Engaging Multistakeholder Perspectives to Identify Patient-Centered Research Priorities Regarding Vaccine Uptake Among Adults With Autoimmune Conditions.

OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to prioritize topics for future patient-centered research to increase uptake of common vaccines, such as for pneumococcal pneumonia, influenza, herpes zoster, human papillomavirus, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, among adults living with autoimmune conditions. METHODS: A steering committee (SC) was formed that included clinicians, patients, patient advocates, and researchers associated with rheumatic diseases (psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, vasculitis), inflammatory bowel disease, and multiple sclerosis. Through a scoping review and discussions, SC members identified research topics regarding vaccine uptake and/or hesitancy for prioritization. A larger multistakeholder alliance that included patients and patient advocates, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, regulators, and vaccine manufacturers conducted a modified Delphi exercise online with three rating rounds and one ranking round. Frequency analysis and comparisons across stakeholder groups were conducted. A weighted ranking score was generated for each item in the ranking round for final prioritization. RESULTS: Through the Delphi process, 33 research topics were identified, of which 13 topics were rated as critical by more than 70% of all stakeholders (n = 31). The two highest ranked critical topics per the full stakeholder group were "How well a vaccine works for adults with autoimmune conditions" and "How beliefs about vaccine safety affect vaccine uptake." CONCLUSION: A multistakeholder group identified key topics as critically important priorities for future research to decrease vaccine hesitancy and improve uptake of vaccines for adults with autoimmune conditions.

Experiences and Treatment Preferences in Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis: A Cross-Sectional Study in the ArthritisPower Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Despite recent advances in treatment for psoriatic arthritis (PsA), many patients experience inadequate response or intolerance to therapy, indicating that unmet treatment-related needs remain. To further characterize these unmet needs, we evaluated patients' experiences regarding the burden of PsA symptoms and disease impacts, and patients' preferences for treatment. METHODS: Patients from ArthritisPower, a rheumatology research registry, completed a web-based survey. Object case best-worst scaling (BWS) was used to evaluate the relative burden of 11 PsA-related symptoms and the relative importance of improvement in nine PsA-related disease impacts. BWS data were analyzed using a random-parameters logit model. Patient demographics, preferences for mode and frequency of therapy, and preferences for methotrexate were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Among the 332 participants, most were White (94%), female (80%), with mean age of 54 years (SD 11.4). In the BWS, joint pain was the most bothersome symptom, followed by other musculoskeletal pain and fatigue. The BWS for disease impacts found that improvements in the ability to perform physical activities were most important, followed by improvements in the ability to function independently, sleep quality, and the ability to perform daily activities. The most burdensome symptoms and desired disease impact improvements were similar in patients regardless of their experience with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The most preferred mode and frequency of treatment administration was oral, once-daily medication (preferred by 38% of respondents), and 74% prioritized therapies that significantly improved joint-related symptoms versus psoriasis-related symptoms. The majority of respondents (65%) preferred PsA treatment regimens that did not include methotrexate. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PsA from a rheumatology registry found musculoskeletal pain symptoms to be the most bothersome and prioritized improvements to functional impacts of their disease. These findings can better inform development of new therapies and guide shared patient-provider treatment decision-making.

Patient-Reported Nausea and Fatigue Related to Methotrexate: A Prospective, Self-Controlled Study in the ArthritisPower® Registry.

