Patient and Rheumatologist Perspectives on Tapering DMARDs in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Qualitative Study

Decision Aid-Led Tapering of Biologic and Targeted Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVE

To explore the experiences and perspectives of patients and rheumatologists on decision aid (DA)-led tapering of advanced therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were completed with patients and rheumatologists, embedded within a pilot study of DA-led tapering (ie, dose reduction) of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) in RA. All patients were in sustained (≥ 6 mos) remission and had chosen to reduce their therapy after a DA-led shared decision with their rheumatologist. The rheumatologists included those participating in the pilot (n = 4), and those who were not (n = 8). Reflexive thematic analysis of audiotaped and transcribed interviews identified themes in the group experiences.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 10, 6 female) unanimously found the DA easy to understand and felt confident in shared decision making about treatment tapering and managing flares. Rheumatologists' (n = 12, 5 female) perspectives on tapering bDMARDs and tsDMARDs varied widely, from very supportive to completely opposed, and influenced their views on the DA. Rheumatologists expressed concerns about patient comprehension, destabilizing a stable situation, risks of flare, and extending appointment times. Despite their initial reservations about sending the DA to all eligible patients ahead of appointments, 3 of 4 participating rheumatologists adopted this approach during the pilot, which had the benefit of facilitating patient-led conversations.

CONCLUSION

A DA-led strategy for tapering advanced therapy in RA was acceptable to patients and feasible in practice. Sending patients a DA ahead of their appointment facilitated patient-led conversations about tapering.

Candidacy 2.0 (CC) - an enhanced theory of access to healthcare for chronic conditions: lessons from a critical interpretive synthesis on access to rheumatoid arthritis care

BACKGROUND

The Dixon-Woods et al. Candidacy Framework, a valuable tool since its 2006 introduction, has been widely utilized to analyze access to various services in diverse contexts, including healthcare. This social constructionist approach examines micro, meso, and macro influences on access, offering concrete explanations for access challenges rooted in socially patterned influences. This study employed the Candidacy Framework to explore the experiences of individuals living with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and their formal care providers. The investigation extended to assessing supports and innovations in RA diagnosis and management, particularly in primary care.

METHODS

This systematic review is a Critical Interpretive Synthesis (CIS) of qualitative and mixed methods literature. The CIS aimed to generate theory from identified constructs across the reviewed literature. The study found alignment between the seven dimensions of the Candidacy Framework and key themes emerging from the data. Notably absent from the framework was an eighth dimension, identified as the "embodied relational self." This dimension, central to the model, prompted the proposal of a revised framework specific to healthcare for chronic conditions.

RESULTS

The CIS revealed that the eight dimensions, including the embodied relational self, provided a comprehensive understanding of the experiences and perspectives of individuals with RA and their care providers. The proposed Candidacy 2.0 (Chronic Condition (CC)) model demonstrated how integrating approaches like Intersectionality, concordance, and recursivity enhanced the framework when the embodied self was central.

CONCLUSIONS

The study concludes that while the original Candidacy Framework serves as a robust foundation, a revised version, Candidacy 2.0 (CC), is warranted for chronic conditions. The addition of the embodied relational self dimension enriches the model, accommodating the complexities of accessing healthcare for chronic conditions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study did not involve a health care intervention on human participants, and as such, trial registration is not applicable. However, our review is registered with the Open Science Framework at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ASX5C .

Patients' and rheumatologists' perceptions on dose reduction of rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

The recommended dose of a rituximab course for the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) consists of two infusions of 1000 mg with a 2-week interval. Evidence is growing that a lower dose could be as effective. We aimed to investigate patients' and rheumatologists' perceptions on dose reduction of rituximab.

METHODS

Patients with RA treated with rituximab, and rheumatologists were invited for a qualitative study via individual semi-structured interviews. Participants were recruited based on purposive sampling to ensure diversity. Interviews were analysed according to the principles of grounded theory and the constant comparative method.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients and 13 rheumatologists were interviewed. Patients and rheumatologists perceived the benefits of rituximab dose reduction for reasons of safety and societal costs. Furthermore, available evidence for the effectiveness of lower doses was mentioned as an argument in favour, in addition to the possibility to tailor the dose based on the patients' clinical manifestations. However, patients and rheumatologists had concerns about the potential loss of effectiveness and quality of life. Moreover, some rheumatologists felt uncomfortable with dose reduction due to insufficient experience with rituximab in general. Patients and rheumatologists emphasised the importance of shared decision-making, underscoring the pivotal role of physicians in this process by explaining the reasoning behind dose reduction.

