Perceptions of first-degree relatives of patients with rheumatoid arthritis about lifestyle modifications and pharmacological interventions to reduce the risk of rheumatoid arthritis development: a qualitative interview study

Clinically suspect arthralgia and rheumatoid arthritis: patients' perceptions of illness

OBJECTIVES

Clinically suspect arthralgia (CSA) is an at-risk stage of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), in which patients experience symptoms and physical limitations. Perceptions of CSA-patients have remained largely unknown. Therefore, we aimed to map perceptions of CSA-patients and compare these to RA-patients. Additionally, we studied changes in perceptions in CSA over time.

METHODS

Three hundred and ninety-nine consecutively included CSA-patients from the Leiden and Rotterdam CSA-cohorts and 100 recently diagnosed RA-patients from the Leiden Early Arthritis Clinic were included. Patients' illness perceptions (IP) were assessed using the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ), consisting of 8 questions (scale 0-10; higher score indicating more negative IP) covering cognitive, emotional and comprehensibility domains, and one open question about causes of disease. IP were measured at baseline in both populations and during 2years follow-up in the CSA-cohorts.

RESULTS

Total BIPQ-scores were comparable at CSA-presentation and RA-diagnosis (40±11 and 40±10; range 0-80). Comparing dimensions separately revealed that CSA-patients were less worried about physical complaints compared to RA-patients. However, CSA-patients were more negative about expected treatment-effect on symptoms. IP over time in CSA improved in patients without development of clinical arthritis (from 38±11 to 34±14; P=0.005) but remained similar in CSA-patients who progressed to arthritis/RA (mean 40 at both timepoints). CSA-patients mainly perceived physical strain and heredity as causes of their complaints.

CONCLUSIONS

Although CSA-patients have not developed clinical arthritis, illness perceptions at CSA-presentation and RA-diagnosis are equally severe. Knowledge on worries and expectations may contribute to improving patient-contact and care in patients at risk of RA.

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.

Stakeholder perceptions of preventive approaches to rheumatoid arthritis: qualitative study of healthcare professionals' perspectives on predictive and preventive strategies

BACKGROUND

There is increasing research interest in the development of preventive treatment for individuals at risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Previous studies have explored the perceptions of at-risk groups and patients about predictive and preventive strategies for RA, but little is known about health care professionals' (HCPs) perspectives.

METHODS

One-to-one semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted (face-to-face or by telephone) with HCPs. Audio recordings of the interviews were transcribed, and the data were analysed by thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Nineteen HCPs (11 female) were interviewed, including ten GPs, six rheumatologists and three rheumatology nurse specialists. The thematic analysis identified four organising themes: 1) Attributes of predictive and preventive approaches; 2) Ethical and psychological concerns; 3) Implementation issues and 4) Learning from management of other conditions. Theme 1 described necessary attributes of predictive and preventive approaches, including the type and performance of predictive tools, the need for a sound evidence base and consideration of risks and benefits associated with preventive treatment. Theme 2 described the ethical and psycho-social concerns that interviewees raised, including the potential negative economic, financial and psychological effects of risk disclosure for 'at-risk' individuals, uncertainty around the development of RA and the potential for benefit associated with the treatments being considered. Theme 3 describes the implementation issues considered, including knowledge and training needs, costs and resource implications of implementing predictive and preventive approaches, the role of different types of HCPs, guidelines and tools needed, and patient characteristics relating to the appropriateness of preventive treatments. Theme 4 describes lessons that could be learned from interviewees' experiences of prediction and prevention in other disease areas, including how preventive treatment is prescribed, existing guidelines and tools for other diseases and issues relating to risk communication.

CONCLUSIONS

For successful implementation of predictive and preventative approaches in RA, HCPs need appropriate training about use and interpretation of predictive tools, communication of results to at-risk individuals, and options for intervention. Evidence of cost-efficiency, appropriate resource allocation, adaptation of official guidelines and careful consideration of the at-risk individuals' psycho-social needs are also needed.