INTRODUCTION: The magnitude and frequency of temporally related methotrexate (MTX)-associated side effects in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients are difficult to quantify using traditional research methods. As proof of concept designed in part to implement digital data collection for remote patient monitoring, we conducted a study implementing self-controlled case series analytic methods to understand MTX-related symptoms in RA or PsA. METHODS: In study phase 1, adults with RA or PsA from the ArthritisPower® Registry (past or current oral MTX users) participated in a cross-sectional survey. In phase 2, current MTX users participated in a longitudinal study and completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) 1-day nausea/vomiting and fatigue measure. Within-person change in PROMIS scores between risk (6-36 h post-dose) and control (96-144 h post-dose) windows were compared using mixed models. RESULTS: The baseline survey was completed by 671 participants (mean age: 54 years, 88% female, 92% white, 79% with RA). Among current MTX users (353/671 [53%]), most reported MTX-associated side effects (216/353 [61%]), most frequently fatigue (161/353 [46%]). Among phase 2 participants with (n = 39) and without (n = 84) baseline nausea, mean increase in PROMIS nausea was 5.1 units (P < 0.0001) and 0.7 units (P = 0.135), respectively; among those with (n = 51) and without (n = 72) baseline fatigue, mean increase in PROMIS fatigue was 3.9 units (P = 0.0003) and 0.4 units (P = 0.554), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Digital remote patient monitoring presents an opportunity to detect and address medication tolerability in real time. Using a novel study design to control for between-person confounding, the magnitude of nausea and fatigue experienced by participants with RA and PsA temporally related to weekly MTX use was substantial.

Which patient-reported outcomes do rheumatology patients find important to track digitally? A real-world longitudinal study in ArthritisPower.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used to track symptoms and to assess disease activity, quality of life, and treatment effectiveness. It is therefore important to understand which PROs patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease consider most important to track for disease management. METHODS: Adult US patients within the ArthritisPower registry with ankylosing spondylitis, fibromyalgia syndrome, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and systemic lupus erythematosus were invited to select between 3 and 10 PRO symptom measures they felt were important to digitally track for their condition via the ArthritisPower app. Over the next 3 months, participants (pts) were given the option to continue tracking their previously selected measures or to remove/add measures at 3 subsequent monthly time points (month [m] 1, m2, m3). At m3, pts prioritized up to 5 measures. Measures were rank-ordered, summed, and weighted based on pts rating to produce a summary score for each PRO measure. RESULTS: Among pts who completed initial selection of PRO assessments at baseline (N = 253), 140 pts confirmed or changed PRO selections across m1-3 within the specified monthly time window (28 days ± 7). PROs ranked as most important for tracking were PROMIS Fatigue, Physical Function, Pain Intensity, Pain Interference, Duration of Morning Joint Stiffness, and Sleep Disturbance. Patient's preferences regarding the importance of these PROs were stable over time. CONCLUSION: The symptoms that rheumatology patients prioritized for longitudinal tracking using a smartphone app were fatigue, physical function, pain, and morning joint stiffness.

Concerns, Healthcare Use, and Treatment Interruptions in Patients With Common Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To assess concerns and healthcare-related behaviors of patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: Adults from the United States with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) from the ArthritisPower Patient-Powered Research Network and CreakyJoints patient community completed surveys. Concerns and behaviors were compared among patients with different autoimmune conditions, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use, and geographic measures of urban status, income, education, and COVID-19 activity. RESULTS: Among 1517 participants (925 RA, 299 PsA, 185 AS, 108 SLE), mean age was 55.1 years, 88.3% were female, and 89.5% were White. COVID-19 concerns were similar across the country and were higher in biologic users (P < 0.001). Avoidance of doctor's office visits (56.6%) or laboratory testing (42.3%) and use of telehealth (29.5%) were more common in urban areas. Among participants receiving a DMARD without COVID-19 or other respiratory illness, 14.9% stopped a DMARD, with 78.7% of DMARD interruptions not recommended by a physician. DMARD stopping was more common in participants with lower socioeconomic status (SES) and in participants who avoided an office visit (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.04-2.04) or reported lack of telehealth availability OR 2.26 (95% CI 1.25-4.08). CONCLUSION: In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with RA, PsA, AS, and SLE frequently avoided office visits and laboratory testing. DMARD interruptions commonly occurred without the advice of a physician and were associated with SES, office visits, and telehealth availability, highlighting the need for adequate healthcare access and attention to vulnerable populations during the pandemic.

Patient perspectives on the pathway to psoriatic arthritis diagnosis: results from a web-based survey of patients in the United States.