CONCLUSION

Although some concerns on effectiveness were perceived, both patients and rheumatologists saw potential benefits of dose reduction in terms of safety, societal costs, and application of a personalised approach. As a result, most rheumatologists and patients showed a willingness to consider dose reduction strategies.

Effects of tapering conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs to drug-free remission versus stable treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (ARCTIC REWIND): 3-year results from an open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Tapering of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to drug-free remission is an attractive treatment goal for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, although long-term effects of tapering and withdrawal remain unclear. We compared 3-year risks of flare between three conventional synthetic DMARD treatment strategies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in sustained remission.

METHODS

In this open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial, we enrolled patients aged 18-80 years with rheumatoid arthritis who had been in sustained remission for at least 1 year on stable conventional synthetic DMARD therapy. Patients from ten hospitals in Norway were randomly assigned (2:1:1) with centre stratification to receive stable conventional synthetic DMARDs, half-dose conventional synthetic DMARDs, or half-dose conventional synthetic DMARDs for 1 year followed by withdrawal of all conventional synthetic DMARDs. The primary endpoint of this part of the study was disease flare over 3 years, analysed as flare-free survival and risk difference in the per-protocol population with a non-inferiority margin of 20%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01881308) and is completed.

FINDINGS

Between June 17, 2013, and June 18, 2018, 160 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive stable-dose conventional synthetic DMARDs (n=80), half-dose conventional synthetic DMARDs (n=42), or half-dose conventional synthetic DMARDs tapering to withdrawal (n=38). Four patients did not receive the intervention and 156 patients received the allocated treatment strategy. One patient was excluded due to major protocol violation and 155 patients were included in the per-protocol analysis. 104 (67%) of 156 patients were women and 52 (33%) were men. 139 patients completed 3-years follow-up without major protocol violation; 68 (87%) of 78 patients in the stable-dose group, 36 (88%) of 41 patients in the half-dose group and 35 (95%) of 37 patients in the half-dose tapering to withdrawal group. During the 3-year study period, 80% (95% CI 69-88%) were flare-free in the stable-dose group, compared with 57% (41-71%) in the half-dose group and 38% (22-53%) in the half-dose tapering to withdrawal group. Compared with stable-dose conventional synthetic DMARDs, the risk difference of flare was 23% (95% CI 6-41%, p=0·010) in the half-dose group and 40% (22-58%, p<0·0001) in the half-dose tapering to withdrawal group, non-inferiority was therefore not shown. Adverse events were reported in 65 (83%) of 78 patients in the stable-dose group, 36 (90%) of 40 patients in the half-dose group, and 36 (97%) of 37 patients in the half-dose tapering to withdrawal group. One death occurred in the stable-dose conventional synthetic DMARD group (sudden death considered unlikely related to the study medication).

INTERPRETATION

Two conventional synthetic DMARD tapering strategies were associated with significantly lower rates of flare-free survival compared with stable conventional synthetic DMARD treatment, and the data do not support non-inferiority. However, drug-free remission was achiveable for a significant subgroup of patients. This trial provides information on risk and benefits of different treatment strategies important for shared decision making.

FUNDING

Research Council of Norway and South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority.

Patient perspectives on tapering biologic or targeted synthetic therapy in well-controlled rheumatoid arthritis and comparison with providers' perspectives

OBJECTIVE

We examined patient and providers' perspectives on tapering biologic or targeted synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD or tsDMARD) in well-controlled RA to determine which factors influence their long-term treatment decisions.

METHODS

A standardized phone survey was administered to patients with well-controlled RA based on electronic health record review. Providers were also surveyed. Univariate and multivariable regression analysis was performed with odds ratios (OR) and 95% CI.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients and 11 providers completed the survey. In total, 39 (63%) patients would consider a bDMARD/tsDMARD taper. Patients were more likely to consider a taper if they thought their RA was well-controlled (OR 8.02, 95% CI 2.15-29.99, P = 0.002) and of shorter duration (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.89-0.99, P = 0.02). Patients were less likely to consider a taper if older (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-1.0, P = 0.05), if they were being treated with conventional synthetic DMARDs (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07-0.86, P = 0.0275) or daily glucocorticoids (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02-0.44, P = 0.0033). Patients' and providers' top concerns about long-term bDMARD/tsDMARD use were malignancy and infection. Their concerns about tapering were worsening pain, flare and loss of function. Patients were more likely to consider a bDMARD/tsDMARD taper than providers (63% vs 36%).

