Examining patient preferences in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis using a discrete-choice approach

Preferences for Tapering Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs Among People With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Discrete Choice Experiment

OBJECTIVE

Little is known about the preferences of people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) regarding tapering of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). The aim of this study was to assess the preferences of people with RA in relation to potential treatment-related benefits and risks of bDMARD tapering and the health care service-related attributes that affect tapering.

METHODS

Participants with RA who had experience taking a bDMARD completed an online discrete choice experiment. Participants were asked their preferences when given three hypothetical treatment scenarios in which varying the frequency of treatment might alter their chance of adverse effects, of regaining disease control, and of other health care service-related effects. Preference weights were estimated using a multinomial logit model.

RESULTS

There were 142 complete responses. Reduced dosing frequency of bDMARD treatment had the largest impact on preference (mean 1.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.8-1.2), followed by chance of disease flare (mean 0.7, 95% CI 0.6-0.9). Participants were willing to accept an increased risk of flare between 10.6% (95% CI 3.2-17.9) and 60.6% (95% CI 48.1-72.9) in exchange for benefits associated with tapering bDMARDs. Participants with better quality of life were more likely to choose to remain on current treatment. The predicted uptake of bDMARD tapering was high among people with RA, suggesting bDMARD tapering was a favored option.

CONCLUSION

For individuals with RA, making decisions about tapering bDMARDs involves considering several factors, with the most important determinants identified as dosing frequency and the risk of disease flare. Understanding patient perspectives of bDMARD tapering may enable physicians to make patient-focused shared health care decisions.

Preference for a Novel Oral Alternative to Parenterally Administered Medications

Background

Rani Therapeutics is developing a robotic pill (RP), an oral drug delivery platform called RaniPill™ that can deliver a number of biotherapeutics with high bioavailability; eliminating the need for injections. While patients in general prefer oral to injectable therapies, preference for a more frequent oral regimen compared to a less frequent injectable regimen is unknown. Two marketing surveys were conducted to gather data on preference for oral versus injectable therapies. A clinical study gathered data on participant preference for oral pills vs injections before and after swallowing a Mock-RP capsule.

Methods

A total of 1689 adults taking injections (mean duration 3-7 years) to treat endocrine or inflammatory conditions were anonymously surveyed online for their preference to administer/prescribe medications orally via the RP. In the clinical study, 150 participants currently taking injections for chronic conditions evaluated the swallowability of a Mock-RP and completed a questionnaire regarding their preferences.

Results

Majority of respondents surveyed stated they would be willing to convert to an oral alternative over their current parenteral therapy regardless of drug or disease. In the clinical study, all participants were able to swallow the Mock-RP and 91% indicated their preference for the oral route versus their current parenteral route of drug administration. Survey respondents and those in the clinical study using frequent injections were more willing to select a once-daily capsule compared to those injecting infrequently. Even study participants who inject infrequently (≥monthly: 80%) would prefer a once-daily pill over their injection regimen.

Conclusion

Patients taking injections and prescribing physicians strongly prefer oral dosing to parenteral administration of biologics even if dosing frequency with the oral option, such as the RP, is increased.

Long-term sustainability of response to upadacitinib among patients with active rheumatoid arthritis refractory to biological treatments: results up to 5 years from SELECT-BEYOND

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the long-term sustainability of response to the Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib among patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response or intolerance to biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD-IR) in the SELECT-BEYOND phase 3 trial.

METHODS

Patients on background conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) were treated once daily with upadacitinib 15 mg or placebo. Patients who completed the week 24 visit could enter a long-term extension of up to 5 years. The sustainability of response was assessed based on achievement of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) and Disease Activity Score 28-joint count using C-reactive protein (DAS28 (CRP)) targets and evaluated up to week 260 in all patients receiving the approved upadacitinib 15 mg dose, including those randomised to upadacitinib 15 mg and those who switched from placebo to upadacitinib 15 mg at week 12.

RESULTS

In this bDMARD-IR population, 45% (n=104/229) and 79% (n=172/219) of patients treated with upadacitinib 15 mg plus background csDMARD(s) achieved CDAI remission or CDAI low disease activity (LDA) at any point during the 5-year study, respectively. Of those who achieved CDAI remission/LDA, 25%/43% maintained their initial response through 240 weeks of follow-up after first achieving response. Most patients who lost remission or LDA were able to recapture that response by the cut-off date. Similar overall results were observed for SDAI and DAS28 (CRP). No strong predictors of response were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Over three-quarters of bDMARD-IR patients achieved CDAI LDA with upadacitinib, and almost half of those maintained LDA through 240 weeks of follow-up. Remission was achieved by nearly half of all patients and maintained in approximately a quarter of those achieving remission.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02706847.

