An Emergency Department-based system intervention to improve osteoporosis screening for older adults at high-risk of fracture.

Falls and osteoporosis are risk factors for fragility fractures. Bone mineral density (BMD) assessment is associated with better preventative osteoporosis care, but it is underutilized by those at high fracture risk. We created a novel electronic medical record (EMR) alert-driven protocol to screen patients in the Emergency Department (ED) for fracture risk and tested its feasibility and effectiveness in generating and completing referrals for outpatient BMD testing after discharge. The EMR alert was configured in 2 tertiary-care EDs and triggered by the term "fall" in the chief complaint, age (≥65 years for women, ≥70 years for men), and high fall risk (Morse score ≥ 45). The alert electronically notified ED study staff of potentially eligible patients. Participants received osteoporosis screening education and had BMD testing ordered. From November 15, 2020 to December 4, 2021, there were 2,608 EMR alerts among 2,509 patients. We identified 558 patients at high-risk of fracture who were screened for BMD testing referral. Participants were excluded for: serious illness (N = 141), no documented health insurance to cover BMD testing (N = 97), prior BMD testing/recent osteoporosis care (N = 58), research assistant unavailable to enroll (N = 53), concomitant fracture (N = 43), bedridden status (N = 38), chief complaint of fall documented in error (N = 38), long-term care residence (N = 34), participation refusal (N = 32), or hospitalization (N = 3). Of the 16 participants who had BMD testing ordered, 7 scheduled and 5 completed BMD testing. EMR alerts can help identify subpopulations who may benefit from osteoporosis screening, but there are significant barriers to identifying eligible and willing patients for screening in the ED. In our study targeting an innovative venue for osteoporosis care delivery, only about 1% of patients at high-risk of fracture scheduled BMD testing after an ED visit. Adequate resources during and after an ED visit are needed to ensure that older adults participate in preventative osteoporosis care.

Consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the OMERACT Core Outcome Set for shared decision making interventions in rheumatology trials.

OBJECTIVE: To gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set for rheumatology trials evaluating shared decision making (SDM) interventions. METHODS: Following the OMERACT Handbook methods, our Working Group (WG), comprised of 90 members, including 17 patient research partners (PRPs) and 73 clinicians and researchers, had six virtual meetings in addition to email exchanges to develop draft definitions and descriptions. The WG then conducted an international survey of its members to gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions. Finally, the WG members had virtual meetings and e-mail exchanges to review survey results and finalize names, definitions and descriptions of the domains. RESULTS: WG members contributed to developing the definitions. Fifty-two members representing four continents and 13 countries completed the survey, including 15 PRPs, 33 clinicians and 37 researchers. PRPs and clinicians/researchers agreed with all definitions and descriptions with agreements ranging from 87% to 100%. Respondents suggested wording changes to the names, definitions and descriptions to better reflect the domains. Discussions led to further simplification and clarification to address common questions/concerns about the domains. CONCLUSION: Our WG reached consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the core domain set for rheumatology trials of SDM interventions. This step is crucial to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The current study provides consensus-based definitions and descriptions for the domains of the OMERACT core domain set for shared decision making interventions from patients/caregivers, clinicians and researchers. This is a crucial step to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set for trials of SDM interventions.

OMERACT Core outcome measurement set for shared decision making in rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions: a scoping review to identify candidate instruments.