Modifiable risk factors linked to the development of rheumatoid arthritis: evidence, immunological mechanisms and prevention

Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) is a common autoimmune disease that targets the synovial joints leading to arthritis. Although the etiology of RA remains largely unknown, it is clear that numerous modifiable risk factors confer increased risk to developing RA. Of these risk factors, cigarette smoking, nutrition, obesity, occupational exposures and periodontal disease all incrementally increase RA risk. However, the precise immunological mechanisms by which these risk factors lead to RA are not well understood. Basic and translational studies have provided key insights into the relationship between inflammation, antibody production and the influence in other key cellular events such as T cell polarization in RA risk. Improving our general understanding of the mechanisms which lead to RA will help identify targets for prevention trials, which are underway in at-risk populations. Herein, we review the modifiable risk factors that are linked to RA development and describe immune mechanisms that may be involved. We highlight the few studies that have sought to understand if modification of these risk factors reduces RA risk. Finally, we speculate that modification of risk factors may be an appealing avenue for prevention for some at-risk individuals, specifically those who prefer lifestyle interventions due to safety and economic reasons.

Exploring preferences of at-risk individuals for preventive treatments for rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Some immunomodulatory drugs have been shown to delay the onset of, or lower the risk of developing, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), if given to individuals at risk. Several trials are ongoing in this area; however, little evidence is currently available about the views of those at risk of RA regarding preventive treatment.

METHOD

Three focus groups and three interviews explored factors that are relevant to first degree relatives (FDRs) of RA patients and members of the general public when considering taking preventive treatment for RA. The semi-structured qualitative interview prompts explored participant responses to hypothetical attributes of preventive RA medicines. Transcripts of focus group/interview proceedings were inductively coded and analysed using a framework approach.

RESULTS

Twenty-one individuals (five FDRs, 16 members of the general public) took part in the study. Ten broad themes were identified describing factors that participants felt would influence their decisions about whether to take preventive treatment if they were at increased risk of RA. These related either directly to features of the specific treatment or to other factors, including personal characteristics, attitude towards taking medication, and an individual's actual risk of developing RA.

CONCLUSION

This research highlights the importance of non-treatment factors in the decision-making process around preventive treatments, and will inform recruitment to clinical trials as well as information to support shared decision making by those considering preventive treatment. Studies of treatment preferences in individuals with a confirmed high risk of RA would further inform clinical trial design.

To treat or not to treat? Current attitudes on treatment aimed at modifying the disease burden in clinically suspect arthralgia: a survey among participants of the TREAT EARLIER trial and healthcare professionals

OBJECTIVES

While awaiting therapies accomplishing rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-prevention in individuals at-risk, recent evidence supports that a 1-year methotrexate treatment may lead to sustained reduction in disease burden and subclinical joint inflammation in patients with clinically suspect arthralgia (CSA). We aimed to study the previously unexplored attitudes of CSA patients and rheumatologists on 1-year DMARD treatment in the arthralgia phase to reduce the disease burden, while not preventing RA.

METHODS

CSA patients who participated in the TREAT EARLIER trial, thus being expert by experience, were informed on the trial results. Thereafter they completed an anonymous questionnaire about their attitudes on treatment in the CSA phase. We used the same approach for Dutch healthcare professionals in rheumatology.

RESULTS

The majority of trial participants (85%) considered the effects of the 1-year treatment as found in the TREAT EARLIER trial, beneficial in the symptomatic at-risk stage. 79% would recommend a 1-year methotrexate course to others with comparable joint complaints. Two-thirds indicated RA prevention and improving disease burden to be equally important treatment goals in the CSA phase. Most healthcare professionals (88%) were inclined to prescribe 1-year treatment to CSA patients aimed at long-term improvement of symptoms and functioning, while not preventing RA development. 59% believed the profits of a 1-year methotrexate course to outweigh disadvantages, for example, side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable willingness exists among CSA patients and rheumatologists to start a 1-year treatment resulting in long-term improvement of symptoms and functioning, while not preventing RA. This emphasises the need for more research optimising treatment regimens and disease monitoring in individuals at-risk to facilitate such treatment decisions in the future, while avoiding an intervention, either limited or for a prolonged period, which may have harms that outweigh benefits.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The Netherlands Trials Registry (NTR4853-trial-NL4599). EudraCT number: NL2014-004472-35.