Near-Infrared Triggered Biodegradable Microneedle Patch for Controlled Macromolecule Drug Release

Transdermal drug delivery of macromolecule drugs attracts significant attention due to the advantage of convenience and biocompatibility. However, the practical usage of it is limited by the low delivery efficiency and poor drug absorption. To develop an efficient, safe, and controllable transdermal delivery method, the near-infrared (NIR) triggered calcium sulfate and gelatin biodegradable composite microneedle (MN) patches are developed. The MN patches are fabricated by polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) molds, and the structure data can be adjusted by changing the molds. Such an MN patch can release both macro and micro molecule drugs. After loading with photothermal converter IR780, which can transfer energy of light to heat, the release of macromolecule drugs in MNs can be controlled by applying NIR irradiation. The control effect can be enhanced by spraying 1-tetradecanol (TD) coating and optimizing the ratio (weight) of gelatin and calcium sulfate to 2:6. Besides, the MN patch can deliver drugs through the skin barrier, and the process can be controlled by NIR. Moreover, the insulin-loaded MN patch exhibits some therapeutic effects on healthy mice. This work suggests that biodegradable MNs can achieve controllable drug delivery and potentially be applied in individual treatment via transdermal ingestion.

PERFECTRA: a pragmatic, multicentre, real-life study comparing treat-to-target strategies with baricitinib versus TNF inhibitors in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis after failure on csDMARDs

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of a strategy administering baricitinib versus one using TNF-inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) failure in a real-life treat-to-target (T2T) setting.

METHODS

Patients with biological and targeted synthetic DMARD (b/tsDMARD) naïve RA with disease duration ≤5 years without contraindications to b/tsDMARD were randomised to either TNFi or baricitinib when csDMARD failed to achieve disease control in a T2T setting. Changes in clinical and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed at 12-week intervals for 48 weeks. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority, with testing for superiority if non-inferiority is demonstrated, of baricitinib strategy in the number of patients achieving American College of Rheumatology 50 (ACR50) response at 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints included 28-joint count Disease Activity Score with C reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) <2.6, changes in PROMs and radiographic progression.

RESULTS

A total of 199 patients (TNFi, n=102; baricitinib, n=97) were studied. Both study groups were similar. Baricitinib was both non-inferior and superior in achieving ACR50 response at week 12 (42% vs 20%). Moreover, 75% of baricitinib patients achieved DAS28-CRP <2.6 at week 12 compared with 46% of TNFi patients. On secondary outcomes throughout the duration of the study, the baricitinib strategy demonstrated comparable or better outcomes than TNFi strategy. Although not powered for safety, no unexpected safety signals were seen in this relatively small group of patients.

CONCLUSION

Up to present, in a T2T setting, patients with RA failing csDMARDs have two main strategies to consider, Janus Kinases inhibitor versus bDMARDs (in clinical practice, predominantly TNFi). The PERFECTRA study suggested that starting with baricitinib was superior over TNFi in achieving response at 12 weeks and resulted in improved outcomes across all studied clinical measures and PROMs throughout the study duration in these patients.

Therapeutic delivery systems for rheumatoid arthritis based on hydrogel carriers

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease suffered by millions of people worldwide. It can significantly affect the patient's quality of life by damaging not only the joints but also organs such as the lungs and the heart. RA is normally treated using nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), glucocorticoids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and biologics. These active agents often cause side effects and offer low efficacy due to their lack of specificity and limited retention time. In an attempt to improve RA treatments, hydrogel-based systems have been proposed as drug delivery carriers. Due to their exceptional adaptability and biocompatibility, hydrogels have the potential of enhancing the delivery of RA therapy through different administration routes in an efficient and effective manner. In this review, we explore the application of hydrogel systems as potential carriers in RA treatment. Additionally, we discuss recent work in the field and highlight the required hydrogel properties, depending on the administration route. The outstanding potential of hydrogel systems as carriers for RA was demonstrated; however, there is extensive research yet to be done to improve available treatments for RA.

Real-world experience with filgotinib for rheumatoid arthritis in Germany : A retrospective chart review

BACKGROUND

Real-world data for filgotinib, a Janus kinase (JAK)1 inhibitor, are limited in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

OBJECTIVES

To explore real-world filgotinib use in patients with RA in Germany.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective chart review included patients aged ≥ 18 years with confirmed moderate to severe RA who initiated filgotinib before December 1, 2021, with ≥ 6 months of medical records available prior to filgotinib initiation or after initial diagnosis. Patient characteristics, prior treatments, reasons for initiating/discontinuing filgotinib, disease activity, dose adjustments and concomitant treatments were recorded.

RESULTS

In total, 301 patients from 20 German rheumatology outpatient units were included. One-third were aged ≥ 65 years and almost half had ≥ 1 cardiovascular (CV) risk factor. Most patients initiated filgotinib as monotherapy (83.7%; 12.7% of whom with glucocorticoids) and at the 200 mg dose (84.7%); higher proportions of those initiating the 100 versus 200 mg dose were aged ≥ 65 years and had renal impairment or ≥ 1 CV risk factor. Oral administration (78.4%), fast onset of action (66.8%) and administration as monotherapy (65.4%) were the most common reasons for initiating filgotinib. At 12 months, 41 (18.4%) patients had discontinued filgotinib, most commonly due to lack of effectiveness. After 6‑months of follow-up, 36.8% of patients had achieved Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission and 45.6% had achieved CDAI low disease activity.

