Tough Choices: Exploring Medication Decision-Making During Pregnancy and Lactation Among Women With Inflammatory Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: This study explored how women's beliefs about drug safety and interactions with their health care providers influenced their decisions to continue arthritis medications during pregnancy and lactation. METHODS: We collaborated with ArthritisPower, a patient-powered research network, and CreakyJoints, its partner online community, to develop and disseminate a survey among members with inflammatory arthritis who had at least one pregnancy after diagnosis. Participants' free-text responses were evaluated by using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Women in the sample were 40 years old on average (N = 66). Nineteen of their pregnancies had ended in fetal loss. Fifteen percent of all pregnancies were exposed to methotrexate. Among women who used safe arthritis medications, up to 80% discontinued treatment either in preparation for pregnancy or during pregnancy or lactation. Women's decisions to continue medications during pregnancy were influenced by their perceptions of safety and advisement from health care providers, although they often described that advice about medication safety was inconsistent between providers. CONCLUSION: Women often chose to endure active inflammatory arthritis rather than to use disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs because of concerns about medication safety during pregnancy and lactation. Conflicting medical advice from health care providers undermined patients' trust in their providers and in the safety of their medications. The high rate of peripartum exposure to methotrexate, a fetotoxic drug, underscores the need for better family planning care for women with childbearing potential.

Pregnancy, Periods, and "The Pill": Exploring the Reproductive Experiences of Women with Inflammatory Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Women with inflammatory arthritis appear to have fewer children as compared with healthy women, but few studies have assessed how patients' attitudes and decision making influence their family sizes. Little is also known about how patients experience other aspects of their reproductive lives, such as menstruation and contraception. METHODS: We partnered with ArthritisPower, a patient-powered research network, and its associated online patient community, CreakyJoints, to create and disseminate a survey among female members aged 18-50 years with inflammatory arthritis. RESULTS: Women in the final sample (n = 267) were 40 years old on average; most had rheumatoid arthritis (79%) and were predominantly white and college educated. Many women chose to limit childbearing because of their arthritis (58%); they feared that their arthritis was heritable, their diseases and medications could directly harm a fetus, they would be incapable of physically caring for a child, and arthritis could cause premature death, preventing them from raising their children. Infertility affected 40% of the sample. Half of women experienced subjective arthritis flares around the time of menstruation. Oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) did not worsen disease activity for most women and even prevented menstrual-associated arthritis flares for a subset of women. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that infertility, but also potentially outsized fear and anxiety related to their diagnoses, may affect the family sizes of women with inflammatory arthritis. The observation that menstruation worsens disease activity for some women requires additional study, and OCP use should be explored as a possible treatment for menstrual-associated arthritis. Clinicians may wish to consider how they communicate patients' individual pregnancy-associated risks, reassure patients when appropriate, and help to guide and support patients to make well-informed reproductive decisions.

Digital Interventions to Build a Patient Registry for Rheumatology Research.

This article aims to describe key issues, processes, and outcomes related to development of a patient registry for rheumatology research using a digital platform where patients track useful data about their condition for their own use while contributing to research. Digital interventions are effective to build a patient research registry for people with rheumatoid arthritis and other rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. ArthritisPower provides evidence of the value of digital interventions to build community support for research and to transform patient engagement and patient-generated data capture.

Contraception methods used by women with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are common in women of childbearing age and are often treated with teratogenic medications. In this study, we assessed contraceptive methods in young women with RA or PsA and correlated contraceptive method efficacy with use of concomitant rheumatic medications. We combined the data from several cross-sectional surveys of women under the age of 40 with RA or PsA. Two surveys recruited participants from a clinic setting (RA and PsA Clinic Surveys), and the third survey recruited participants from CreakyJoints.org , an online forum for patients with inflammatory arthritis (CreakyJoints Survey). Of the 164 women included, 138 had RA (67 in RA Clinic Survey, 71 in CreakyJoints Survey) and 26 had PsA (19 in PsA Clinic Survey, 7 in CreakyJoints Survey). Use of specific contraceptive and rheumatic medications were similar between the clinic and online surveys. In the pooled analysis of the Clinic and CreakyJoints survey data, women with RA and PsA reported similar utilization of highly effective contraception methods (31.9% RA, 34.6% PsA) and effective methods (31.2% RA, 30.8% PsA), but different utilization of ineffective methods (35.5% RA, 11.5% PsA) and no methods (1.5% RA, 23.1% PsA), p = 0.0002. These proportions remained similar across subgroups taking methotrexate, anti-TNF biologics, and novel medications. Approximately two thirds of women with RA and PsA reported using effective or highly effective methods of contraception, though women with PsA were more likely to report no methods of contraception.

Openness to and preference for attributes of biologic therapy prior to initiation among patients with rheumatoid arthritis: patient and rheumatologist perspectives and implications for decision making.

