRs) of RA patients and members of the general public when considering taking preventive treatment for RA. The semi-structured qualitative interview prompts explored participant responses to hypothetical attributes of preventive RA medicines. Transcripts of focus group/interview proceedings were inductively coded and analysed using a framework approach.

RESULTS

Twenty-one individuals (five FDRs, 16 members of the general public) took part in the study. Ten broad themes were identified describing factors that participants felt would influence their decisions about whether to take preventive treatment if they were at increased risk of RA. These related either directly to features of the specific treatment or to other factors, including personal characteristics, attitude towards taking medication, and an individual's actual risk of developing RA.

CONCLUSION

This research highlights the importance of non-treatment factors in the decision-making process around preventive treatments, and will inform recruitment to clinical trials as well as information to support shared decision making by those considering preventive treatment. Studies of treatment preferences in individuals with a confirmed high risk of RA would further inform clinical trial design.

The Burden and Impacts of Mealtime Insulin from the Perspective of People with Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

While there have been continued advances in insulin treatment for diabetes since the discovery of insulin 100 years ago, some unmet needs still remain, including those related to mealtime insulin (MTI). The objective of this study was to explore the impacts related to MTI and the relative burden of the impacts on people with diabetes.

METHODS

This study was conducted across two phases, namely, a qualitative and quantitative phase. People with type 1 and 2 diabetes using MTI in the USA and UK were recruited for the study. The qualitative phase involved 30 interviews to explore the impacts associated with MTI. Based on the results of the qualitative phase, a list of impacts was developed to evaluate the importance of MTI impacts using best-worst scaling.

RESULTS

A total of 30 participants completed interviews, and 336 completed the quantitative phase. Participants described a range of impacts associated with MTI, including psychological (72.0%), social (63.0%), work/school (53.8%), and sleep (51.7%). Impacts for the quantitative phase were categorized under the following domains: diabetes distress, diabetes management, work productivity, and social. The three most burdensome impacts were related to diabetes distress, but the diabetes management domain contributed more than diabetes distress to the relative burden. There were minor differences in the relative importance of impacts by diabetes type, diabetes duration, and experience with continuous glucose monitoring.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms that people with diabetes using MTI still have an array of unmet needs, including those related to the management of their diabetes and the emotional distress of having diabetes. These findings may be useful for healthcare provider (HCP)-patient interactions to ensure HCPs are allowing patients an opportunity to discuss their experiences with MTI.

POS0591 TREATMENTS TO PREVENT RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS IN FIRST DEGREE RELATIVES: DEMOGRAPHIC AND PSYCHOLOGICAL PREDICTORS OF RISK TOLERANCES

Background

There is a growing research focus on the development of interventions to reduce risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in at-risk groups.(1) RA patients’ first-degree relatives (FDRs) have an elevated risk of developing RA and are potential candidates for preventive interventions. Recent studies have quantified the preferences of at risk groups for preventive treatments.(2-4) Little is known about predictors of preference heterogeneity in this context.

Objectives

Assess the extent to which FDR characteristics and beliefs predict risk tolerances for preventive treatments.

Methods

Adult FDRs of patients with confirmed RA in the UK were invited to take part in a web-based survey. FDRs enrolled in a UK prospective cohort (PREVeNT-RA) were also invited. Survey development, including attribute selection and presentation, was informed by qualitative research, ranking surveys, literature review, and expert opinion including patient research partners. Respondents received information about RA, questions to check comprehension, and an introduction to the survey. Participants were asked to imagine they were experiencing arthralgia and had positive autoantibody tests indicating a 60% chance of developing RA within two years. Using a probabilistic threshold technique, participants made choices between no treatment (no benefit and no risks) or a preventive treatment option. Treatment options were defined by a fixed level of benefit (reduction in risk of RA from 60% to 20%) and varying levels of risks (Table 1). For each treatment risk, participants made a series of choices where the risk was systematically increased or decreased until they switched their choice. This procedure was repeated for each of the remaining risks. Participants also completed items assessing demographics, perceived risk of developing RA, health literacy, subjective numeracy, the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ) and the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire General (BMQ-G). The maximum acceptable risk (MAR) respondents were willing to accept for a 40% (60% to 20%) point risk reduction in developing RA was summarized across participants using descriptive statistics. Associations between MARs and participants’ characteristics and illness/medication beliefs were assessed using interval regression. Independent variables were dichotomized and effects coded.