CONCLUSIONS

In clinical practice in Germany, reasons for initiating filgotinib in patients with RA were related to dosing flexibility and general JAK inhibitor attributes. Filgotinib was used predominantly as monotherapy and was effective and generally well tolerated; however, longer-term data in larger, prospective cohorts are needed.

Bisphosphonate alternative regimens for the prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures: BLAST-OFF, a mixed-methods study

Background

Bisphosphonates are a class of medication commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is recommended as the first-line treatment; however, long-term adherence (both treatment compliance and persistence) is poor. Alternative bisphosphonates are available, which can be given intravenously and have been shown to improve long-term adherence. However, the most clinically effective and cost-effective alternative bisphosphonate regimen remains unclear. What is the most cost-effective bisphosphonate in clinical trials may not be the most cost-effective or acceptable to patients in everyday clinical practice.

Objectives

1. Explore patient, clinician and stakeholder views, experiences and preferences of alendronate compared to alternative bisphosphonates. 2. Update and refine the 2016 systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of bisphosphonates, and estimate the value of further research into their benefits. 3. Undertake stakeholder/consensus engagement to identify important research questions and further rank research priorities.

Methods

The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: • Stage 1A - we elicited patient and healthcare experiences to understand their preferences of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. This was undertaken by performing a systematic review and framework synthesis of qualitative studies, followed by semistructured qualitative interviews with participants. • Stage 1B - we updated and expanded the existing Health Technology Assessment systematic review and clinical and cost-effectiveness model, incorporating a more comprehensive review of treatment efficacy, safety, side effects, compliance and long-term persistence. • Stage 2 - we identified and ranked further research questions that need to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of bisphosphonates.

Results

Patients and healthcare professionals identified a number of challenges in adhering to bisphosphonate medication, balancing the potential for long-term risk reduction against the work involved in adhering to oral alendronate. Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable, with such regimens perceived to be more straightforward to engage in, although a portion of patients taking alendronate were satisfied with their current treatment. Intravenous zoledronate was found to be the most effective, with higher adherence rates compared to the other bisphosphonates, for reducing the risk of fragility fracture. However, oral bisphosphonates are more cost-effective than intravenous zoledronate due to the high cost of zoledronate administration in hospital. The importance of including patients and healthcare professionals when setting research priorities is recognised. Important areas for research were related to patient factors influencing treatment selection and effectiveness, how to optimise long-term care and the cost-effectiveness of delivering zoledronate in an alternative, non-hospital setting.

Conclusions

Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable to patients and found to be the most effective bisphosphonate and with greater adherence; however, the cost-effectiveness relative to oral alendronate is limited by its higher zoledronate hospital administration costs.

Future work

Further research is needed to support people to make decisions influencing treatment selection, effectiveness and optimal long-term care, together with the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous zoledronate administered in a non-hospital (community) setting.

Limitations

Lack of clarity and limitations in the many studies included in the systematic review may have under-interpreted some of the findings relating to effects of bisphosphonates.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN10491361.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127550) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 21. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Pipeline Therapies for Gout

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite effective available treatments, gout management is often unsuccessful in getting patients to target serum urate goal and in managing flares in the setting of comorbidities. Studies addressing future treatment options for short- and long-term management are reviewed.

RECENT FINDINGS

URAT-1 blocking agents have been helpful but have had limitations related to effects on renal function, lack of efficacy with renal impairment, and potential to increase renal stones. Dotinurad may function in the setting of decreased renal function. Arhalofenate has anti-URAT-1 activity and may also blunt gout flares. A new xanthine oxidase inhibitor (XOI), tigulixostat, is under study. New uricase treatments manufactured in combination with agents that can reduce immunogenicity may make uricase treatment simpler. A unique strategy of inhibiting gut uricase may offer the benefits of avoiding systemic absorption. For gout flares, IL-1β inhibitor studies in progress include different dosing schedules. Dapansutrile, an oral agent under investigation, inhibits activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome and may be an effective anti-inflammatory. New treatments for gout that are under study may work in the setting of comorbidities, simplify management, utilize new mechanisms, or have reduced side effects.

Development of an Interactive Tool to Support Shared Decision-Making in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Treatment Attribute Preference

OBJECTIVE

An interactive tool identifying treatment attributes important to patients can enhance shared decision-making (SDM) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A formative survey was conducted to identify the most important treatment attributes from patients' perspective, which can be used to develop an interactive SDM tool.