OBJECTIVES: Shared decision making (SDM) is a central tenet in rheumatic and musculoskeletal care. The lack of standardization regarding SDM instruments and outcomes in clinical trials threatens the comparative effectiveness of interventions. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) SDM Working Group is developing a Core Outcome Set for trials of SDM interventions in rheumatology and musculoskeletal health. The working group reached consensus on a Core Outcome Domain Set in 2020. The next step is to develop a Core Outcome Measurement Set through the OMERACT Filter 2.2. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) to identify candidate instruments for the OMERACT Filter 2.2 We systematically reviewed five databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Web of Science). An information specialist designed search strategies to identify all measurement instruments used in SDM studies in adults or children living with rheumatic or musculoskeletal diseases or their important others. Paired reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text articles. We extracted characteristics of all candidate instruments (e.g., measured construct, measurement properties). We classified candidate instruments and summarized evidence gaps with an adapted version of the Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) table. RESULTS: We found 14,464 citations, read 239 full text articles, and included 99 eligible studies. We identified 220 potential candidate instruments. The five most used measurement instruments were the Decisional Conflict Scale (traditional and low literacy versions) (n=38), the Hip/Knee-Decision Quality Instrument (n=20), the Decision Regret Scale (n=9), the Preparation for Decision Making Scale (n=8), and the CollaboRATE (n=8). Only 44 candidate instruments (20%) had any measurement properties reported by the included studies. Of these instruments, only 57% matched with at least one of the 7-criteria adapted SOMP table. CONCLUSION: We identified 220 candidate instruments used in the SDM literature amongst people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Our classification of instruments showed evidence gaps and inconsistent reporting of measurement properties. The next steps for the OMERACT SDM Working Group are to match candidate instruments with Core Domains, assess feasibility and review validation studies of measurement instruments in rheumatic diseases or other conditions. Development and validation of new instruments may be required for some Core Domains.

Preferences and decisional considerations relating to opioid agonist therapy among Ukrainian people who use drugs: A conjoint analysis survey.

Scaling up opioid agonist therapies (OAT) is the most effective strategy to control combined HIV and opioid epidemics, especially in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA), where HIV incidence and mortality continue to increase. Patient concerns about OAT, however, have undermined scale-up. The objective of this study is to understand Ukrainian opioid use disorder patient preferences about OAT to guide the development of an evidence-informed decision aid for clinical decision-making. We conducted a conjoint-based choice (CBC) survey. Participants were asked to about their preferences relating to 7 attributes of OAT (cost, dosing frequency, concerns about withdrawal symptoms, adverse side effects, improvements in quality of life, precipitation of withdrawal and legislative requirements to be registered as a drug dependent person) and 20 attribute levels for receiving OAT under differing potential treatment constraints. Data were analyzed using Hierarchical Bayesian models. Using respondent-driven sampling and random sampling, we recruited 2,028 people who inject drugs with opioid use disorder. Relative importance (RIS) and partial-worth utility scores (PWUS) were used to assess preferences for attributes and thresholds within each attribute. Cost and dosing frequency were the most important attributes (RIS = 39.2% and RIS = 25.2%, respectively) to potential patients, followed by concerns about withdrawal symptoms (RIS = 10.8%), adverse side effects (RIS = 9.0%), quality-of-life improvement (RIS = 7.5%), precipitation of euphoria (5.2%) and requirement to be registered as a drug- dependent person (RIS = 3.1%). The monthly cost-threshold for willingness-to-pay was 1,900 UAH ($70 USD). In Ukraine, where both governmental and private OAT clinics have emerged and provide markedly different delivery strategies, preferences are mostly driven by out-of-pocket expenses, despite many patients being willing to pay for OAT. Programmatic demands (flexibility and ease of acquiring medications) remain an important consideration while for a minority, clinical concerns about withdrawal symptoms, adverse side effects and OAT impact on life play a smaller role.

Mortality Rate Among Patients with Alcohol Use Disorder with Two or More Readmissions to the Hospital.

Background: Alcohol use disorder is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates, leading to a significant burden worldwide. Increased hazardous alcohol consumption has been reported during the COVID-19 pandemic raising concerns for greater impact of this already prevalent serious medical condition. Methods: We conducted chart reviews and described demographic and clinical data for patients with two or more hospital readmissions from June 2020 to July 2021 and followed survival status through June 2022. Results: We found a high mortality rate of 10.3%. Most patients had psychiatric conditions listed in the chart (n = 70, 80%). Only 34% (n = 24) of living patients and 6% (n = 1) of deceased patients were under psychiatric care. Rates of the utilization of medications for alcohol use disorder were low (n = 23, 26%). Interpretation: We found high mortality rates in patients with two or more hospital readmissions with low rates of utilization of medications for alcohol use disorder and psychiatric care, thus identifying areas of potential improvement.