BACKGROUND: There are limited real-world data on the diagnostic experiences of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), including medical care sought and potential barriers to diagnosis. We aim to describe patient experiences related to receiving a PsA diagnosis. METHODS: Ours was a mixed-method, 2-phase study. Phase 1 comprised concept elicitation and cognitive interviews with clinical experts and adults diagnosed with PsA to develop a cross sectional, web-based survey. US adults with a self-reported PsA diagnosis were recruited through a patient support community (CreakyJoints), an online patient research registry (ArthritisPower), and social media outreach. In Phase 2, the online survey collected data on sociodemographics, clinical symptoms, disease burden, and diagnosis history of survey respondents with PsA. RESULTS: Of the 203 respondents included, 172 (84.7%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 51.6 (10.8) years. The time between seeking medical attention and receiving a diagnosis was < 6 months for 69 respondents, 6 months to 4 years for 68 respondents, and ≥ 5 years for 66 respondents. Most respondents sought care from general practitioners (79.8%) and rheumatologists (66.5%). Common initial symptoms that led respondents to seek medical attention were joint pain (70.0%) and stiffness (53.7%). Among the initial symptoms that led respondents to seek care, joint pain, swollen joints, and sausage-like fingers or toes (indicating dactylitis) were more common among respondents with shorter time to diagnosis, whereas stiffness, fatigue, enthesitis (indicated by foot problems, tendon and ligament pain), and back pain were more common among respondents with longer time to diagnosis. Common misdiagnoses were psychosomatic issues (26.6%) and osteoarthritis (21.7%). Respondents with shorter times to diagnosis had lower frequencies of misdiagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents with PsA reported delays in diagnosis and misdiagnoses on their journey to a PsA diagnosis. Symptom differences, such as enthesitis and stiffness, were noted among respondents with shorter vs longer time to diagnosis. Increased understanding of diagnostic barriers may lead to earlier diagnosis and appropriate management to improve outcomes.

Data linkages between patient-powered research networks and health plans: a foundation for collaborative research.

OBJECTIVE: Patient-powered research networks (PPRNs) are a valuable source of patient-generated information. Diagnosis code-based algorithms developed by PPRNs can be used to query health plans' claims data to identify patients for research opportunities. Our objective was to implement privacy-preserving record linkage processes between PPRN members' and health plan enrollees' data, compare linked and nonlinked members, and measure disease-specific confirmation rates for specific health conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This descriptive study identified overlapping members from 4 PPRN registries and 14 health plans. Our methods for the anonymous linkage of overlapping members used secure Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, 1-way, cryptographic hash functions. Self-reported diagnoses by PPRN members were compared with claims-based computable phenotypes to calculate confirmation rates across varying durations of health plan coverage. RESULTS: Data for 21 616 PPRN members were hashed. Of these, 4487 (21%) members were linked, regardless of any expected overlap with the health plans. Linked members were more likely to be female and younger than nonlinked members were. Irrespective of duration of enrollment, the confirmation rates for the breast or ovarian cancer, rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis or psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, or vasculitis PPRNs were 72%, 50%, 75%, and 67%, increasing to 91%, 67%, 93%, and 80%, respectively, for members with ≥5 years of continuous health plan enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that PPRN membership and health plan data can be successfully linked using privacy-preserving record linkage methodology, and used to confirm self-reported diagnosis. Identifying and confirming self-reported diagnosis of members can expedite patient selection for research opportunities, shorten study recruitment timelines, and optimize costs.