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

OBJECTIVE

To quantify preferences for preventive therapies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) across three countries.

METHODS

A web-based survey including a discrete choice experiment was administered to adults recruited via survey panels in the UK, Germany and Romania. Participants were asked to assume they were experiencing arthralgia and had a 60% chance of developing RA in the next 2 years and completed 15 choices between no treatment and two hypothetical preventive treatments. Treatments were defined by six attributes (effectiveness, risks and frequency/route of administration) with varying levels. Participants also completed a choice task with fixed profiles reflecting subjective estimates of candidate preventive treatments. Latent class models (LCMs) were conducted and the relative importance of attributes, benefit-risk trade-offs and predicted treatment uptake was subsequently calculated.

RESULTS

Completed surveys from 2959 participants were included in the analysis. Most participants preferred treatment over no treatment and valued treatment effectiveness to reduce risk more than other attributes. A five-class LCM best fitted the data. Country, perceived risk of RA, health literacy and numeracy predicted class membership probability. Overall, the maximum acceptable risk for a 40% reduction in the chance of getting RA (60% to 20%) was 21.7%, 19.1% and 2.2% for mild side effects, serious infection and serious side effects, respectively. Predicted uptake of profiles reflecting candidate prevention therapies differed across classes.

CONCLUSION

Effective preventive pharmacological treatments for RA were acceptable to most participants. The relative importance of treatment attributes and likely uptake of fixed treatment profiles were predicted by participant characteristics.

Predictors of perceived risk in first-degree relatives of patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To define variables associated with perceived risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with RA.

METHODS

Patients with RA and their FDRs were invited to complete cross-sectional surveys. FDR and index patient responses were linked. FDRs' perceived absolute risk, comparative risk, experiential risk and worry about risk were assessed using 5-point Likert scales. FDR predictor variables included demographics, illness perceptions and psychosocial variables. Patient predictors of FDR perceived risk were assessed. Binary logistic regression examined the relationship between FDR characteristics and perceived risk of RA. Generalised estimating equations assessed whether patient variables predicted FDR's perceived risk.

RESULTS

396 FDRs returned a survey. 395 FDRs provided sufficient data and were included in analysis. Paired data from 213 patients were available for 291 of these FDRs. All measures of perceived risk were inter-correlated. 65.2% of FDRs perceived themselves to be 'likely' or 'very likely' to develop RA in their lifetime. Relationship with index patient, high health anxiety, female gender, long perceived RA duration, high perceived concern about RA, negative perceived emotional impact of RA and low perceptions of how well treatment would control RA were all associated with increased FDRs' perceived risk. Patient characteristics did not associate with FDRs' risk perceptions.

CONCLUSIONS

FDRs' perceived risk of RA was high. Key predictors included being a child of a patient with RA, higher health anxiety and lower perceptions of RA treatment control. An understanding of these predictors will inform the development of tailored risk communication resources and preventive clinical strategies for RA.

Perspectives of at-Risk Individuals on Preventive Intervention for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Mini Review

There has been intense research focus on the biological mechanisms underlying the transition from health to disease for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) over recent years, and it is now well established that a state of autoimmunity precedes the development of symptoms for a large proportion of patients. This has led to an increased interest in the identification of at-risk groups and the potential for preventive intervention. The ability of several immunomodulatory agents to delay or prevent RA is under investigation and novel cellular therapies are in development. Preventive approaches are also being assessed in other chronic autoimmune diseases. For example, an anti-CD3 antibody has recently been shown to delay progression to type 1 diabetes in non-diabetic relatives of patients identified as being at high risk. The identification and treatment of individuals as being at risk of a disease where there is a degree of uncertainty around the potential for benefit is socially and ethically challenging. Recently reported difficulties in recruitment to RA prevention trials have underlined the importance of understanding the perspectives of at-risk individuals to identify barriers and facilitators that need to be addressed in order for preventive strategies to be acceptable. Understanding of their preferences for benefits and risks of preventive interventions can inform efficient intervention prioritization, prevention trial design and the development of informational resources for those at risk. In this review we summarize current knowledge of preferences for RA prevention and make recommendations for further research needed to ensure efficient development of preventive therapies and clinical implementation.