METHODS

The survey was performed in two phases: qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys. The qualitative interviews were conducted to inform the design of the quantitative survey. In qualitative interviews, patients with RA (n = 10) and rheumatologists (n = 10) were introduced to the SDM tool concept. Feedback on the design and scope of the SDM tool was used to develop a quantitative survey, conducted in a large sample size of patients. Patient preferences for treatment attributes (route of administration and dosing frequency, serious side effects, out-of-pocket costs, efficacy, and monitoring requirement) were assessed via adaptive conjoint exercise involving ranking of hypothetical RA treatment configurations.

RESULTS

A total of 944 patients (males: 43%, females: 57%) with RA participated in the quantitative survey. Route of administration and dosing frequency (38%) followed by serious side effects (33%) were the two most important treatment attributes for individual patients. The recontact survey (n = 172/944) estimated tool stability of 72% (n = 124/172) in terms of the relative importance of treatment attributes.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this survey could be used in the development of an SDM tool that can potentially provide insights into patient preferences and is generally well received by patients and rheumatologists with good agreement and reliability.

Persistence of Janus-kinase (JAK) inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: Australia wide study

BACKGROUND

To compare persistence of disease-modifying antirheumatic (DMARDs), with a focus on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors in Australian rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted among 4,521 RA patients (females n=3,181 [70.4%]), using data from the Services Australia 10% Pharmaceuticals Benefits Scheme (PBS) dataset, aged ≥18 years and initiating a DMARD between 2011 to 2021. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate persistence rates, defined as occurrence of 6 months gap after the end of a drug dispensing.

RESULTS

Twelve-month persistence rates were 72% for upadacitinib, 61% for baricitinib, 58% for subcutaneous tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (TNFi), 55% for tocilizumab, 53% for tofacitinib, and 49% for abatacept. Median treatment persistence was not reached for upadacitinib (n=574) and baricitinib (n=553); and was 15.0 months for tofacitinib (95% CI 13.5-19.5), 20.5 months for TNFi (95% CI 19.0-22.4), 19.1 months for tocilizumab (95% CI 17.9-23.6), and 12.5 months for abatacept (95% CI 10.4-14.9). Persistence rates on first-line JAK inhibitors were 68% for upadacitinib and baricitinib and 55% for tofacitinib, and 49% for TNFi, 55% for abatacept, and 57% for tocilizumab; rates were sustained for upadacitinib, TNFi, and tocilizumab but dropped to 59% for baricitinib and 47% for abatacept in the second-line treatment. For each b/tsDMARD, persistence rates were higher when combined with methotrexate or other conventional synthetic DMARDs. The median oral glucocorticoid dose decreased from 4.3 mg/day (range:0-40) to 2.3 mg/day (range:0-22) over 2 years. Changes were significant for all RA DMARDs, tofacitinib and baricitinib combined (1-2 years post initiation only), TNFi, abatacept, and tocilizumab.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world setting, we showed highest persistence rates on upadacitinib, followed by baricitinib and then TNFi therapy and was improved by co-therapy. All agents appeared to be corticosteroid sparing.

What benefit-risk trade-offs are acceptable to rheumatoid arthritis patients during treatment selection? Evidence from a multicountry choice experiment

OBJECTIVE

Understanding preferences of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can facilitate tailored patient-centric care. This study elicited trade-offs that patients with RA were willing to make during treatment selection.

METHODS

Patients with RA completed an online discrete choice experiment, consisting of a series of choices between hypothetical treatments. Treatment attributes were selected based on literature review and qualitative patient interviews. Eligible patients were ≥18 years old, diagnosed with RA, receiving systemic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy, and residents of Europe or USA. Male patients were oversampled for subgroup analyses. Data were analysed using a correlated mixed logit model.

RESULTS

Of 2090 participants, 42% were female; mean age was 45.2 years (range 18-83). Estimated effects were significant for all attributes (p<0.001) but varied between patients. Average relative attribute importance scores revealed different priorities (p<0.001) between males and females. While reducing pain and negative effect on semen parameters was most important to males, females were most concerned by risk of blood clots and serious infections. No single attribute explained treatment preferences by more than 30%. Preferences were also affected by patients' age: patients aged 18-44 years placed less importance on frequency and mode of treatment administration (p<0.05) than older age groups. Patients were willing to accept higher risk of serious infections and blood clots in exchange for improvements in pain, daily activities or administration convenience. However, acceptable trade-offs varied between patients (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Treatment preferences of patients with RA were individual-specific, but driven by benefits and risks, with no single attribute dominating the decision-making.

Start RA treatment - Biologics or JAK-inhibitors?