Understanding Heterogeneity in Patients' Conceptualisation of Treatment for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Cluster Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Uptake of treat-to-target (TTT) strategies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management is low. Our objective was to understand the heterogeneity in patients' conceptualisation of RA treatment to inform interventions improving TTT uptake. DESIGN: Eligible participants recruited from an online research registry rated 56 items (on 5-point scales) reflecting concepts raised from patient interviews. Using items describing adhering to physician recommendations to create a binary criterion variable for medication adherence, we conducted a principal components analysis on the remaining items using Varimax rotation, describing how these factors predict adherence over and above demographic characteristics. We further use optimal sets in regression to identify the individual concepts that are most predictive of medication adherence. RESULTS: We found significant heterogeneity in patients' conceptualisation of RA treatment among 621 persons with RA. A scree plot revealed a four-factor solution explained 38.4% of the variance. The four factors expected to facilitate TTT uptake were (% variance explained): (1) Access to high quality care and support (11.3%); (2) low decisional conflict related to changing disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (10.1%); (3) endorsement of a favourable DMARD risk/benefit ratio (9.9%); and (4) confidence that testing reflects disease activity (7.2%). These factors account for 13.8% of the variance in full medication adherence, fully explaining the only significant demographic predictor, age of the patient. The individual items most predictive of poor adherence centre on the lack of effective patient-physician communication, specifically insufficient access to information from rheumatologists, along with the need to seek information elsewhere. CONCLUSION: Patients' conceptualisation of RA treatment varies; however, almost all patients have difficulty escalating DMARDs, even with access to quality information and an understanding of the benefits of TTT. Tailored interventions are needed to address patient hesitancy to escalate DMARDs.

Preferences in medications for patients seeking treatment for opioid use disorder: A conjoint analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The opioid epidemic continues to be a public health crisis that has worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic. Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are the most effective way to reduce complications from opioid use disorder (OUD), but uptake is limited by both structural and individual factors. To inform strategies addressing individual factors, we evaluated patients' preferences and trade-offs in treatment decisions using conjoint analysis. METHOD: We developed a conjoint analysis survey evaluating patients' preferences for FDA-approved MOUDs. We recruited patients with OUD presenting to initiate treatment. This survey included five attributes: induction, location and route of administration, impact on mortality, side effects, and withdrawal symptoms with cessation. Participants performed 12 choice sets, each with two hypothetical profiles and a "none" option. We used Hierarchical Bayes to identify relative importance of each attribute and part-worth utility scores of levels, which we compared using chi-squared analysis. We used the STROBE checklist to guide our reporting of this cross-sectional observational study. RESULTS: Five-hundred and thirty participants completed the study. Location with route of administration was the most important attribute. Symptom relief during induction and withdrawal was a second priority. Mortality followed by side effects had lowest relative importance. Attribute levels with highest part-worth utilities showed patients preferred monthly pick-up from a pharmacy rather than daily supervised dosing; and oral medications more than injection/implants, despite the latter's infrequency. CONCLUSION: We measured treatment preferences among patients seeking to initiate OUD treatment to inform strategies to scale MOUD treatment uptake. Patients prioritize the route of administration in treatment preference-less frequent pick up, but also injections and implants were less preferred despite their convenience. Second, patients prioritize symptom relief during the induction and withdrawal procedures of medication. These transition periods influence the sustainability of treatment. Although health professionals prioritize mortality, it did not drive decision-making for patients. To our knowledge, this is the largest study on patients' preferences for MOUD among treatment-seeking people with OUD to date. Future analysis will evaluate patient preference heterogeneity to further target program planning, counseling, and decision aid development.