Perceptions and experiences of individuals at-risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) knowing about their risk of developing RA and being offered preventive treatment: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies

Objectives

There is increasing interest in identifying individuals at-risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and initiating early treatment to prevent or delay the onset of arthritis. We aimed to describe the perceptions and experiences of at-risk individuals and to inform the conduct of clinical trials and studies, and clinical practice.

Methods

A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies was conducted. Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion, appraised their methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist and assessed confidence in the findings using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation–Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research approach.

Results

Seven studies involving 115 individuals at-risk of developing RA were included. Three major themes (seven subthemes) were identified: understanding the risk of developing RA (knowledge of RA and identification of potential risk factors); preventive interventions to reduce the risk of developing RA (understanding the value and role of preventive interventions, and engagement with preventive interventions); and perceptions of predictive testing for RA (benefits of predictive testing, decision to undertake predictive testing and concerns about predictive testing). Moderate confidence in most review findings was evident.

Conclusion

While there are clear benefits in informing individuals at-risk of RA about their risk following predictive testing and offering preventive treatment, there are potential barriers to engagement, intensified by the burden of uncertainty. Identification of the optimum approaches for presenting risk information, including the risks and benefits of engaging with preventive interventions, is urgently needed to support individuals at-risk of RA in their decision making.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42021236034.

EULAR points to consider for conducting clinical trials and observational studies in individuals at risk of rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Despite growing interest, there is no guidance or consensus on how to conduct clinical trials and observational studies in populations at risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

An European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) task force formulated four research questions to be addressed by systematic literature review (SLR). The SLR results informed consensus statements. One overarching principle, 10 points to consider (PTC) and a research agenda were proposed. Task force members rated their level of agreement (1-10) for each PTC.

RESULTS

Epidemiological and demographic characteristics should be measured in all clinical trials and studies in at-risk individuals. Different at-risk populations, identified according to clinical presentation, were defined: asymptomatic, musculoskeletal symptoms without arthritis and early clinical arthritis. Study end-points should include the development of subclinical inflammation on imaging, clinical arthritis, RA and subsequent achievement of arthritis remission. Risk factors should be assessed at baseline and re-evaluated where appropriate; they include genetic markers and autoantibody profiling and additionally clinical symptoms and subclinical inflammation on imaging in those with symptoms and/or clinical arthritis. Trials should address the effect of the intervention on risk factors, as well as progression to clinical arthritis or RA. In patients with early clinical arthritis, pharmacological intervention has the potential to prevent RA development. Participants' knowledge of their RA risk may inform their decision to participate; information should be provided using an individually tailored approach.

CONCLUSION

These consensus statements provide data-driven guidance for rheumatologists, health professionals and investigators conducting clinical trials and observational studies in individuals at risk of RA.

Challenges and Opportunities of Targeted Behavioral Interventions for Groups at Risk for Developing Rheumatoid Arthritis