Janus Kinase inhibitors (JAKi) have been approved for the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) for several years. They are the first oral advanced treatment with efficacy similar to, if not greater than, biologic agents. Recently, concerns over their safety was raised by the results from Oral Surveillance trial suggesting that tofacitinib, one of the JAKi, was associated with higher cardiovascular adverse events and malignancies than TNF inhibitors (TNFi). Since then, regulatory authorities have added warnings to the labels of JAKi. On this purpose, whether rheumatologists should use JAKi as first line advance treatment has become a controversial topic. Some rheumatologists have argued that biologics should be first line advance treatment since there are extensive effectiveness and safety data. In addition, with the advent of biosimilar drugs, they are the most cost-effective treatment. On the other hand, JAKi are very efficacious and are generally safe apart from older and high-risk patients. When TNFi are contraindicated and in certain RA patients ,especially when an oral drug is preferable, JAKi have significant advantage providing patients are involved in the decision-making process.

Adolescent and caregiver preferences for juvenile idiopathic arthritis treatment: a discrete-choice experiment

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to elicit and quantify preferences for treatments for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

METHODS

We conducted a discrete-choice experiment among adolescents with JIA in the United States (US) (n = 197) and United Kingdom (UK) (n = 100) and caregivers of children with JIA in the US (n = 207) and UK (n = 200). In a series of questions, respondents chose between experimentally designed profiles for hypothetical JIA treatments that varied in efficacy (symptom control; time until next flare-up), side effects (stomachache, nausea, and vomiting; headaches), mode and frequency of administration, and the need for combination therapy. Using a random-parameters logit model, we estimated preference weights for these attributes, from which we derived their conditional relative importance.

RESULTS

On average, respondents preferred greater symptom control; greater time until the next flare-up; less stomachache, nausea, and vomiting; and fewer headaches. However, adolescents and caregivers in the US were generally indifferent across varying modes and frequencies of administration. UK adolescents and caregivers preferred tablets, syrup, or injections to intravenous infusions. US and UK adolescents were indifferent between treatment with monotherapy or combination therapy; caregivers in the UK preferred treatment with combination therapy to monotherapy. Subgroup analysis showed preference heterogeneity across characteristics including gender, treatment experience, and symptom experience in both adolescents and caregivers.

CONCLUSIONS

Improved symptom control, prolonged time to next flare-up, and avoidance of adverse events such as headache, stomachache, nausea, and vomiting are desirable characteristics of treatment regimens for adolescents with JIA and their caregivers.

Factors influencing choice of b/ts DMARDs in managing inflammatory arthritis from a patient perspective: a systematic review of global evidence and a patient-based survey from Hong Kong

OBJECTIVES

To investigate factors concerning patients regarding biological/target synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/ts DMARDs) in treating inflammatory arthritis (IA).

DESIGN

This study consists of a systematic review and a cross-sectional survey in Hong Kong. A systematic review of literature following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane and Embase between 1 January 2000 and 1 January 2022. Content analysis was conducted to summarise factors grouped by four themes-social aspects (SA), clinical aspects (CA), medicine characteristics (MC) and financial aspects (FA) in the decision-making process. One cross-sectional survey among Hong Kong patients with IA was conducted to add to global evidence.

SETTING

A systematic review of global evidence and a patient-based survey in Hong Kong to complement scarce evidence in Asia regions.

RESULTS

The systematic review resulted in 34 studies. The four themes were presented in descending order consistently but varied with frequency throughout decision-making processes. During decision-making involving medication initiation, preference and discontinuation, MC (reported frequency: 83%, 86%, 78%), SA (56%, 43%, 78%) and FA (39%, 33%, 56%) were the three most frequently reported factors, whereas CA was less studied. Local survey also revealed that MC factors such as treatment efficacy and the probability of severe adverse events, and SA factors such as the availability of government or charity subsidy, influenced patients' initiation and preference for b/ts DMARDs. Meanwhile, self-estimated improvement in disease conditions (SA), drug side effects (MC) and drug costs (FA) were associated with treatment discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

Global and local evidence consistently indicate that MC and SA are important considerations in patients' decisions regarding novel DMARDs. Health policies that reduce patients' financial burden and enhances healthcare professionals' engagement in decision-making and treatment delivery should be in place with an efficient healthcare system for managing IA optimistically.

Physical function and severe side effects matter most to patients with RA (< 5 years): a discrete choice experiment assessing preferences for personalized RA treatment

AIM

Early assessment of patient preferences has the potential to support shared decisions in personalized precision medicine for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of this study was to assess treatment preferences of patients with RA (< 5 years) with previous experience of inadequate response to first-line monotherapy.

METHOD

Patients were recruited (March-June 2021) via four clinics in Sweden. Potential respondents (N = 933) received an invitation to answer a digital survey. The survey included an introductory part, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and demographic questions. Each respondent answered 11 hypothetical choice questions as part of the DCE. Patient preferences and preference heterogeneity were estimated using random parameter logit models and latent class analysis models.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 182) assessed the most important treatment attributes out of physical functional capacity, psychosocial functional capacity, frequency of mild side effects and likelihood of severe side effects. In general, patients preferred a greater increase in functional capacity and decreased side effects. However, a substantial preference heterogeneity was identified with two underlying preference patterns. The most important attribute in the first pattern was the 'likelihood of getting a severe side effect'. Physical functional capacity was the most important attribute in the second pattern.

