Preferences for preventive treatments for rheumatoid arthritis: discrete choice survey in the UK, Germany and Romania

Prevention of Rheumatoid Arthritis in At-Risk Individuals: Current Status and Future Prospects

Early intervention has been the cornerstone of improving outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Over the past decade, the boundaries have been pushed in an attempt to achieve effective prevention strategies in those who are at high risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis. Core risk factors including the presence of serum anti-citrullinated protein antibodies, arthralgia and subclinical inflammation on imaging are highly predictive of arthritis development. The influence of air pollution, diet and the role of microbiome on disease progression are less clear. In turn, therapeutic focus has shifted to an earlier pre-arthritis phase of the disease continuum where the clinically apparent arthritis may potentially be intercepted. Seven proof-of-concept interventional trials in at-risk individuals have been conducted so far. Whether true prevention of rheumatoid arthritis is possible remains elusive. Promising signals towards permanent disease modulation and improvement in symptom burden were seen with some immunomodulatory therapies, whilst others were unsuccessful. Long-term follow-up is required to ascertain a true effect. Looking forward, a better understanding of the natural history and underlying biological mechanisms of arthritis development and more accurate, validated risk stratification is needed.

Research Priorities to Increase Confidence in and Acceptance of Health Preference Research: What Questions Should be Prioritized Now?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

There has been an increase in the study and use of stated-preference methods to inform medicine development decisions. The objective of this study was to identify prioritized topics and questions relating to health preferences based on the perspective of members of the preference research community.

METHODS

Preference research stakeholders from industry, academia, consultancy, health technology assessment/regulatory, and patient organizations were recruited using professional networks and preference-targeted e-mail listservs and surveyed about their perspectives on 19 topics and questions for future studies that would increase acceptance of preference methods and their results by decision makers. The online survey consisted of an initial importance prioritization task, a best-worst scaling case 1 instrument, and open-ended questions. Rating counts were used for analysis. The best-worst scaling used a balanced incomplete block design.

RESULTS

One hundred and one participants responded to the survey invitation with 66 completing the best-worst scaling. The most important research topics related to the synthesis of preferences across studies, transferability across populations or related diseases, and method topics including comparison of methods and non-discrete choice experiment methods. Prioritization differences were found between respondents whose primary affiliation was academia versus other stakeholders. Academic researchers prioritized methodological/less studied topics; other stakeholders prioritized applied research topics relating to consistency of practice.

CONCLUSIONS

As the field of health preference research grows, there is a need to revisit and communicate previous work on preference selection and study design to ensure that new stakeholders are aware of this work and to update these works where necessary. These findings might encourage discussion and alignment among different stakeholders who might hold different research priorities. Research on the application of previous preference research to new contexts will also help increase the acceptance of health preference information by decision makers.

'What is my risk really?': a qualitative exploration of preventive interventions among individuals at risk of rheumatoid arthritis

Objectives

Intervention in the pre-arthritis phase of RA could prevent or delay the onset of disease. The primary aim of this study was to explore perspectives of being at risk and potential preventive interventions among individuals at risk of developing RA and to identify factors influencing their engagement with prevention. A secondary aim, established during the analytical process, was to understand and compare different approaches to health-related behaviours related to prevention of RA.

Methods

Anti-CCP-positive (CCP+) at-risk individuals with musculoskeletal symptoms but no synovitis participated in semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, followed by a secondary ideal-type analysis.

Results

Nineteen CCP+ at-risk individuals (10 women; age range 35-70 years) participated. Three overarching themes were identified: being CCP+ at risk; aiming to prevent RA; and influencers of engagement. Participants described distress related to symptoms and uncertainty about disease progression. Many participants had concerns about medication side effects. In contrast, most participants expressed willingness to make lifestyle changes with the aim of preventing RA. Engagement with preventive measures was influenced by symptom severity, personal risk level, co-morbidities, experiences of taking other medications/supplements, knowledge of RA, risk factors and medications, and perceived effort. Three types of participants were identified from the data: proactive preventers, change considerers and fearful avoiders. Overall orientation to health behaviours also impacted the attitude towards preventing RA.

Conclusion

Findings could inform recruitment and retention in RA prevention research and promote uptake of preventive interventions in clinical practice.

Can the General Public Be a Proxy for an "At-Risk" Group in a Patient Preference Study? A Disease Prevention Example in Rheumatoid Arthritis

BACKGROUND

When selecting samples for patient preference studies, it may be difficult or impractical to recruit participants who are eligible for a particular treatment decision. However, a general public sample may not be an appropriate proxy.