Table 1.

Attributes and levels of treatment options

Treatment attributeLevels describing no treatment optionLevels describing treatment optionChance of developing RA60%20%Chance of mild side effects0%2%; 4%; 5%; 7% or 10%Chance of a serious infection due to treatment0%1%; 1.5%; 2%; 3% or 5%Chance of a serious side effect that is potentially irreversible0%0.001%; 0.01%; 0.02%; 0.05% or 0.1%

Results

289 FDRs (80 male) responded. The mean (SE) MAR for mild side effects, serious infection, and serious side effects was 29.08 (1.52), 9.09 (0.60) and 0.85 (0.27), respectively. Participants aged over 60 years were less tolerant of risk of serious infection than average (mean MAR - 2.06 (0.78)) and younger participants were more tolerant of risk of serious infection than average (mean MAR + 2.06 (0.78)). Risk of mild side effects was less acceptable to participants who perceived they were likely/very likely to develop RA (mean MAR - 3.34 (1.55)) than to those who did not (mean MAR + 3.34 (1.55)). Education level, health literacy, numeracy, IPQ and BMQ-G subscales were not predictors of risk tolerance.

Conclusion

Age and perceived risk of RA had a significant impact on FDRs’ tolerance for specific, but not all, included risks. Cognitive ability and beliefs about RA/medicine did not explain preference heterogeneity. This is informative for drug development and the development of tailored risk communication resources to support preventive approaches.

References

[1]Mankia et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021;80(10):1286-98.

[2]Simons et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021;80:96-7.

[3]Harrison et al. Plos One. 2009; 14(4): e0216075.

[4]Finckh et al. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2016;18: 51.

Acknowledgements

On behalf of the PREFER project. PREFER received funding from the IMI 2 Joint Undertaking (grant No. 115966), which receives support from the EU’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). K. Raza is supported by the NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre.

Disclosure of Interests

Gwenda Simons: None declared, Ellen Janssen Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research and Development, Jorien Veldwijk: None declared, Rachael DiSantostefano Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research and Development, Matthias Englbrecht Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Mundipharma, Paid instructor for: Abbvie, Chugai, Roche, Consultant of: Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Roche, Chugai, Christine Radawski Shareholder of: Eli Lilly, Employee of: Eli Lilly, Larissa Valor: None declared, Jenny Humphreys: None declared, Ian N. Bruce: None declared, Brett Hauber Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc., Employee of: Pfizer Inc., Karim Raza Consultant of: Abbvie, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, Marie Falahee: None declared.

OP0276 PREFERENCES FOR TREATMENTS TO PREVENT RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: DISCRETE CHOICE SURVEY OF RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS’ FIRST-DEGREE RELATIVES IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND GERMANY

Background

There is a growing research focus on the development of interventions to reduce risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in at-risk individuals.(1) A recent survey of the general population asked to assume a 60% risk of RA established that hypothetical preventive treatments were acceptable to most participants.(2) However the preferences of individuals who actually have an elevated risk of RA, such as first-degree relatives (FDRs) of RA patients, are not well understood.

Objectives

To quantify FDRs’ preferences for preventive treatments for RA.

