A maximum difference scaling survey of barriers to intensive combination treatment strategies with glucocorticoids in early rheumatoid arthritis

What matters most to pediatric rheumatologists in deciding whether to discontinue biologics in a child with juvenile idiopathic arthritis? A best-worst scaling survey

OBJECTIVES

Care for JIA patients has been transformed in the biologics era; however, biologics carry important (although rare) risks and are costly. Flares after biological withdrawal are seen frequently, yet there is little clinical guidance to identify which patients in clinical remission can safely have their biologic discontinued (by stopping or tapering). We examined what characteristics of the child or their context are important to pediatric rheumatologists when making the decision to discuss withdrawal of biologics.

METHODS

We conducted a survey including a best-worst scaling (BWS) exercise in pediatric rheumatologists who are part of the UCAN CAN-DU network to assess the relative importance of 14 previously identified characteristics. A balanced incomplete block design was used to generate choice tasks. Respondents evaluated 14 choice sets of 5 characteristics of a child with JIA and identified for each set which was the most and least important in the decision to offer withdrawal. Results were analyzed using conditional logit regression.

RESULTS

Fifty-one (out of 79) pediatric rheumatologists participated (response rate 65%). The three most important characteristics were how challenging it was to achieve remission, history of established joint damage, and time spent in remission. The three least important characteristics were history of temporomandibular joint involvement, accessibility of biologics, and the patient's age.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings give quantitative insight about factors important to pediatric rheumatologists' decision-making about biologic withdrawal. In addition to high quality clinical evidence, further research is needed to understand the perspective of patients and families to inform shared decision-making about biologic withdrawal for JIA patients with clinically inactive disease. Key Points ● What is already known on this topic-there is limited clinical guidance for pediatric rheumatologists in making decisions about biologic withdrawal for patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis who are in clinical remission. ● What this study adds-this study quantitatively examined what characteristic of the child in clinical remission, or of their context, are most important to pediatric rheumatologists in deciding whether to offer withdrawal of biologics. ● How this study might affect research, practice or policy-understanding of these characteristics can provide useful information to other pediatric rheumatologists in making their decisions, and may guide areas to focus on for future research.

Glucocorticoids in rheumatoid arthritis: Balancing benefits and harm by leveraging the therapeutic window of opportunity

Glucocorticoids have been available since the early 1950s and have since become an integral part of the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Due to their rapid effect, glucocorticoids have an appealing profile for treating flares or as "bridging" agents in early RA. The efficacy of glucocorticoids to treat RA has been well established, both to control disease activity and to delay the progression of joint damage. However, despite their benefits, glucocorticoids have equally well-known adverse effects. It is generally accepted that long-term use of glucocorticoids, particularly at higher doses, is not advisable, and recent guidelines for the management of RA therefore either recommend against the use of glucocorticoids or suggest using them only as bridging therapy. Perceptions on the harmful effects of glucocorticoids remain, although mainly based on observational studies. Prolonged glucocorticoid therapy at low doses is still highly prevalent in clinical practice, but recent data suggest a rather favourable risk-benefit balance for this strategy, even in senior patients. Balancing the benefits and risks of treating RA with glucocorticoids thus remains a somewhat controversial topic. This narrative review outlines the historical and current position of glucocorticoids in the management of RA, while summarising recent evidence on their beneficial and detrimental effects. Furthermore, practical strategies for the current use and tapering of glucocorticoids in RA are formulated.

Short-term glucocorticoids reduce risk of chronic NSAID and analgesic use in early methotrexate-treated rheumatoid arthritis patients with favourable prognosis: subanalysis of the CareRA randomised controlled trial

Objective

To explore non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) and analgesic use in early rheumatoid arthritis (eRA) patients with a favourable risk profile initiating methotrexate (MTX) with or without glucocorticoid (GC) bridging.

Methods

Patients with eRA (≤1 year) and favourable risk profile (no erosions, negative rheumatoid factor and anticitrullinated protein antibodiesor low disease activity) in the 2-year CareRA trial were randomised to MTX 15 mg with a step-down GC scheme (COBRA Slim), or MTX without oral GCs, Tight-Step-Up (TSU). Used analgesics were recorded, including frequency, start/end date and indication. Chronic intake (≥90 consecutive days in trial) of NSAIDs, acetaminophen, opioids including tramadol and antidepressants for the indication of musculoskeletal (MSK) pain was considered. Treatments were compared using χ² and analysis of variance with Holm’s correction for multiple testing.