Lung Cancer Screening Decision Aid Designed for a Primary Care Setting: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Guidelines recommend shared decision-making prior to initiating lung cancer screening (LCS). However, evidence is lacking on how to best implement shared decision-making in clinical practice. Objective: To evaluate the impact of an LCS Decision Tool (LCSDecTool) on the quality of decision-making and LCS uptake. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial enrolled participants at Veteran Affairs Medical Centers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and West Haven, Connecticut, from March 18, 2019, to September 29, 2021, with follow-up through July 18, 2022. Individuals aged 55 to 80 years with a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years who were current smokers or had quit within the past 15 years were eligible to participate. Individuals with LCS within 15 months were excluded. Of 1047 individuals who were sent a recruitment letter or had referred themselves, 140 were enrolled. Intervention: A web-based patient- and clinician-facing LCS decision support tool vs an attention control intervention. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was decisional conflict at 1 month. Secondary outcomes included decisional conflict immediately after intervention and 3 months after intervention, knowledge, decisional regret, and anxiety immediately after intervention and 1 and 3 months after intervention and LCS by 6 months. Results: Of 140 enrolled participants (median age, 64.0 [IQR, 61.0-69.0] years), 129 (92.1%) were men and 11 (7.9%) were women. Of 137 participants with data available, 75 (53.6%) were African American or Black and 62 (44.3%) were White; 4 participants (2.9%) also reported Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. Mean decisional conflict score at 1 month did not differ between the LCSDecTool and control groups (25.7 [95% CI, 21.4-30.1] vs 29.9 [95% CI, 25.6-34.2], respectively; P = .18). Mean LCS knowledge score was greater in the LCSDecTool group immediately after intervention (7.0 [95% CI, 6.3-7.7] vs 4.9 [95% CI, 4.3-5.5]; P < .001) and remained higher at 1 month (6.3 [95% CI, 5.7-6.8] vs 5.2 [95% CI, 4.5-5.8]; P = .03) and 3 months (6.2 [95% CI, 5.6-6.8] vs 5.1 [95% CI, 4.4-5.8]; P = .01). Uptake of LCS was greater in the LCSDecTool group at 6 months (26 of 69 [37.7%] vs 15 of 71 [21.1%]; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of an LCSDecTool compared with attention control, no effect on decisional conflict occurred at 1 month. The LCSDecTool used in the primary care setting did not yield a significant difference in decisional conflict. The intervention led to greater knowledge and LCS uptake. These findings can inform future implementation strategies and research in LCS shared decision-making. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02899754.

Stepped care versus center-based cardiopulmonary rehabilitation for older frail adults living in rural MA: Design of a feasibility randomized controlled trial.

Background: Cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation programs are grossly underutilized, and participation is particularly low in rural regions. Methods: We are conducting a 2-arm, randomized controlled feasibility trial. Eligible participants include older frail adults with cardiac or pulmonary disease living in a predominantly rural county in western Massachusetts. Participants are randomized 1:1 to treatment as usual or stepped care. Patients randomized to treatment as usual participate in twice weekly center-based rehabilitation sessions over eight weeks and are encouraged to exercise at home in between sessions. Patients randomized to the stepped-care arm are offered/enrolled in the center-based rehabilitation program followed by possible step up to three interventions based on prespecified non-response criteria: 1) Transportation-assisted center-based rehabilitation, 2) Home-based telerehabilitation, and 3) Community health worker-supported home-based telerehabilitation. The primary feasibility outcomes are average number of eligible patients randomized per month, baseline measure completion, proportion attending at least 70% of the prescribed sessions, average number of sessions attended in the stepped-care arm, and proportion in the stepped-care arm completing patient reported outcome measures. Each of these process indicators is evaluated by preset "Stop" and "Go" thresholds. Conclusion: The proposed stepped-care model is an efficient, patient-centered, approach to expanding access to cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation. Meeting the "Go" thresholds for the prespecified process indicators will justify conducting a definitive full-scale randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness and value (cost-effectiveness) of stepped-care versus center-based rehabilitation in older frail adults living rural counties.

2022 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Exercise, Rehabilitation, Diet, and Additional Integrative Interventions for Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop initial American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines on the use of exercise, rehabilitation, diet, and additional interventions in conjunction with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) as part of an integrative management approach for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: An interprofessional guideline development group constructed clinically relevant Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) questions. A literature review team then completed a systematic literature review and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate the certainty of evidence. An interprofessional Voting Panel (n = 20 participants) that included 3 individuals with RA achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS: The Voting Panel achieved consensus on 28 recommendations for the use of integrative interventions in conjunction with DMARDs for the management of RA. Consistent engagement in exercise received a strong recommendation. Of 27 conditional recommendations, 4 pertained to exercise, 13 to rehabilitation, 3 to diet, and 7 to additional integrative interventions. These recommendations are specific to RA management, recognizing that other medical indications and general health benefits may exist for many of these interventions. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides initial ACR recommendations on integrative interventions for the management of RA to accompany DMARD treatments. The broad range of interventions included in these recommendations illustrates the importance of an interprofessional, team-based approach to RA management. The conditional nature of most recommendations requires clinicians to engage persons with RA in shared decision-making when applying these recommendations.