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a serious autoimmune disease which causes painful, swollen joints and can impact quality of life and increase morbidity and mortality. There are several preclinical stages of RA that correspond to at-risk groups that include: genetic risk, risk from behaviors, elevation of RA-related autoantibodies, and early clinical disease manifestations such as undifferentiated arthritis. Early interventions are crucial to slowing progression to and potentially preventing RA onset. Modification of behaviors among at-risk individuals may decrease RA risk. There are several challenges and opportunities in implementing preventative behavioral interventions, which may vary within different at-risk groups. Methods: We performed a narrative review of the literature, including meta-analyses focused on RA risk-related behaviors as well as publications investigating the potential efficacy of behavioral modifications on RA risk. Results: There are multiple behavioral risk factors associated with RA, including smoking, obesity, low physical activity, low quality diet, and poor dental hygiene, which may contribute to progression to clinical RA. Meta-analyses have been performed for smoking, excess body weight, and physical activity. Likelihood of adopting behavioral modifications may increase as RA risk increases. Conclusions: Clinicians may be able to tailor preventative approaches to various RA at-risk groups to help reduce RA risk, but further research is needed. A better understanding of the relationship of behaviors with RA risk and optimized approaches to implementing behavioral changes may allow for clinicians to tailor their preventative approaches for at-risk individuals.

Treatment preferences for preventive interventions for rheumatoid arthritis: protocol of a mixed methods case study for the Innovative Medicines Initiative PREFER project

INTRODUCTION

Amidst growing consensus that stakeholder decision-making during drug development should be informed by an understanding of patient preferences, the Innovative Medicines Initiative project 'Patient Preferences in Benefit-Risk Assessments during the Drug Life Cycle' (PREFER) is developing evidence-based recommendations about how and when patient preferences should be integrated into the drug life cycle. This protocol describes a PREFER clinical case study which compares two preference elicitation methodologies across several populations and provides information about benefit-risk trade-offs by those at risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for preventive interventions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This mixed methods study will be conducted in three countries (UK, Germany, Romania) to assess preferences of (1) first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with RA and (2) members of the public. Focus groups using nominal group techniques (UK) and ranking surveys (Germany and Romania) will identify and rank key treatment attributes. Focus group transcripts will be analysed thematically using the framework method and average rank orders calculated. These results will inform the treatment attributes to be assessed in a survey including a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a probabilistic threshold technique (PTT). The survey will also include measures of sociodemographic variables, health literacy, numeracy, illness perceptions and beliefs about medicines. The survey will be administered to (1) 400 FDRs of patients with RA (UK); (2) 100 FDRs of patients with RA (Germany); and (3) 1000 members of the public in each of UK, Germany and Romania. Logit-based approaches will be used to analyse the DCE and imputation and interval regression for the PTT.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the London-Hampstead Research Ethics Committee (19/LO/0407) and the Ethics Committee of the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (92_17 B). The protocol has been approved by the PREFER expert review board. The results will be disseminated widely and will inform the PREFER recommendations.

How to enhance recruitment of individuals at risk of rheumatoid arthritis into trials aimed at prevention: understanding the barriers and facilitators

OBJECTIVES

Several trials to test the efficacy of a pharmacological intervention aimed at primary prevention of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are ongoing or have recently been completed. A common issue in these trials is the severe difficulty with patient recruitment. In order to enhance recruitment, this qualitative study identified barriers and facilitators of individuals at risk of RA to participate in a prevention trial.

METHODS

Individuals at risk of developing RA (ie, arthralgia with anticitrullinated protein antibodies and/or rheumatoid factor without arthritis), who had previously been asked to participate in a prevention trial, participated in focus group discussions (n=18) exploring their facilitators and barriers for trial participation. Thematic analysis identified factors that were important in at-risk individuals' decision about trial participation.

RESULTS

The prospect of personal benefit, the acknowledgement of one's symptoms and the desire to contribute to society facilitated trial participation. In contrast, misconception about what it means to be at risk, or about the aim of the prevention trial, negative views on trial medication, and a low perceived urgency to act on the possibility of developing RA versus a high perceived burden of participating in a trial discouraged participation.

CONCLUSIONS

To enhance inclusion in trials aimed to prevent RA, the results suggest to use strategies such as optimising education about RA, personal risk, trial aim and trial medication, explicitly addressing misconceptions and concerns, using tools to improve information provision, limiting study burden in trial design and encouraging physicians to mention trial participation.