Methods

Adult FDRs in the UK and Germany were invited to take part in a web-based survey via patients with clinician-confirmed RA either during a rheumatology clinic visit or by mail. In addition, FDRs taking part in a UK-based prospective cohort (PREVeNT-RA) were invited via email. Participants received information about RA followed by questions to check comprehension, and an introduction to the survey including warm-up questions. They were asked to imagine they were experiencing arthralgia and had positive autoantibody tests indicating a 60% chance of developing RA in the next two years. Using a discrete choice experiment, participants were offered a series of 15 choices between no treatment and two unlabeled hypothetical treatments to reduce risk of RA. Treatments were defined by six attributes with varying levels, describing benefits, risks, and frequency/route of administration (Table 1). Attribute selection and presentation was informed by qualitative research, ranking surveys, systematic literature review, and expert opinion. Survey layout was informed by patient research partners and qualitative pre-testing. A two-class latent class analysis was used to estimate preferences and calculate relative importance of treatment attributes and predicted uptake. A panel mixed logit model was used to obtain maximum acceptable risk estimates.

Table 1.

Treatment attributes and levels

AttributeLevelsChance of developing RA reduced from 60% to10%; 20%; 30%; 40%How the treatment is takenA shallow injection under the skinA drip into the veinOne or two tabletsHow often the medication has to be takenDailyWeeklyMonthlyEvery 6 monthsChance of mild side effects2%; 5%; 10%Chance of a serious infection due to treatment0%; 1%; 5%Chance of a serious side effect that is potentially irreversible1 in 100,000 people20 in 100,000 people100 in 100,000 people

Results

356 FDRs (252 female, 289 in the UK) responded. While treatment effectiveness was the most important attribute in both classes (Figure 1), the importance of other attributes differed between classes, with method and frequency of treatment administration being more important in class 2 and risk of mild side effects only impacting treatment choice in class 1. Perceived risk of developing RA predicted class assignment; those with higher perceived risk were more likely to belong to class 1. On average, the predicted uptake of treatment profiles estimating prevention candidates: abatacept; atorvastatin; hydroxychloroquine; tolerogenic cell-based therapy; and no treatment would be 50%, 15%, 9%, 18% and 0%, respectively. Finally, the maximum acceptable risk participants were willing to accept were 81%, 25% and 3% point increases in risk of mild side effects, serious infection, and serious side effects, respectively, for medicines that would reduce their risk of developing RA in the upcoming two years from 60% to 20%.

Conclusion

Effective preventive treatments for RA were acceptable to FDRs asked to assume a 60% chance of developing RA. Mode and frequency of treatment administration had a greater impact on treatment choices for participants with a lower perceived risk of RA. These findings are informative for target product profile development, endpoint selection, benefit-risk assessment, regulatory approval, and development of informational resources for those at risk of RA.

References

[1]Mankia et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021;80(10):1286-98.

[2]Simons et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021;80:96-7.

Acknowledgements

On behalf of the PREFER project. PREFER received funding from the IMI 2 Joint Undertaking (grant No. 115966), which receives support from the EU’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). This abstract and its contents reflect the view of the presenter and not the view of PREFER, IMI, the European Union or EFPIA. K. Raza is supported by the NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre.

Disclosure of Interests

Gwenda Simons: None declared, Jorien Veldwijk: None declared, Rachael DiSantostefano Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research and Development, Matthias Englbrecht Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Munidpharma, Paid instructor for: Abbvie, Chugai, Roche, Consultant of: Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Roche, Chugai, Christine Radawski Shareholder of: Eli Lilly & Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly & Company, Larissa Valor: None declared, Jenny Humphreys: None declared, Ian N. Bruce: None declared, Karim Raza Consultant of: Abbvie, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, Marie Falahee: None declared

OP0160-HPR PREFERENCES FOR TREATMENTS TO PREVENT RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: DISCRETE CHOICE SURVEY OF GENERAL POPULATIONS IN UNITED KINGDOM, GERMANY, AND ROMANIA

Background:

There is increasing research focus on intervention for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) at the earliest stages of disease development, including treatment to prevent RA in at-risk groups. Novel cellular therapies are in development, and the effectiveness of existing immunomodulatory agents to prevent RA in those at risk is under investigation. Quantitative evidence of likely uptake of preventive treatments, and preferences for benefits and risks of such treatments is limited.