Results

In total, 43 patients were randomised to COBRA Slim and 47 to TSU. At study inclusion, 33/43 (77%) of patients in the COBRA Slim and 32/47 (68%) in the TSU arm had been using analgesics (p=0.5). During the trial, 67 NSAID and analgesics were used for MSK pain in 26/43 (60%) COBRA Slim patients of which 9/43 (21%) daily chronically (DC), while 107 NSAID and analgesics were used in 43/47 (92%) TSU patients, of which 25/47 (53%) DC. The total number of patients on NSAID and analgesics at any time during the study (p<0.01) and chronically (p=0.01) was significantly different between treatment arms. Number of patients on DC NSAIDs was also significantly different (p<0.01) between COBRA Slim 6/43 (14%) and TSU 19/47 (40%).

Conclusion

In eRA patients considered to have a favourable prognosis, initial oral GC bridging resulted in lower chronic NSAID and analgesic use.

Trial registration number

NCT01172639.

Ranking facilitators and barriers of medication adherence by patients with inflammatory arthritis: a maximum difference scaling exercise

Introduction

Facilitators and barriers of adherence to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have been identified by patients with inflammatory arthritis earlier. However, the relative importance from the patients’ perspective of these factors is unknown. Knowledge on this ranking might guide the development of interventions and may facilitate targeted communication on adherence. This study aims to examine 1) the relative importance patients attach to facilitators and barriers for DMARDs adherence, and 2) the relationship between patient characteristics and ranking of these factors.

Methods

One hundred twenty-eight outpatients with inflammatory arthritis; (60% female, mean age 62 years (SD = 12), median disease duration 15 years, IQR (7, 23) participated in a Maximum Difference scaling exercise and ranked 35 items based upon previously identified facilitators and barriers to medication adherence. Hierarchical Bayes estimation was used to compute mean Rescaled Probability Scores (RPS; 0–100) (i.e. relative importance score). Kendall’s coefficient of concordance was used to examine a possible association between patients’ characteristics (i.e. age, sex and educational level) and ranking of the items.

Results

The three most important items ranked by patients were: Reduction of symptoms formulated as “Arthritis medications help to reduce my symptoms” (RPS = 7.30, CI 7.17–7.44), maintaining independence formulated as “I can maintain my independence as much as possible” (RPS = 6.76, CI 6.54–6.97) and Shared decision making formulated as “I can decide –together with my physician- about my arthritis medications” (RPS = 6.48, CI 6.24–6.72). No associations between patient characteristics and ranking of factors were found.

Conclusions

Reducing symptoms, maintaining independency and shared decision making are patients’ most important factors for DMARDs adherence. This knowledge might guide the development of interventions and may facilitate communication between health professionals and their patients on medication adherence.

Most Important Frequently Asked Questions From Patients With Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis: A Best-Worst Scaling Exercise

OBJECTIVE

To collect and prioritize the frequently asked questions (FAQs) that patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) and health care professionals consider to be the most important; to identify informational needs that go beyond guideline recommendations.

METHODS

FAQs were collected among health care professionals and from the arthritis helpline of the Dutch Arthritis Foundation. After deleting overlapping FAQs, the remaining FAQs were prioritized by patients and health care professionals using a maximum difference scaling method. A hierarchical Bayesian method was used to calculate relative importance scores. Differences between health care professionals and patients were analyzed using independent t-tests.

RESULTS

A total of 28 health care professionals and the arthritis helpline provided 192 FAQs. After deleting overlapping FAQs, 60 FAQs were prioritized by 94 patients (57 [60.6%] women, mean age 67.3 years) and 122 health care professionals (67 [54.9%] women, mean age 45.7 years). The FAQ "What can I do myself to decrease symptoms and to prevent the OA from getting worse?" was prioritized as the most important by both patients and professionals. FAQs that were highly prioritized by patients but significantly different from professionals were more directed toward treatment options offered by health care professionals, whereas highly prioritized FAQs of professionals were more often focused on treatment options involving self-management.

CONCLUSION

The health care professionals' perspective on informational needs differs from that of OA patients. These differences are important to address in order to achieve more active involvement of patients in their own treatment process.

The patient perspective on biologic DMARD dose reduction in rheumatoid arthritis: a mixed methods study

Objectives

The aim of this study was to identify the factors that play a role for patients with RA when considering dose reduction (i.e. gradual tapering until discontinuation) of biological DMARDs (bDMARDs), and to determine their relative importance.

Methods

A mixed methods design was used in which we identified influencing factors by performing semi-structured interviews and ranked these factors using a Maximum Difference Scaling questionnaire. Also, we looked at the influence of several patient characteristics on this ranking.