Anti-carbamylated protein and peptide antibodies as potential inflammatory joint biomarkers in the relatives of rheumatoid arthritis patients

OBJECTIVE

Antibodies against carbamylated proteins/peptide (CarP) have been associated with severity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. However, their role in risk groups, specific targets and relation with periodontal disease (PD) is uncertain yet. The aim of this study was evaluated the association between the levels of anti-CarP with clinical manifestation, human leukocyte antigen (HLA) alleles, periodontal activity markers, PD diagnosis, PD severity, and presence of Porphyromonas gingivalis (P gingivalis) in relatives of patients with RA.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty-four individuals with a family history of RA in first-degree relatives (FDR) and 124 healthy individuals gender- and age-matched, RA activity was assessed. Antibodies against carbamylated protein anti-FCS-Carp and 2 carbamylated peptides of fibrinogen were selected (anti-Ca-Fib2, anti-Ca-Fib3).

RESULTS

Anti-FCS-Carp-positive, anti-Ca-Fib2 and anti-Ca-Fib3 were more frequent in FDR than controls (25.0% vs 14.5%, 34.7% vs 15.3% and 33.1% vs 11.3%, respectively). Anti-FCS-CarP were associated with the HLA-DRB1-SE* 1402 allele (P = .035) and highly sensitive C-reactive protein levels (P = .016), the anti-Ca-Fib2 antibodies were associated with the HLA-DRB1-SE* 1501 allele (P = .03), with non-SE* 0901 allele (P = .01), the anti-Ca-Fib3 was associated with positive rheumatoid factor (P = .0012). The FDR condition was associated with the presence of anti-Ca-Fib3 (odds ratio [OR] =4.7; 95% CI = 1.8-11.7; P = .001) and painful joints (OR = 2.2; 95% CI = 1.01-4.68; P = .045); we also detected an important trend toward the presence of P gingivalis (OR = 1.9; 95% CI = 0.9-3.7; P = .062).

CONCLUSION

The presence of anti-FCS-Carp, anti-Ca-Fib3 and anti-Ca-Fib2 antibodies may have a role for these antibodies as early biomarkers in the development of RA, probably including additional mechanisms related with other non-SE alleles; the anti-peptide antibodies proposed in the present study may represent a simpler way to identify antibodies directed to a specific target.

Patients' and rheumatologists' perceptions on preventive intervention in rheumatoid arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis

BACKGROUND

Individuals at risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may benefit from lifestyle or pharmacological interventions aimed at primary prevention. The same may apply to individuals at risk of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). Our aim was to investigate and compare the willingness of individuals at risk of RA or axSpA and rheumatologists to initiate preventive intervention.

METHODS

Individuals at risk of RA (arthralgia and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies and/or rheumatoid factor positivity without arthritis (RA-risk cohort; n = 100)), axSpA (first-degree relatives of HLA-B27-positive axSpA patients (SpA-risk cohort; n = 38)), and Dutch rheumatologists (n = 49) completed a survey on preventive intervention which included questions about disease perception, lifestyle intervention, and preventive medication.

RESULTS

At-risk individuals reported willingness to change median 7 of 13 lifestyle components in the areas of smoking, diet, and exercise. In contrast, 35% of rheumatologists gave lifestyle advice to ≥ 50% of at-risk patients. The willingness to use 100% effective preventive medication without side effects was 53% (RA-risk), 55% (SpA-risk), and 74% (rheumatologists) at 30% disease risk which increased to 69% (RA-risk) and 92% (SpA-risk and rheumatologists) at 70% risk. With minor side effects, willingness was 26%, 29%, and 31% (at 30% risk) versus 40%, 66%, and 76% (at 70% risk), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk perception and willingness to start preventive intervention were largely similar between individuals at risk of RA and axSpA. Although the willingness to change lifestyle is high among at-risk individuals, most rheumatologists do not advise them to change their lifestyle. In contrast, rheumatologists are more willing than at-risk patients to start preventive medication.

