Rheumatologists' judgements about the efficacy of anti-TNF therapy in two neighbouring regions

Factors that influence rheumatologists' anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha prescribing decisions: a qualitative study

Background

Treatment decisions for any disease are usually informed by reference to published clinical guidelines or recommendations. These recommendations can be developed to improve the relative cost-effectiveness of health care and to reduce regional variation in clinical practice. Anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNF) treatments are prescribed for people with rheumatoid arthritis according to specific recommendations by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England. Evidence of regional variation in clinical practice for rheumatoid arthritis may indicate that different factors have an influence on routine prescribing decisions. The aim of this study was to understand the factors that influence rheumatologists’ decisions when prescribing anti-TNF treatments for people with rheumatoid arthritis in England.

Methods

Semi-structured one-to-one telephone interviews were performed with senior rheumatologists in different regions across England. The interview schedule addressed recommendations by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, prescribing behavior, and perceptions of anti-TNF treatments. Interviews were recorded digitally, transcribed verbatim, and anonymized. Data were analyzed by thematic framework analysis that comprised six stages (familiarization; coding; developing the framework; applying the framework; generating the matrix; interpretation).

Results

Eleven rheumatologists (regional distribution - north 36%; midlands: 36%; south: 27%) participated (response rate: 24% of the sampling frame). The mean duration of the interviews was thirty minutes (range: 16 to 56 min). Thirteen factors that influenced anti-TNF prescribing decisions were categorized by three nested primary themes; specific influences were defined as subthemes: (i) External Environment Influences (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Recommendations; Clinical Commissioning Groups; Cost Pressures; Published Clinical Evidence; Colleagues in Different Hospitals; Pharmaceutical Industry); (ii) Internal Hospital Influences (Systems to Promote Compliance with Clinical Recommendations; Internal Treatment Pathways; Hospital Culture); (iii) Individual-level Influences (Patient Influence; Clinical Autonomy; Consultant Experience; Perception of Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) Outcome).

Conclusions

Factors that influenced anti-TNF prescribing decisions were multifaceted, seemed to vary by region, and may facilitate divergence from published clinical recommendations. Strategic behavior appeared to illustrate a conflict between uniform treatment recommendations and clinical autonomy. These influences may contribute to understanding sources of regional variation in clinical practice for rheumatoid arthritis.

Development and validation of a patient-based disease activity score in rheumatoid arthritis that can be used in clinical trials and routine practice

OBJECTIVE

Assessor-based disease activity measures such as the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), although widely used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), have high interobserver variability. We developed and validated a patient-based disease activity score (PDAS) as an alternative assessment.

METHODS

Patients' assessments of swollen or tender joints, visual analog scales for pain and general health, the Health Assessment Questionnaire, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) were used to develop the PDAS. In a developmental cohort (204 patients), regression analyses determined the best fit with the DAS28. A validation cohort (322 patients) subsequently evaluated criterion and construct validity against a range of outcome measures, including the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) and Short Form 36 (SF-36). Sensitivity to change was assessed in 56 patients after 6 months of treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or biologics.

RESULTS

In the developmental cohort, the PDAS with ESR (PDAS1) and without ESR (PDAS2) achieved excellent fit with the DAS28 (r = 0.88 and 0.74, respectively). In the validation cohort, the PDAS showed high criterion validity by correlation with the DAS28 (PDAS1: r = 0.89, PDAS2: r = 0.76). Construct validity was demonstrated by high correlations with a range of disease activity measures (r > or = 0.45), whereas low correlations (r < 0.45) with mental and social components of the SF-36 and NHP indicated divergent validity. The PDAS and DAS28 had similar sensitivity to change, determined using effect sizes (DAS28 = 1.03, PDAS1 = 1.02, PDAS2 = 0.77) or standardized response means (DAS28 = 0.79, PDAS1 = 0.77, PDAS2 = 0.73).

CONCLUSION

The PDAS1 and PDAS2 are valid and sensitive tools to assess disease activity in RA. They appear suitable for clinical decision making, epidemiologic research, and clinical trials.

UK consultant rheumatologists' access to biological agents and views on the BSR Biologics Register

OBJECTIVES

The British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register (BSRBR) is a prospective cohort study to determine the efficacy and toxicity of biological agents in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients compared with RA controls. Entry of patients to the register is a condition of use of anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy in the UK, but little is known of clinicians' views of its usefulness. Data from the register suggest uneven provision of anti-TNF-alpha therapy.

METHODS

A questionnaire was sent on behalf of the BSRBR to all UK consultant rheumatologists concerning provision and use of anti-TNF-alpha therapy and their experience of working with the BSRBR.

RESULTS

Response rate was 49.5% representing 252 consultants. Fourty-six per cent had some limitation of access to anti-TNF-alpha drugs, usually a financial cap (70%), even for RA patients meeting National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) criteria. Sixty-seven per cent could prescribe for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in some circumstances but only 25 and 35%, respectively, could prescribe according to BSR guidance. More than 50% found the workload involved in submitting data to the registry at least difficult, but most had favourable impressions of the BSRBR and thought similar registries desirable or essential for PsA, AS and rituximab.

CONCLUSIONS

Access to anti-TNF therapy for patients with inflammatory arthritis is variable in the UK, even for RA where it is NICE-approved. Access is more limited for conditions where NICE has not yet issued guidance. The BSRBR generates a significant workload for rheumatology staff but is generally well-regarded.