Objectives:

To quantify preferences for preventive therapies for RA.

Methods:

A web-based survey (n = 2959) was administered to an age- and gender- stratified sample of adults in the general population from online survey panels in the UK, Germany, and Romania. After receiving information about RA, questions to check comprehension of background information, an introduction to the survey tasks and warm-up questions, participants were asked to imagine that they were experiencing arthralgia (without swelling) and had positive autoantibody tests indicating a 60% chance of developing RA in the next two years. Using a discrete choice experiment with a Bayesian D-efficient design, participants were offered a series of 15 choices between no treatment and two unlabeled hypothetical treatments to lower risk of RA development. Treatments were defined by six attributes with varying levels including benefits, risks, and frequency/route of administration (Table 1). One choice task with fixed levels described treatments representative of those under investigation for RA prevention (abatacept, hydroxychloroquine, atorvastatin and tolerogenic cell-based therapy). Attribute selection and presentation was informed by previous qualitative research, ranking surveys, systematic literature review, and expert opinion. Survey design was informed by patient research partners. The survey was pre-tested during qualitative interviews and revised. A pilot of the final survey with 100 respondents was conducted to obtain priors for the final experimental design. Random parameters logit (RPL) models were used to estimate relative importance of treatment attributes and likely treatment uptake rates in each country.

Table 1.

Treatment attributes and levels

AttributeLevelsChance of developing RA reduced from 60% to10%; 20%; 30%; 40%How the treatment is takenA shallow injection under the skinA drip into the veinOne or two tabletsHow often the medication has to be takenDailyWeeklyMonthlyEvery 6 monthsChance of mild side effects2%; 5%; 10%Chance of a serious infection due to treatment0%; 1%; 5%Chance of a serious side effect that is potentially irreversible1 in 100,000 people20 in 100,000 people100 in 100,000 people

Results:

Across all three countries, effectiveness was the treatment attribute that had most impact on treatment choice (Figure 1). Method of administration was second most important for respondents from the UK and Romania but less important for German respondents. Risks of serious infection and serious side effects were more important determinants of treatment choice for respondents in Romania than they were in the UK and Germany. Percentage choice of fixed profiles reflecting abatacept, atorvastatin, hydroxychloroquine, tolerogenic cell-based therapy and no treatment differed across countries (χ2=78.90; p<0.001): 28.3%, 20.6%, 22.2% 18.5% and 10.4% respectively in the UK; 31.3%, 18.8%, 11.2%, 23.4% and 15.3% in Germany; and 27.6%, 20.5%, 15.8%, 21.7% and 14.4% in Romania.

Conclusion:

This study suggests that effective preventive treatments for RA are acceptable to members of the general population told to assume up a 60% chance of developing RA. The relative importance of treatment attributes and likely uptake of fixed treatment profiles differed across countries. These findings are informative for the design of prevention trials, and the development of informational resources and efficient preventive strategies for those at risk of developing RA.

Acknowledgements:

On behalf of the PREFER project. PREFER received funding from the IMI 2 Joint Undertaking (grant No. 115966), which receives support from the EU’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). K. Raza is supported by the NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre.

Disclosure of Interests:

Gwenda Simons: None declared, Jorien Veldwijk: None declared, Rachael Di Santostefano Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen R&D (of Johnson & Johnson), Matthias Englbrecht Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Mundipharma, Paid instructor for: AbbVie, Chugai, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Roche, Chugai, Christine Radawski Shareholder of: Eli Lilly & Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly & Company, Larissa Valor: None declared, Karim Raza Consultant of: Personal fees from Abbvie, Pfizer, Sanofi, Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, UCB, Janssen, and Roche Chugai, Grant/research support from: Abbvie and Pfizer, M. Falahee: None declared