2022 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Exercise, Rehabilitation, Diet, and Additional Integrative Interventions for Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop initial American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines on the use of exercise, rehabilitation, diet, and additional interventions in conjunction with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) as part of an integrative management approach for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: An interprofessional guideline development group constructed clinically relevant Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) questions. A literature review team then completed a systematic literature review and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate the certainty of evidence. An interprofessional Voting Panel (n = 20 participants) that included 3 individuals with RA achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS: The Voting Panel achieved consensus on 28 recommendations for the use of integrative interventions in conjunction with DMARDs for the management of RA. Consistent engagement in exercise received a strong recommendation. Of 27 conditional recommendations, 4 pertained to exercise, 13 to rehabilitation, 3 to diet, and 7 to additional integrative interventions. These recommendations are specific to RA management, recognizing that other medical indications and general health benefits may exist for many of these interventions. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides initial ACR recommendations on integrative interventions for the management of RA to accompany DMARD treatments. The broad range of interventions included in these recommendations illustrates the importance of an interprofessional, team-based approach to RA management. The conditional nature of most recommendations requires clinicians to engage persons with RA in shared decision-making when applying these recommendations.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Early Career Investigators in Rheumatology: Recommendations to Address Challenges to Early Research Careers.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the careers of trainees and early career investigators (ECIs). We sought to assess how the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the Rheumatology Research Foundation (RRF) can address the needs of those pursuing research careers. METHODS: The Committee on Research created a survey to assess the impact of COVID-19 and identify topics for the ACR and the RRF to address. In fall of 2020, we surveyed postdoctoral trainees and ECIs within 9 years of terminal training. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-one percent of invitees responded to the survey (n = 365); of these, 60% were pursuing careers in academic research. Seventy-five percent of respondents in academic research career paths placed their primary projects on hold during the pandemic. The number of individuals pursuing a research career from 2020 to 2021 decreased by 5%. Respondents reported funding, caregiving, and lack of preliminary data as significant challenges. Suggested impactful interventions included increased funding, funding process reform, and expanding mentoring and networking resources. CONCLUSION: Major stressors identified during the pandemic included increased caregiving responsibilities and difficulty obtaining data and funding, for which respondents suggested increases and changes in funding programs as well as more mentoring and networking opportunities. Based on these, the Committee on Research proposes 3 priorities: 1) flexible funding mechanisms for ECIs and additional support for those impacted by caregiving; 2) virtual and in-person programs for career development and networking; and 3) curated content relevant to building a research career available on demand.

Exploring perceptions of using preference elicitation methods to inform clinical trial design in rheumatology: A qualitative study and OMERACT collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trial design requires value judgements and understanding patient preferences may help inform these judgements, for example when prioritizing treatment candidates, designing complex interventions, selecting appropriate outcomes, determining clinically important thresholds, or weighting composite outcomes. Preference elicitation methods are quantitative approaches that can estimate patients' preferences to quantify the absolute or relative importance of outcomes or other attributes relevant to the decision context. We aimed to explore stakeholder perceptions of using preference elicitation methods to inform judgements when designing clinical trials in rheumatology. METHODS: We conducted 1-on-1 semi-structured interviews with patients with rheumatic diseases and rheumatology clinicians/researchers, recruited using purposive and snowball sampling. Participants were provided pre-interview materials, including a video and a document, to introduce the topic of preference elicitation methods and case examples of potential applications to clinical trials. Interviews were conducted via Zoom and were audio-recorded and transcribed. We used thematic analysis to analyze our data. RESULTS: We interviewed 17 patients and 9 clinicians/researchers, until data and inductive thematic saturation were achieved within each group. Themes were grouped into overall perceptions, barriers, and facilitators. Patients and clinicians/researchers generally agreed that preference elicitation studies can improve clinical trial design, but that many considerations are required around preference heterogeneity and feasibility. A key barrier identified was the additional resources and expertise required to measure and incorporate preferences effectively in trial design. Key facilitators included developing guidance on how to use preference elicitation to inform trial design, as well as the role of external decision-makers in developing such guidance, and the need to leverage the movement towards patient engagement in research to encourage including patient preferences when designing trials. CONCLUSION: Our findings allowed us to consider the potential applications of patient preferences in trial design according to stakeholders within rheumatology who are involved in the trial process. Future research should be conducted to develop comprehensive guidance on how to meaningfully include patient preferences when designing clinical trials in rheumatology. Doing so may have important downstream effects for shared decision-making, especially given the chronic nature of rheumatic diseases.