Results

For sub study 1 and 2, 22 and 192 patients with RA were included, respectively, in the analyses. Thirty factors were identified from the interviews-characterized into nine themes-and appraised in the questionnaire. Most respondents had a positive attitude towards bDMARD dose reduction. The study showed that patients are concerned that dose reduction will lead to a disease flare that affects their daily life (pain, function). It is important for them to know that it is possible to increase the dose if (further) reduction fails and that the bDMARD will be effective again. Patients value the opinion of their rheumatologist, and being involved in the decision to start tapering is highly ranked as well. The most important factors were consistent between different groups of patients.

Conclusion

The results from this study facilitate implementation of bDMARD dose reduction; they inform care providers on what is important for patients and provide a basis for shared decision making.

Clinical efficacy of new JAK inhibitors under development. Just more of the same?

Janus kinase inhibition is promising in the treatment of RA, with already two oral drugs marketed. New compounds are under investigation that are more selective for Janus kinase 1 or Janus kinase 3. Phase II results for filgotinib, upadacitinib, peficitinib and decernotinib are reviewed showing almost consistently a fast dose-dependent clinical improvement similar to already approved drugs tofacitinib and baricitinib. I will reflect on the most frequently reported dose-dependent adverse events and laboratory changes. Some are similar for all drugs of this class, some are more specific for a certain drug, but all may influence future treatment effectiveness in daily practice. This implies the need for a critical evaluation of phase III trials, and eventually trials specifically powered for conclusions on the safety profile and registries once these drugs become marketed. These innovative drugs also need head-to-head trials versus biologics or in-class as well as specific strategy studies to determine their optimal future use.

Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best-worst scaling: an overview

Best-worst scaling (BWS), also known as maximum-difference scaling, is a multiattribute approach to measuring preferences. BWS aims at the analysis of preferences regarding a set of attributes, their levels or alternatives. It is a stated-preference method based on the assumption that respondents are capable of making judgments regarding the best and the worst (or the most and least important, respectively) out of three or more elements of a choice-set. As is true of discrete choice experiments (DCE) generally, BWS avoids the known weaknesses of rating and ranking scales while holding the promise of generating additional information by making respondents choose twice, namely the best as well as the worst criteria. A systematic literature review found 53 BWS applications in health and healthcare. This article expounds possibilities of application, the underlying theoretical concepts and the implementation of BWS in its three variants: 'object case', 'profile case', 'multiprofile case'. This paper contains a survey of BWS methods and revolves around study design, experimental design, and data analysis. Moreover the article discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the three types of BWS distinguished and offered an outlook. A companion paper focuses on special issues of theory and statistical inference confronting BWS in preference measurement.

Using Best-Worst Scaling to Investigate Preferences in Health Care

INTRODUCTION

Best-worst scaling (BWS) is becoming increasingly popular to elicit preferences in health care. However, little is known about current practice and trends in the use of BWS in health care. This study aimed to identify, review and critically appraise BWS in health care, and to identify trends over time in key aspects of BWS.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted, using Medline (via Pubmed) and EMBASE to identify all English-language BWS studies published up until April 2016. Using a predefined extraction form, two reviewers independently selected articles and critically appraised the study quality, using the Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, Significance (PREFS) checklist. Trends over time periods (≤2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015) were assessed further.

RESULTS

A total of 62 BWS studies were identified, of which 26 were BWS object case studies, 29 were BWS profile case studies and seven were BWS multi-profile case studies. About two thirds of the studies were performed in the last 2 years. Decreasing sample sizes and decreasing numbers of factors in BWS object case studies, as well as use of less complicated analytical methods, were observed in recent studies. The quality of the BWS studies was generally acceptable according to the PREFS checklist, except that most studies did not indicate whether the responders were similar to the non-responders.

CONCLUSION

Use of BWS object case and BWS profile case has drastically increased in health care, especially in the last 2 years. In contrast with previous discrete-choice experiment reviews, there is increasing use of less sophisticated analytical methods.

The optimal combination therapy for the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory autoimmune condition traditionally viewed as a severe destructive disease affecting physical health and global wellbeing. The treatment strategies for RA have changed in the last decades from mainly symptomatic towards a more vigorous and targeted approach.

AREA COVERED

Reviewing recent literature enhanced by own expertise and research, a case is made for starting early with an intensive combination treatment with glucocorticoids, followed by a treat to target approach in a tight control setting. Implementation issues that need to be addressed to make optimal use of the 'window of opportunity' are highlighted.

EXPERT OPINION

There is strong evidence in favor of traditional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) combined with a remission induction scheme of glucocorticoids to achieve adequate efficacy in controlling early rheumatoid arthritis with good safety and feasibility in daily clinical practice. Furthermore, the most optimal RA treatment should address not only the physician-oriented clinical disease outcomes but also the patient perspective. There is still a need for working on improving implementation of this approach in daily practice in order to provide optimal treatment benefit to more patients.