Special Article: 2018 American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Foundation Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an evidence-based guideline for the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF). METHODS: We identified critical outcomes in PsA and clinically relevant PICO (population/intervention/comparator/outcomes) questions. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for PsA. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A voting panel, including rheumatologists, dermatologists, other health professionals, and patients, achieved consensus on the direction and the strength of the recommendations. RESULTS: The guideline covers the management of active PsA in patients who are treatment-naive and those who continue to have active PsA despite treatment, and addresses the use of oral small molecules, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin-12/23 inhibitors (IL-12/23i), IL-17 inhibitors, CTLA4-Ig (abatacept), and a JAK inhibitor (tofacitinib). We also developed recommendations for psoriatic spondylitis, predominant enthesitis, and treatment in the presence of concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, or serious infections. We formulated recommendations for a treat-to-target strategy, vaccinations, and nonpharmacologic therapies. Six percent of the recommendations were strong and 94% conditional, indicating the importance of active discussion between the health care provider and the patient to choose the optimal treatment. CONCLUSION: The 2018 ACR/NPF PsA guideline serves as a tool for health care providers and patients in the selection of appropriate therapy in common clinical scenarios. Best treatment decisions consider each individual patient situation. The guideline is not meant to be proscriptive and should not be used to limit treatment options for patients with PsA.

Special Article: 2018 American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Foundation Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an evidence-based guideline for the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF). METHODS: We identified critical outcomes in PsA and clinically relevant PICO (population/intervention/comparator/outcomes) questions. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for PsA. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A voting panel, including rheumatologists, dermatologists, other health professionals, and patients, achieved consensus on the direction and the strength of the recommendations. RESULTS: The guideline covers the management of active PsA in patients who are treatment-naive and those who continue to have active PsA despite treatment, and addresses the use of oral small molecules, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin-12/23 inhibitors (IL-12/23i), IL-17 inhibitors, CTLA4-Ig (abatacept), and a JAK inhibitor (tofacitinib). We also developed recommendations for psoriatic spondylitis, predominant enthesitis, and treatment in the presence of concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, or serious infections. We formulated recommendations for a treat-to-target strategy, vaccinations, and nonpharmacologic therapies. Six percent of the recommendations were strong and 94% conditional, indicating the importance of active discussion between the health care provider and the patient to choose the optimal treatment. CONCLUSION: The 2018 ACR/NPF PsA guideline serves as a tool for health care providers and patients in the selection of appropriate therapy in common clinical scenarios. Best treatment decisions consider each individual patient situation. The guideline is not meant to be proscriptive and should not be used to limit treatment options for patients with PsA.

Social media for arthritis-related comparative effectiveness and safety research and the impact of direct-to-consumer advertising.

BACKGROUND: Social media may complement traditional data sources to answer comparative effectiveness/safety questions after medication licensure. METHODS: The Treato platform was used to analyze all publicly available social media data including Facebook, blogs, and discussion boards for posts mentioning inflammatory arthritis (e.g. rheumatoid, psoriatic). Safety events were self-reported by patients and mapped to medical ontologies, resolving synonyms. Disease and symptom-related treatment indications were manually redacted. The units of analysis were unique terms in posts. Pre-specified conditions (e.g. herpes zoster (HZ)) were selected based upon safety signals from clinical trials and reported as pairwise odds ratios (ORs); drugs were compared with Fisher's exact test. Empirically identified events were analyzed using disproportionality analysis and reported as relative reporting ratios (RRRs). The accuracy of a natural language processing (NLP) classifier to identify cases of shingles associated with arthritis medications was assessed. RESULTS: As of October 2015, there were 785,656 arthritis-related posts. Posts were predominantly US posts (75%) from patient authors (87%) under 40 years of age (61%). For HZ posts (n = 1815), ORs were significantly increased with tofacitinib versus other rheumatoid arthritis therapies. ORs for mentions of perforated bowel (n = 13) were higher with tocilizumab versus other therapies. RRRs associated with tofacitinib were highest in conditions related to baldness and hair regrowth, infections and cancer. The NLP classifier had a positive predictive value of 91% to identify HZ. There was a threefold increase in posts following television direct-to-consumer advertisement (p = 0.04); posts expressing medication safety concerns were significantly more frequent than favorable posts. CONCLUSION: Social media is a challenging yet promising data source that may complement traditional approaches for comparative effectiveness research for new medications.