I Would Never Take Preventive Medication! Perspectives and Information Needs of People Who Underwent Predictive Tests for Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Little is known about the experiences, values, and needs of people without arthritis who undergo predictive biomarker testing for the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Our study aimed to explore the perspectives of these individuals and describe their information needs.

METHODS

A qualitative, multicenter interview study with a thematic analysis was conducted in Austria, Germany and the UK. Individuals were interviewed who underwent predictive biomarker testing for RA and had a positive test result but no diagnosis of any inflammatory joint disease. Participants included patients with arthralgia and asymptomatic individuals. Information and education needs were developed from the qualitative codes and themes using the Arthritis Educational Needs Assessment Tool as a frame of reference.

RESULTS

Thematic saturation was reached in 34 individuals (76% female, 24 [71%] with arthralgia, and 10 [29%] asymptomatic individuals). Thirty-seven codes were summarized into 4 themes: 1) decision-making around whether to undergo initial predictive testing, 2) willingness to consider further predictive tests, and/or 3) preventive interventions, including medication, and 4) varying reactions after receiving a positive test result. Individuals with arthralgia were more likely to be willing to take preventive action, undergo further testing, and experience psychological distress than asymptomatic individuals. All participants expressed the need for tailored, patient-understandable information.

CONCLUSION

Individuals at risk of RA are currently the subjects of research aimed at developing better predictive strategies and preventive approaches. Their perceptions and needs should be addressed to inform the future development of interventions combined with education.

Precision medicine in the care of rheumatoid arthritis: Focus on prediction and prevention of future clinically-apparent disease

There is an emerging understanding that an individual's risk for future rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can be determined using a combination of factors while they are still in a state where clinically-apparent inflammatory arthritis (IA) is not yet present. Indeed, this concept has underpinned several completed and ongoing prevention trials in RA. Importantly, risk factors can be divided into modifiable (e.g. smoking, exercise, dental care and diet) and non-modifiable factors (e.g. genetics, sex, age). In addition, there are now several biomarkers including autoantibodies, inflammatory markers and imaging techniques that are highly predictive of future clinically-apparent IA/RA. Although none of the prevention studies have yet provided major breakthroughs, several of them have provided valuable insights that can help to improve the design of future clinical trials and enable RA prevention. In aggregate, these findings suggest that the most accurate disease prediction models will require the combination of demographic and clinical information, biomarkers and potentially medical imaging data to identify individuals for intervention. This review summarizes some of the key aspects around precision medicine in RA with special focus on disease prediction and prevention.

Preferences of Patients and At-risk Individuals for Preventive Approaches to Rheumatoid Arthritis

Effective treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are available and can lead to remission for some patients, but most patients remain on potentially toxic and expensive medications in the long term. Interest is increasingly turning to the disease phases preceding the development of RA that represent opportunities for preventive interventions. At-risk target populations include individuals with genetic and environmental risk factors, those who have developed systemic autoimmunity, and those who have developed clinically suspect symptoms (eg, arthralgias without synovitis, or an early arthritis). Ongoing prospective studies will inform the development of increasingly accurate predictive tools to identify individuals at risk of developing RA. Furthermore, a range of preventive approaches has been suggested, including lifestyle modification (eg, smoking cessation) and pharmacologic interventions (eg, hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, abatacept, rituximab) that are currently the subject of randomized controlled trials. As prediction and prevention of RA evolve, it is increasingly likely that individuals at risk (including asymptomatic individuals) may be faced with complex decisions about whether to accept assessment of their risk status or to take a preventive intervention associated with risk of serious adverse events and uncertain benefit. Acceptance of preventive medication in other contexts can be low. For example, <25% of women at high risk of breast cancer are willing to take preventive hormonal treatments. Actual uptake is lower still. Patients' beliefs and preferences predict treatment uptake and adherence. Before the dream of preventing RA can become reality, health care providers need to understand the perspectives of individuals in the target population and to identify barriers and facilitators for this approach. This commentary reviews what is currently known about the perspectives of patients and individuals at risk about predictive and preventive approaches for RA and identifies gaps to be addressed to inform the development of efficient preventive strategies.