CONCLUSION

Patients who have had well-controlled RA are more likely to consider tapering bDMARD/tsDMARD when not being treated with csDMARDs or glucocorticoids. Patients and providers shared similar concerns regarding long-term use and tapering of bDMARD/tsDMARD, but patients were more likely to consider a taper.

Rheumatoid arthritis: the old issue, the new therapeutic approach

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic and systemic autoimmune disease of unknown etiology. The most common form of this disease is chronic inflammatory arthritis, which begins with inflammation of the synovial membrane of the affected joints and eventually leads to disability of the affected limb. Despite significant advances in RA pharmaceutical therapies and the availability of a variety of medicines on the market, none of the available medicinal therapies has been able to completely cure the disease. In addition, a significant percentage (30-40%) of patients do not respond appropriately to any of the available medicines. Recently, mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) have shown promising results in controlling inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, including RA. Experimental studies and clinical trials have demonstrated the high power of MSCs in modulating the immune system. In this article, we first examine the mechanism of RA disease, the role of cytokines and existing medicinal therapies. We then discuss the immunomodulatory function of MSCs from different perspectives. Our understanding of how MSCs work in suppressing the immune system will lead to better utilization of these cells as a promising tool in the treatment of autoimmune diseases.

What are the core recommendations for rheumatoid arthritis care? Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines

Systematic r eview to evaluate the quality of the clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management and to provide a synthesis of high-quality CPG recommendations, highlighting areas of consistency, and inconsistency. Electronic searches of five databases and four online guideline repositories were performed. RA management CPGs were eligible for inclusion if they were written in English and published between January 2015 and February 2022; focused on adults ≥ 18 years of age; met the criteria of a CPG as defined by the Institute of Medicine; and were rated as high quality on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. RA CPGs were excluded if they required additional payment to access; only addressed recommendations for the system/organization of care and did not include interventional management recommendations; and/or included other arthritic conditions. Of 27 CPGs identified, 13 CPGs met eligibility criteria and were included. Non-pharmacological care should include patient education, patient-centered care, shared decision-making, exercise, orthoses, and a multi-disciplinary approach to care. Pharmacological care should include conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), with methotrexate as the first-line choice. If monotherapy conventional synthetic DMARDs fail to achieve a treatment target, this should be followed by combination therapy conventional synthetic DMARDs (leflunomide, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine), biologic DMARDS and targeted synthetic DMARDS. Management should also include monitoring, pre-treatment investigations and vaccinations, and screening for tuberculosis and hepatitis. Surgical care should be recommended if non-surgical care fails. This synthesis offers clear guidance of evidence-based RA care to healthcare providers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review was registered with Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UB3Y7 ).

Canadian Rheumatology Association Living Guidelines for the Pharmacological Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis With Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs

OBJECTIVE

To provide the initial installment of a living guideline that will provide up-to-date guidance on the pharmacological management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Canada.

METHODS

The Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) formed a multidisciplinary panel composed of rheumatologists, researchers, methodologists, and patients. In this first installment of our living guideline, the panel developed a recommendation for the tapering of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/ts DMARD) therapy in patients in sustained remission using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach, including a health equity framework developed for the Canadian RA population. The recommendation was adapted from a living guideline of the Australia &amp; New Zealand Musculoskeletal Clinical Trials Network.

RESULTS

In people with RA who are in sustained low disease activity or remission for at least 6 months, we suggest offering stepwise reduction in the dose of b/tsDMARD without discontinuation, in the context of a shared decision, provided patients are able to rapidly access rheumatology care and reestablish their medications if needed. In patients where rapid access to care or reestablishing access to medications is challenging, we conditionally recommend against tapering. A patient decision aid was developed to complement the recommendation.

CONCLUSION

This living guideline will provide contemporary RA management recommendations for Canadian practice. New recommendations will be added over time and updated, with the latest recommendation, evidence summaries, and Evidence to Decision summaries available through the CRA website (www.rheum.ca).

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.