PURPOSE: Despite American College of Rheumatology recommendations, appropriate and timely initiation of biologic therapies does not always occur. This study examined openness to and preference for attributes of biologic therapies among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), differences in patients' and rheumatologists' perceptions, and discussions around biologic therapy initiation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A self-administered online survey was completed by 243 adult patients with RA in the US who were taking disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and had never taken, but had discussed biologic therapy with a rheumatologist. Patients were recruited from a consumer panel (n=142) and patient advocacy organization (n=101). A separate survey was completed by 103 rheumatologists who treated at least 25 patients with RA per month with biologic therapy. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were conducted separately for patients and rheumatologists. Attributes of biologic therapy included route of administration (intravenous infusion or subcutaneous injection), frequency of injections/infusions, and duration of infusion. RESULTS: Over half of patients (53.1%) were open to both intravenous infusion and subcutaneous injection, whereas rheumatologists reported 40.7% of patients would be open to both. Only 26.3% of patients strongly preferred subcutaneous injection, whereas rheumatologists reported 35.2%. Discrepancies were even more pronounced among specific patient types (eg, older vs younger patients and Medicare recipients). Among patients, 23% reported initiating discussion about biologics and 54% reported their rheumatologist initiated the discussion. A majority of rheumatologists reported discussing in detail several key aspects of biologics, whereas a minority of patients reported the same. CONCLUSION: Preferences differed among patients with RA from rheumatologists' perceptions of these preferences for biologic therapy, including greater openness to intravenous infusion among patients than assumed by rheumatologists and relative lack of discussion about key aspects of biologic therapy perceived by patients. There is a need for more open communication about treatment options, which may encourage more appropriate, timely transition to biologic therapy.

2015 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a new evidence-based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We conducted systematic reviews to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatment options. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence. We employed a group consensus process to grade the strength of recommendations (either strong or conditional). A strong recommendation indicates that clinicians are certain that the benefits of an intervention far outweigh the harms (or vice versa). A conditional recommendation denotes uncertainty over the balance of benefits and harms and/or more significant variability in patient values and preferences. RESULTS: The guideline covers the use of traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in early (<6 months) and established (≥6 months) RA. In addition, it provides recommendations on using a treat-to-target approach, tapering and discontinuing medications, and the use of biologic agents and DMARDs in patients with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, malignancy, and serious infections. The guideline addresses the use of vaccines in patients starting/receiving DMARDs or biologic agents, screening for tuberculosis in patients starting/receiving biologic agents or tofacitinib, and laboratory monitoring for traditional DMARDs. The guideline includes 74 recommendations: 23% are strong and 77% are conditional. CONCLUSION: This RA guideline should serve as a tool for clinicians and patients (our two target audiences) for pharmacologic treatment decisions in commonly encountered clinical situations. These recommendations are not prescriptive, and the treatment decisions should be made by physicians and patients through a shared decision-making process taking into account patients' values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

2015 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a new evidence-based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We conducted systematic reviews to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatment options. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence. We employed a group consensus process to grade the strength of recommendations (either strong or conditional). A strong recommendation indicates that clinicians are certain that the benefits of an intervention far outweigh the harms (or vice versa). A conditional recommendation denotes uncertainty over the balance of benefits and harms and/or more significant variability in patient values and preferences. RESULTS: The guideline covers the use of traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in early (<6 months) and established (≥6 months) RA. In addition, it provides recommendations on using a treat-to-target approach, tapering and discontinuing medications, and the use of biologic agents and DMARDs in patients with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, malignancy, and serious infections. The guideline addresses the use of vaccines in patients starting/receiving DMARDs or biologic agents, screening for tuberculosis in patients starting/receiving biologic agents or tofacitinib, and laboratory monitoring for traditional DMARDs. The guideline includes 74 recommendations: 23% are strong and 77% are conditional. CONCLUSION: This RA guideline should serve as a tool for clinicians and patients (our two target audiences) for pharmacologic treatment decisions in commonly encountered clinical situations. These recommendations are not prescriptive, and the treatment decisions should be made by physicians and patients through a shared decision-making process taking into account patients' values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

Use of oral and subcutaneous methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis patients in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the patterns of methotrexate (MTX) use among rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. METHODS: Using data from RA patients enrolled in a US commercial health plan and the US Medicare program, we identified RA patients initiating oral MTX. Persistence with MTX (oral or subcutaneous [SC]) was defined as no gap for ≥90 days. RESULTS: New oral MTX users in Medicare (n = 20,431) were 76.9% women, had a mean ± SD age of 69.7 ± 11.7 years, and contributed a median followup of 2.6 years (interquartile range 1.7-3.5 years). Only 38% received dosages ≥20 mg/week at any time. Approximately 50% of patients discontinued MTX at 1 year, although more than one-third of patients subsequently restarted. New commercially insured oral MTX users (n = 4,048) were similar to Medicare patients, except for age. Among Medicare patients, 19% starting oral MTX subsequently initiated a biologic agent, mostly anti-tumor necrosis factor (85%). Of these, only 50% received MTX at a dosage of ≥20 mg/week, and only 21% of individuals switched to SC MTX (4%) or received hydroxychloroquine (8%), sulfasalazine (5%), or leflunomide (8%) prior to biologic agents. In commercially insured patients, 35% initiated a biologic agent, mostly anti-tumor necrosis factor therapies (90%). Of these, 43% never received MTX ≥20 mg/week. CONCLUSION: Titration to a higher-dose oral MTX and use of SC MTX among RA patients were infrequent and may have been underutilized. Further work to optimize MTX dosing before patients are switched to a biologic agent may be warranted.