Frequency of Symptomatic Adverse Events in Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Exploratory Online Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To generate initial data on the frequency and effect of symptomatic adverse events (AEs) associated with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) drug therapy from the patient perspective. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory online survey asking patients with RA to indicate whether they currently or had ever experienced the 80 different symptomatic AEs included in the Patient-Reported Outcomes of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Results were summarized to report their frequency, and regression models were used to estimate their associations with RA medication use and overall bother. RESULTS: The 560 patients who completed the survey and reported taking ≥ 1 RA medication (disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [DMARDs], steroids, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs [NSAIDs]), had a mean disease duration of 8 years, and were on a wide range of DMARDs. The number of symptomatic AEs experienced in the past 7 days was none (6%), 1-10 (28%), 11-20 (28%), and > 20 (38%). Overall, most participants reported that side effects bothered them somewhat (28%), quite a bit (24%), or very much (15%). In multivariable regression analyses, current prednisone and NSAID use were associated with the greatest number of current side effects (26 and 22, respectively). Many of the strongest associations between current symptomatic AEs and medication use aligned with known side effect profiles. CONCLUSION: In this exploratory online survey, patients with RA reported frequent symptomatic AEs with their medications that are bothersome. Further work is needed to develop and validate a measure for use in patients with rheumatic disease.

Perspectives of Pediatric Rheumatologists on Initiating and Tapering Biologics in Patients with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: A Formative Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined pediatric rheumatologists' approaches to treatment decision making for biologic therapy for patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). This study presents the qualitative research undertaken to support the development of a Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) survey for tapering in JIA. The study objectives were to (1) describe the treatment decision-making process of pediatric rheumatologists to initiate and taper biologics; and (2) select attributes for a BWS survey. METHODS: Pediatric rheumatologists across Canada were recruited to participate in interviews using purposeful sampling. Interviews were conducted until saturation was achieved. Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and transcripts were analyzed using deductive thematic analysis. Initial codes were organized into themes and subthemes using an iterative process. Attributes for the BWS survey were developed from these themes and a literature review was conducted in parallel to inform survey development. Further refinement of the attributes was done through consultation with the research team. RESULTS: Five pediatric rheumatologists participated in the interviews. Shared decision making was part of the approach to initiating and tapering biologics in their practice. Tapering approaches differed; some pediatric rheumatologists preferred to stop biologics immediately, while others tapered by reducing dose and/or increasing the dose interval over time. A total of 14 attributes were developed for the BWS. Thirteen attributes were selected from the themes that emerged from the qualitative interviews and one attribute was included after review with the research team. Attributes related to patient characteristics included JIA subtype, time in remission, history or presence of joint damage or erosive disease, how challenging it was to achieve remission, and history of flares. Contextual attributes included accessibility of biologics and willingness to taper biologics. CONCLUSION: This study contributes to the limited literature on pediatric rheumatologists' approaches to treatment decision making for biologics in JIA and identifies attributes that affect the decision to both initiate and taper. Further research is planned to implement the BWS survey to understand the importance of the attributes identified. Additional investigation is required to determine if these characteristics align with patient and parent preferences.

Patient and rheumatologist perspectives on tapering DMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the perspectives of patients and rheumatologists for tapering DMARDs in RA. METHODS: Using semi-structured interview guides, we conducted individual interviews and focus groups with RA patients and rheumatologists, which were audiotaped and transcribed. We conducted a pragmatic thematic analysis to identify major themes, comparing and contrasting different views on DMARD tapering between patients and rheumatologists. RESULTS: We recruited 28 adult patients with RA (64% women; disease duration 1-54 y) and 23 rheumatologists (52% women). Attitudes across both groups towards tapering DMARDs were ambivalent, ranging from wary to enthusiastic. Both groups expressed concerns, particularly the inability to 'recapture' the same level of disease control, while also acknowledging potential positive outcomes such as reduced drug harms. Patient tapering perspectives (whether to and when) changed over time and commonly included non-biologic DMARDs. Patient preferences were influenced by lived experiences, side effects, previous tapering experiences, disease trajectory, remission duration and current life roles. Rheumatologists' perspectives varied on timing and patient profile to initiate tapering, and were informed by both data and clinical experience. Patients expressed interest in shared decision-making (SDM) and close monitoring during tapering, with ready access to their health-care team if problems arose. Rheumatologists were generally open to tapering (not stopping), though sometimes only when requested by their patients. CONCLUSION: The perspectives of patients and rheumatologists on tapering DMARDs in RA vary and evolve over time. Rheumatologists should periodically discuss DMARD tapering with patients as part of SDM, and ensure monitoring and flare management plans are in place.