CONCLUSION

Respondents focused their decision-making mainly on increasing their physical functional capacity or decreasing the likelihood of getting a severe side effect. These results are highly relevant from a clinical perspective to strengthen communication in shared decision making by assessing patients' individual preferences for benefits and risks in treatment discussions.

Preferred Mode of Therapy Among Patients in Rheumatoid Arthritis Saudi Database: A Cross-Sectional Study

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Current knowledge of patients' preferences for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment is limited. Our goal was to determine the most favorable mode of therapy and the reasons behind choosing each route among RA patients in the Rheumatoid Arthritis Saudi Database (RASD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this cross-sectional, nationwide, qualitative study, we conducted interviews with 308 RA patients to assess their preferred mode of therapy (oral, subcutaneous (SC) injection, or intravenous (IV) infusion) and to determine the reasons behind their choice. The determining factors behind patients' preferred mode of therapy were evaluated using a 10-point allocation system (1 = least important, 10 = most important).

RESULTS

We interviewed 308 RA patients (83.4% females, mean age, 48 years). Among all administration modes, the oral route was identified as the most preferred mode among our patients, with a percentage of 73.3%, followed by SC injection and IV infusion at 19.5% and 7.3%, respectively. Ease of drug administration was the most reported reason for patients who chose the oral route over the injection route (63.2%). Difficulty remembering to take the drug and finding it hard to swallow the pills were the highest-scored reasons for avoiding the oral route (24.9%).

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates and emphasizes the importance of shared decision-making between patients and their physicians. The oral route of therapy is, by far, the most preferred mode among our cohort of RA patients.

Development of a sensitive biochemical assay for the detection of tofacitinib adherence

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune inflammatory disease. Tofacitinib is a Janus Kinase inhibitor licensed for the treatment of RA that, unlike biologic anti-rheumatic drugs, is administered orally, but studies of long-term treatment adherence rates are lacking. The measurement of adherence, however, is challenging and there is currently no gold standard test for adherence. Here, we developed a novel HPLC MS/MS assay for the quantification of tofacitinib. The assay demonstrated a LLOQ for tofacitinib of 0.1 ng ml-1, within run accuracy was 81-85% at LLOQ and 91-107% at all other levels. To investigate the ability of the assay to detect adherence, tofacitinib was measured in a random selection of serum samples (n = 10) of tofacitinib treated RA patients who self-reported adherent behaviour. The assay measured tofacitinib in all samples above the LLOQ demonstrating the potential of the assay to sensitively measure biochemical adherence in real-world patient samples. This method for detection of adherence has the potential to be a more objective measure that could be used in the future in the clinic but will require further studies to explore factors that may influence measurement of drug levels, such as clinical characteristics of patients.

Projecting direct medical costs and productivity benefits of improving access to advanced therapy for rheumatoid arthritis: a projection modelling study

INTRODUCTION

To ensure the sustainability of the AT access improvement, it is important that health system stakeholders have timely, analyzed information accessible for reference and decision-making support. In this study, we projected the direct costs required as well as the expected direct medical cost-offset and productivity benefits resulting from improving the disease control.

METHODS

We implemented a deterministic, prevalence-based mathematical model to project the annual cost of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management within the public healthcare system in Malaysia. We also calculated the annual productivity loss due to uncontrolled RA in monetary value. Using the projection model, we compared the projected costs of the status quo scenario vs. several scenarios of improved advanced therapy (AT) access over a 5-year period.

RESULTS

We projected that between 10,765 and 11,024 RA patients in Malaysia over the period of 2020-2024 will need access to AT due to treatment failure with conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). The projected net total medical cost under the status quo scenario were 163.5 million annually on average (approximately MYR 15,000 per patient per year). Cost related to health service utilization represented the heaviest component, amounting to 71.8% followed by drug cost (24.7%). Under the access improvement scenarios, drug cost constituted a higher proportion of the total medical, ranging from 25.6% to 30.4%. In contrast, the cost of health service utilization shown a reverse pattern (reducing to between 66.3% and 70.1%). Productivity costs were also expected to reduce as AT access improved leading to better outcomes. Treatment shifts to targeted synthetic DMARDs in anticipation of price adjustment appeared to have a cost saving advantage to the health system if all other parameters remain unchanged.

DISCUSSION

Improving AT access for RA patients towards the aspirational target appeared to be feasible given the current health budget in Malaysia. Broader socio-economic consequences of productivity and income loss should be included as an important part of the policy consideration. The financial implication of different AT utilization mixes and the anticipated price adjustment will likely result in some cost saving to the health system.