OBJECTIVE

This study compares preferences for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) preventive treatments between members of the general public and first-degree relatives (FDRs) of confirmed RA patients to assess whether a sample of the general public can be used as a proxy for FDRs.

METHODS

Participants were asked to imagine they were experiencing arthralgia and had screening tests indicating a 60% chance of developing RA within 2 yrs. Using a discrete choice experiment, participants were offered a series of choices between no treatment and 2 unlabeled hypothetical treatments to reduce the risk of RA. To assess data quality, time to complete survey sections and comprehension questions were assessed. A random parameter logit model was used to obtain attribute-level estimates, which were used to calculate relative importance, maximum acceptable risk (MAR), and market shares of hypothetical preventive treatments.

RESULTS

The FDR sample (n = 298) spent more time completing the survey and performed better on comprehension questions compared with the general public sample (n = 982). The relative importance ranking was similar between the general public and FDR participant samples; however, other relative preference measures involving weights including MARs and market share differed between groups, with FDRs having numerically higher MARs.

CONCLUSION

In the context of RA prevention, the general public (average risk) may be a reasonable proxy for a more at-risk sample (FDRs) for overall relative importance ranking but not weights. The rationale for a proxy sample should be clearly justified.

HIGHLIGHTS

Participants from the general public were compared to first-degree relatives on their preferences for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) preventive treatments using a discrete choice experiment.Preferences were similar between groups in terms of the most important and least important attributes of preventive treatments, with effectiveness being the most important attribute. However, relative weights differed.Attention to the survey and predicted market shares of hypothetical RA preventive treatments differed between the general public and first-degree relatives.The general public may be a reasonable proxy for an at-risk group for patient preferences ranks but not weights in the disease prevention context; however, care should be taken in sample selection for patient preference studies when choosing nonpatients.

Rheumatoid arthritis prevention in arthralgia: fantasy or reality?

The concept of a 'window of opportunity' in treating a disease assumes the existence of a time frame during which the trajectory of the disease can be effectively and permanently modified. In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), optimal timing of this period is presumed to be during the phase before arthritis is clinically apparent and disease is diagnosed. Several proof-of-concept trials of treatment during the 'arthralgia' phase of RA have been completed in the past 4 years, with the underlying notion that temporary treatment at this stage could prevent the development of RA or induce a sustained reduction in the burden of disease. This Review summarizes the results of these trials and reflects on the outcomes in relation to the patients' perspectives. Overall, the majority of symptomatic at-risk individuals could benefit from a fixed period treatment, even if RA does not develop. Various factors must be taken into consideration when translating these findings into clinical practice. More evidence is needed to target the individuals at highest risk, and additional tools are needed to monitor treatment and guide decisions about whether treatment can be discontinued. Without these tools, there is a paradoxical risk of seemingly increasing the incidence of the disease and prolonging disease duration, which is the opposite of what the concept of intervening in the window of opportunity entails.

Maximum Acceptable Risk Estimation Based on a Discrete Choice Experiment and a Probabilistic Threshold Technique

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to empirically compare maximum acceptable risk results estimated using both a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a probabilistic threshold technique (PTT).

METHODS

Members of the UK general public (n = 982) completed an online survey including a DCE and a PTT (in random order) measuring their preferences for preventative treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. For the DCE, a Bayesian D-efficient design consisting of four blocks of 15 choice tasks was constructed including six attributes with varying levels. The PTT used identical risk and benefit attributes. For the DCE, a panel mixed-logit model was conducted, both mean and individual estimates were used to calculate maximum acceptable risk. For the PTT, interval regression was used to calculate maximum acceptable risk. Perceived complexity of the choice tasks and preference heterogeneity were investigated for both methods.

RESULTS

Maximum acceptable risk confidence intervals of both methods overlapped for serious infection and serious side effects but not for mild side effects (maximum acceptable risk was 32.7 percent-points lower in the PTT). Although, both DCE and PTT tasks overall were considered easy or very easy to understand and answer, significantly more respondents rated the DCE choice tasks as easier to understand compared with those who rated the PTT as easier (7-percentage point difference; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Maximum acceptable risk estimate confidence intervals based on a DCE and a PTT overlapped for two out of the three included risk attributes. More respondents rated the DCE as easier to understand. This may suggest that the DCE is better suited in studies estimating maximum acceptable risk for multiple risk attributes of differing severity, while the PTT may be better suited when measuring heterogeneity in maximum acceptable risk estimates or when investigating one or more serious adverse events.