Effectiveness of initial methotrexate-based treatment approaches in early rheumatoid arthritis: an elicitation of rheumatologists' beliefs.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify rheumatologists' beliefs about the effectiveness of triple therapy (MTX + HCQ + SSZ) and other commonly used initial treatments for RA. METHODS: In a Bayesian belief elicitation exercise, 40 rheumatologists distributed 20 chips, each representing 5% of their total weight of belief on the probability that a typical patient with moderate-severe early RA would have an ACR50 response within 6 months with MTX (oral and s.c.), MTX + HCQ (dual therapy) and triple therapy. Parametric distributions were fit, and used to calculate pairwise median relative risks (RR), with 95% credible intervals, and estimate sample sizes for new trials to shift these beliefs. RESULTS: In the pooled analysis, triple therapy was perceived to be superior to MTX (RR 1.97; 1.35, 2.89) and dual therapy (RR 1.32; 1.03, 1.73). A pessimistic subgroup (n = 10) perceived all treatments to be similar, whereas an optimistic subgroup (n = 10) believed triple therapy to be most effective of all (RR 4.03; 2.22, 10.12). Similar variability was seen for the comparison between oral and s.c. MTX. Assuming triple therapy is truly more effective than MTX, a trial of 100 patients would be required to convince the pessimists; if triple therapy truly has no-modest effect (RR <1.5), a non-inferiority trial of 475 patients would be required to convince the optimists. CONCLUSION: Rheumatologists' beliefs regarding the effectiveness of triple therapy vary, which may partially explain the variability in its use. Owing to the strength of beliefs, some may be reluctant to shift, even with new evidence.

Using a Discrete-Choice Experiment in a Decision Aid to Nudge Patients Towards Value-Concordant Treatment Choices in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Proof-of-Concept Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate, in a proof-of-concept study, a decision aid that incorporates hypothetical choices in the form of a discrete-choice experiment (DCE), to help patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) understand their values and nudge them towards a value-centric decision between methotrexate and triple therapy (a combination of methotrexate, sulphasalazine and hydroxychloroquine). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the decision aid, patients completed a series of 6 DCE choice tasks. Based on the patient's pattern of responses, we calculated his/her probability of choosing each treatment, using data from a prior DCE. Following pilot testing, we conducted a cross-sectional study to determine the agreement between the predicted and final stated preference, as a measure of value concordance. Secondary outcomes including time to completion and usability were also evaluated. RESULTS: Pilot testing was completed with 10 patients and adjustments were made. We then recruited 29 patients to complete the survey: median age 57, 55% female. The patients were all taking treatment and had well-controlled disease. The predicted treatment agreed with the final treatment chosen by the patient 21/29 times (72%), similar to the expected agreement from the mean of the predicted probabilities (68%). Triple therapy was the predicted treatment 24/29 times (83%) and chosen 20/29 (69%) times. Half of the patients (51%) agreed that completing the choice questions helped them to understand their preferences (38% neutral, 10% disagreed). The tool took an average of 15 minutes to complete, and median usability scores were 55 (system usability scale) indicating "OK" usability. CONCLUSION: Using a DCE as a value-clarification task within a decision aid is feasible, with promising potential to help nudge patients towards a value-centric decision. Usability testing suggests further modifications are needed prior to implementation, perhaps by having the DCE exercises as an "add-on" to a simpler decision aid.

Qualitative Study of Treatment Preferences for Rheumatoid Arthritis and Pharmacotherapy Acceptance: Indigenous Patient Perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: To explore patient preferences that influence decision-making in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by indigenous patients living in southern Alberta, Canada. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative narrative-based study within a social constructivist framework. Thirteen in-depth interviews with indigenous patients with RA who had attended 1 of 3 rheumatology practices in southern Alberta (1 rural and 2 urban) were completed. Codes generated through 2 phases of analysis were condensed into main themes, triangulated, and used to produce theoretical statements. RESULTS: Patients preferred to use a combination of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatments to manage their RA. Nonpharmacologic treatments included physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual strategies. Patients' preferences for taking medications varied and were influenced by factors that were clinical (i.e., trust in health providers and understanding drugs' mechanisms of action, benefits, harms, and administration burden), familial (i.e., support), and societal (i.e., access to medications and stigmatization of drug dependency). CONCLUSION: Indigenous patients apply a holistic approach to the nonpharmacologic management of RA. Increases in preferences for RA medications could be supported through enhanced communication strategies to increase patient understanding of medication effects and health provider recognition of societal and familial influences on patient decisions. A patient-provider relationship based on trust was fundamental to reaching mutual understanding and should be fostered by models of practice that promote cultural safety, empathy, compassion, openness, acknowledgment, and respect of cultural differences.