Recommendations for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Saudi Arabia: adolopment of the 2021 American College of Rheumatology guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The 2021 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) guideline considers the specific context of the United States which differs from that of Saudi Arabia in many aspects that may impact recommendations. The objective of this project was to adapt a set of prioritized recommendations from the 2021 ACR guideline for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis RA for the context of Saudi Arabia, by the Saudi Society for Rheumatology (SSR). METHODS: The process followed the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT methodology, and the reporting adhered to the RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist. Working groups included a coordination group and a 19-member panel representing different stakeholder groups. The Evidence to Decision (EtD) tables included evidence on health effects from the source guideline and contextual information from the Saudi setting. RESULTS: The panel prioritized and adapted five recommendations from the source guideline. The process led to modifying two out of the five prioritized recommendations, all listed here. In naive patients with low disease activity, methotrexate (MTX) is conditionally recommended over sulfasalazine (SSZ) (modified direction); hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is conditionally recommended over SSZ (unmodified). Initiation of csDMARDs with short-term glucocorticoids is conditionally recommended over csDMARDs alone in naive patients with moderate to high disease activity (modified direction). Switch to subcutaneous MTX is conditionally recommended over addition/switch to alternative DMARD(s) in patients taking oral MTX who are not at target (unmodified). Discontinuation of MTX is conditionally recommended over gradual discontinuation of the bDMARD or tsDMARD for patients taking MTX plus a bDMARD or tsDMARD who wish to discontinue a DMARD (unmodified). CONCLUSION: Rheumatologists practicing in Saudi Arabia can use the adoloped recommendations generated by this project while adopting the rest of the recommendations from the 2021 ACR guidelines.

Opioid tapering support using a web-based app: Development and protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Given limited efficacy and potential harms of long-term opioid therapy, it is patient-centered and guideline-concordant to offer patients the opportunity to engage in a supportive, patient-centered tapering program. The goal of this study was to develop and pilot an interactive web-based program designed to support patients willing to consider an opioid taper; this manuscript describes the development and the protocol for a pilot randomized trial of Summit. METHODS: We used intervention mapping to develop the Summit program; during the development period we engaged multiple stakeholder groups and conducted usability testing to refine the interactive, theory-informed, multi-component mobile website program which includes education, video testimonials, self-management skills, and access to a peer specialist. We will evaluate the Summit program in a two-arm, 9 month randomized-controlled trial where 64 individuals will be assigned either to the Summit program or to a control group (pain tracking app). As a pilot trial, the primary outcomes are feasibility and acceptability; we will also measure patient-reported outcomes related to pain, quality of life, and opioid use. IMPLICATIONS: We developed an interactive program; results of the pilot trial are pending. If shown to be effective, Summit would be useful both in augmenting care for patients who are engaged in a taper with primary care.

Rheumatologist and Patient Mental Models for Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis Help Explain Low Treat-to-Target Rates.

OBJECTIVE: Despite proven benefits, less than half of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are treated using a treat-to-target (TTT) strategy. Our objective was to identify critical discrepancies between rheumatologist and patient mental models related to the treatment of RA to inform interventions designed to increase implementation of TTT. METHODS: We developed rheumatologist and patient mental models using the Mental Models Approach to Risk Communication. We conducted semistructured interviews to elicit views related to RA treatment decisions with 14 rheumatologists and 30 patients with RA. We also included responses (n = 284) to an open-ended question on a survey fielded to augment qualitative descriptions from the interviews. Interviews were transcribed and coded independently by two members of the research team. RESULTS: Rheumatologist and patient mental models for RA treatment are significantly more complex than the TTT model. Both consider domains (system factors and patient readiness) outside of disease activity measurement, target setting, and risk versus benefit assessment in their decision-making. Furthermore, specific factors were found to be unique to each model. For example, the physician model stresses the importance of evaluating disease activity over time and patient adherence. In contrast, patients discussed the impact of chronic disease weariness, medication-related fatigue, the importance of feeling adequately informed, and stress associated with changing medications. CONCLUSION: We found several discrepancies primarily related to information gaps and differences in how patients and physicians value trade-offs that can serve as specific targets to improve patient-physician communication and ultimately inform interventions to improve uptake of TTT.