Personalized medicine in rheumatoid arthritis: Combining biomarkers and patient preferences to guide therapeutic decisions

The last few decades have seen major therapeutic advancements in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) therapeutics. New disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have continued to emerge, creating more choices for people. However, no therapeutic works for all patients. Each has its own inherent benefits, risks, costs, dosing, and monitoring considerations. In parallel, there has been a focus on personalized medicine initiatives that tailor therapeutic decisions to patients based on their unique characteristics or biomarkers. Personalized effect estimates require an understanding of a patient's baseline probability of response to treatment and data on the comparative effectiveness of the available treatments. However, even if accurate risk prediction models are available, trade-offs often still need to be made between treatments. In this paper, we review the history of RA therapeutics and progress that has been made toward personalized risk predictive models for DMARDs, outlining where knowledge gaps still exist. We further review why patient preferences play a key role in a holistic view of personalized medicine and how this links with shared decision-making. We argue that a "preference misdiagnosis" may be equally important as a medical misdiagnosis but is often overlooked.

Treat-to-target in rheumatoid arthritis: a real-world study of the application and impact of treat-to-target within the wider context of patient management, patient centricity and advanced therapy use in Europe

BACKGROUND

While treat-to-target (T2T) is endorsed for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), data on the degree of implementation in clinical practice are limited. This study investigated the use of T2T for RA in a real-world setting across Europe.

METHODS

The Adelphi RA Disease-Specific Programme was a point-in-time survey of rheumatologists and their consulting patients with RA conducted between January and October 2020 in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. Rheumatologists completed an attitudinal survey, and a record form for their next 10-12 consulting patients, who were invited to voluntarily complete a patient-reported questionnaire. Data collected included clinical characteristics, treatment patterns and attitudes towards T2T.

RESULTS

Overall, 316 rheumatologists provided data for 3120 patients, of whom 1108 completed the questionnaire. While 86.1% of rheumatologists estimated using T2T principles in clinical practice, only 66.6% of patients were reported by their physician to be managed using a T2T approach. Achieving disease remission was the most commonly reported treatment goal identified by rheumatologists (79.7%), followed by symptom control (47.8%) and reducing impact on quality of life (44.5%). 40.8% of rheumatologists and their patients were in agreement that a treatment goal had been set. When there was agreement on treatment goals, we observed better patient satisfaction, engagement and treatment success.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite recommendations, the T2T approach in RA appears to be suboptimally implemented in clinical practice. This highlights the importance of patient-centricity in the decision-making process to define meaningful targets and select appropriate treatments to improve disease outcomes.

An orally available small molecule that targets soluble TNF to deliver anti-TNF biologic-like efficacy in rheumatoid arthritis

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) is a pleiotropic cytokine belonging to a family of trimeric proteins with both proinflammatory and immunoregulatory functions. TNF is a key mediator in autoimmune diseases and during the last couple of decades several biologic drugs have delivered new therapeutic options for patients suffering from chronic autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and chronic inflammatory bowel disease. Attempts to design small molecule therapies directed to this cytokine have not led to approved products yet. Here we report the discovery and development of a potent small molecule inhibitor of TNF that was recently moved into phase 1 clinical trials. The molecule, SAR441566, stabilizes an asymmetrical form of the soluble TNF trimer, compromises downstream signaling and inhibits the functions of TNF in vitro and in vivo. With SAR441566 being studied in healthy volunteers we hope to deliver a more convenient orally bioavailable and effective treatment option for patients suffering with chronic autoimmune diseases compared to established biologic drugs targeting TNF.

Quality of life, disease activity and preferences for administration routes in rheumatoid arthritis: a multicentre, prospective, observational study

Objective

We aimed to evaluate quality of life (QoL), disease activity, compliance to treatment, patient and physician preferences for route of administration (RoA), status of health and pain in RA patients starting advanced treatments or needing a switch, and the factors associated with patient preferences.

Methods

A multicentre, prospective, observational and 1-year follow-up study was conducted, between 2015 and 2020, in adult RA patients using advanced treatments for the first time or needing a switch in their current treatments. All the data collected were entered into electronic case report forms. DAS in 28 joints with ESR [DAS28-4(ESR)], EuroQol 5-Dimensional Questionnaire (EQ-5D), HAQ Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Compliance Questionnaire for Rheumatology (CQR-19), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) and Patient Global Assessment-Visual Analogue Scale (PGA-VAS) questionnaires were used for longitudinal assessments.

Results

Four hundred and fifty-nine patients were enrolled. Three hundred and eight patients (67.1%) attended the final study visit at 12 months and were included for comparative analyses. Irrespective of RoA, the disease activity and QoL improved significantly at 12 months, whereas compliance worsened. At baseline and 12 months, EQ-5D and DAS28-4(ESR) scores were significantly correlated (P < 0.001). The WPAI scores changed significantly in favour of better outcomes over 12 months after initiation of advanced treatment or switching (P < 0.001). A higher proportion of patients preferred an oral RoA, in comparison to physicians (53.6% vs 31.4%; P < 0.001). Patient and physician RoA preferences were independent of gender, age, disease duration, advanced treatment type and the EQ-5D-3L, DAS28-4(ESR), HAQ-DI, PGA-VAS and CQR-19 scores at baseline.