How can patient preferences be used and communicated in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products? Findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER and call to action

Objective: Patients have unique insights and are (in-)directly affected by each decision taken throughout the life cycle of medicinal products. Patient preference studies (PPS) assess what matters most to patients, how much, and what trade-offs patients are willing to make. IMI PREFER was a six-year European public-private partnership under the Innovative Medicines Initiative that developed recommendations on how to assess and use PPS in medical product decision-making, including in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products. This paper aims to summarize findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER regarding i) PPS applications in regulatory evaluation, ii) when and how to consult with regulators on PPS, iii) how to reflect PPS in regulatory communication and iv) barriers and open questions for PPS in regulatory decision-making. Methods: PREFER performed six literature reviews, 143 interviews and eight focus group discussions with regulators, patient representatives, industry representatives, Health Technology Assessment bodies, payers, academics, and clincians between October 2016 and May 2022. Results: i) With respect to PPS applications, prior to the conduct of clinical trials of medicinal products, PPS could inform regulators' understanding of patients' unmet needs and relevant endpoints during horizon scanning activities and scientific advice. During the evaluation of a marketing authorization application, PPS could inform: a) the assessment of whether a product meets an unmet need, b) whether patient-relevant clinical trial endpoints and outcomes were studied, c) the understanding of patient-relevant effect sizes and acceptable trade-offs, and d) the identification of key (un-)favorable effects and uncertainties. ii) With respect to consulting with regulators on PPS, PPS researchers should ideally have early discussions with regulators (e.g., during scientific advice) on the PPS design and research questions. iii) Regarding external PPS communication, PPS could be reflected in the assessment report and product information (e.g., the European Public Assessment Report and the Summary of Product Characteristics). iv) Barriers relevant to the use of PPS in regulatory evaluation include a lack of PPS use cases and demonstrated impact on regulatory decision-making, and need for (financial) incentives, guidance and quality criteria for implementing PPS results in regulatory decision-making. Open questions concerning regulatory PPS use include: a) should a product independent broad approach to the design of PPS be taken and/or a product-specific one, b) who should optimally be financing, designing, conducting, and coordinating PPS, c) when (within and/or outside clinical trials) to perform PPS, and d) how can PPS use best be operationalized in regulatory decisions. Conclusion: PPS have high potential to inform regulators on key unmet needs, endpoints, benefits, and risks that matter most to patients and their acceptable trade-offs. Regulatory guidelines, templates and checklists, together with incentives are needed to foster structural and transparent PPS submission and evaluation in regulatory decision-making. More PPS case studies should be conducted and submitted for regulatory assessment to enable regulatory discussion and increase regulators' experience with PPS implementation and communication in regulatory evaluations.

Acceptable risks of treatments to prevent rheumatoid arthritis among first-degree relatives: demographic and psychological predictors of risk tolerance

OBJECTIVES

To quantify tolerance to risks of preventive treatments among first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Preventive treatments for RA are under investigation. In a preference survey, adult FDRs assumed a 60% chance of developing RA within 2 years and made choices between no treatment and hypothetical preventive treatment options with a fixed level of benefit (reduction in chance of developing RA from 60% to 20%) and varying levels of risks. Using a probabilistic threshold technique, each risk was increased or decreased until participants switched their choice. Perceived risk of RA, health literacy, numeracy, Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire and Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire-General were also assessed. Maximum acceptable risk (MAR) was summarised using descriptive statistics. Associations between MARs and participants' characteristics were assessed using interval regression with effects coding.

RESULTS

289 FDRs (80 male) responded. The mean MAR for a 40% reduction in chance of developing RA was 29.08% risk of mild side effects, 9.09% risk of serious infection and 0.85% risk of a serious side effect. Participants aged over 60 years were less tolerant of serious infection risk (mean MAR ±2.06%) than younger participants. Risk of mild side effects was less acceptable to participants who perceived higher likelihood of developing RA (mean MAR ±3.34%) and more acceptable to those believing that if they developed RA it would last for a long time (mean MAR ±4.44%).

CONCLUSIONS

Age, perceived chance of developing RA and perceived duration of RA were associated with tolerance to some risks of preventive RA therapy.