Stakeholder Perspectives on Hospitalization Decisions and Shared Decision-Making in Bronchiolitis.

OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to elicit clinicians' and parents' perspectives about decision-making related to hospitalization for children with bronchiolitis and the use of shared decision-making (SDM) to guide these decisions. METHODS: We conducted individual, semistructured interviews with purposively sampled clinicians (pediatric emergency medicine physicians and nurses) at 2 children's hospitals and parents of children age <2 years with bronchiolitis evaluated in the emergency department at 1 hospital. Interviews elicited clinicians' and parents' perspectives on decision-making and SDM for bronchiolitis. We conducted an inductive analysis following the principles of grounded theory until data saturation was reached for both groups. RESULTS: We interviewed 24 clinicians (17 physicians, 7 nurses) and 20 parents. Clinicians identified factors in 3 domains that contribute to hospitalization decision-making for children with bronchiolitis: demographics, clinical factors, and social-emotional factors. Although many clinicians supported using SDM for hospitalization decisions, most reported using a clinician-guided decision-making process in practice. Clinicians also identified several barriers to SDM, including the unpredictable course of bronchiolitis, perceptions of parents' preferences for engaging in SDM, and parents' emotions, health literacy, preferred language, and comfort with discharge. Parents wanted the opportunity to express their opinions during decision-making about hospitalization, although they often felt comfortable with the clinician's decision when adequately informed. CONCLUSIONS: Although clinicians and parents of children with bronchiolitis are supportive of SDM, most hospitalization decision-making is clinician guided. Future investigation should evaluate how to address barriers and implement SDM in practice, including training clinicians in this SDM approach.

Protocol for the pilot randomized trial of the CArdiovascular Risk assEssment for Rheumatoid Arthritis (CARE RA) intervention: a peer coach behavioral intervention.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most common cause of death among people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with an estimated increased risk of 50-60% compared to the general population. Lipid-lowering strategies have been shown to lower CVD risk significantly in people with RA and hyperlipidemia. Thus, CVD risk assessment has an important role to play in reducing CVD among people with RA. Yet currently only 37 to 45% of this population are receiving primary lipids screening. This paper describes the CArdiovascular Risk assEssment for RA (CARE RA) intervention, which is designed to address this issue. CARE RA is a peer coach intervention, that is, an intervention in which a person with RA coaches another person with RA, which is designed to educate people with RA about the relation between RA and CVD risk and to help them obtain evidence-based CVD risk assessment and treatment. METHODS: This is an open-label pilot study that will test if the participants assigned to complete the CARE RA curriculum with a peer coach will receive a cardiovascular risk assessment more frequently compared to those that complete the CARE RA curriculum by themselves. The CARE RA intervention is guided by Social Cognitive Theory. Participants in the peer coach intervention arm will receive the assistance of a peer coach who will call the participants once a week for 5 weeks to go over the CARE RA curriculum and train them on how to obtain CVD risk assessment. The control arm will complete the CARE RA curriculum without any assistance. Participants will be randomized 1:1 either to the control arm or to the peer coach intervention arm. The primary outcome is a participant's having a CVD risk assessment or initiating a statin, if indicated. Secondary outcomes include patient activation and RA medication adherence. The RE-AIM implementation framework guides the implementation and evaluation of the intervention. DISCUSSION: This pilot study will test the feasibility of the peer coach intervention in anticipation of a larger trial. CARE RA pioneers the use of peer coaches to facilitate the implementation of evidence-based treatment guidelines among people with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04488497 . Registered on July 28, 2020.