Conclusion

The oral route was more frequently preferred by patients compared with physicians, although patients’ preference rates showed a slight increase towards the end of the treatment, which might be an important factor for RA outcomes. Better control of disease activity and QoL were achieved at 12 months, regardless of RoA.

Usage and Adherence of Seven Advanced Therapies with Differing Mechanisms of Action for Inflammatory Arthritis in Canada

Introduction

This retrospective, observational study aimed to analyze and assess adherence, persistence, dosing, and use of concomitant medications of seven self-administered target drugs (abatacept, golimumab, secukinumab, tocilizumab, ustekinumab, apremilast, and tofacitinib) that are currently available in Canada for the treatment of inflammatory arthritis (IA).

Methods

We used IQVIA’s longitudinal claims databases, which include private drug plans and public plans. Patients with IA identified using a proprietary indication algorithm who initiated treatment with any of the target drugs between January 2015 and February 2019 were selected and followed for 12 months.

Results

Golimumab and apremilast had the highest proportion of patients (~ 75%) who were bio-naïve and secukinumab had the fewest bio-naïve patients (~ 43%). The oral therapies, apremilast and tofacitinib, had the lowest percentage of adherent patients (73% and 71%) followed by abatacept (83%), while the remaining drugs had adherence around 90%. Secukinumab and tofacitinib had the highest 12-month persistence rate (63% and 61%), while abatacept and apremilast had the lowest persistence rate (52% and 47%). Oral corticosteroid (OCS) use was not significantly associated with adherence. Tocilizumab, secukinumab, and ustekinumab had the highest proportion of patients (> 20%) with dose escalation at 3–4 months from index. OCS and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARD) use decreased in post-index period across all target drugs.

Conclusion

This study identified substantial differences in patient baseline characteristics. Patients on injectable biologics were more likely to be adherent compared with those on oral drugs, possibly owing to longer dosing intervals. Other outcomes at 12 months appeared similar as evidenced by tapering of concomitant medications, although differences in persistence and dose escalation were noted.

Abrocitinib monotherapy in Investigator's Global Assessment nonresponders: improvement in signs and symptoms of atopic dermatitis and quality of life

BACKGROUND

Abrocitinib, a once-daily, oral Janus kinase 1 selective inhibitor, was shown to be an effective treatment for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in phase 2 b/3 monotherapy trials.

METHODS

These analyses included data for Investigator's Global Assessment responder (clear [0] or almost clear [1] with ≥2-grade improvement) and nonresponder patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis who received abrocitinib (200 mg or 100 mg) or placebo in three abrocitinib monotherapy trials (phase 2 b, NCT02780167; two phase 3, NCT03349060/JADE MONO-1 and NCT03575871/JADE MONO-2). Outcomes measuring skin clearance, itch, and quality of life were evaluated.

RESULTS

Both nonresponders (n = 548) and responders (n = 260) treated with abrocitinib had rapid and clinically meaningful improvement in skin clearance, itch, and quality of life compared with placebo.

CONCLUSION

Patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis treated with abrocitinib who did not achieve an Investigator's Global Assessment 0/1 response at week 12 still experienced rapid, clinically meaningful improvements across several other validated measures of efficacy and quality of life.

CLINICALTRIALS.GOV

NCT02780167, NCT03349060, NCT03575871.

Systematic review of quantitative preference studies of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis among patients and at-risk populations

Treatments used for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are under investigation for their efficacy to prevent RA in at risk groups. It is therefore important to understand treatment preferences of those at risk. We systematically reviewed quantitative preference studies of drugs to treat, or prevent RA, to inform the design of further studies and trials of RA prevention. Stated preference studies for RA treatment or prevention were identified through a search of five databases. Study characteristics and results were extracted, and the relative importance of different types of treatment attributes was compared across populations. Twenty three studies were included 20 of RA treatments (18 of patients; 2 of the general public) and 3 prevention studies with first-degree relatives (FDRs). Benefits, risks, administration method and cost (when included) were important determinants of treatment choice. A benefit was more important than a risk attribute in half of the studies of RA treatment that included a benefit attribute and 2/3 studies of RA prevention. There was variability in the relative importance of attributes across the few prevention studies. In studies with non-patient participants, attributes describing confidence in treatment effectiveness/safety were more important determinants of choice than in studies with patients. Most preference studies relating to RA are of treatments for established RA. Few studies examine preferences for treatments to prevent RA. Given intense research focus on RA prevention, additional preference studies in this context are needed. Variation in treatment preferences across different populations is not well understood and direct comparisons are needed.

Long-term safety and efficacy of upadacitinib or adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results through 3 years from the SELECT-COMPARE study

Objectives

To assess the long-term safety and efficacy of the Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib versus adalimumab over 3 years in the ongoing long-term extension (LTE) of SELECT-COMPARE, a randomised controlled phase 3 trial of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX).

Methods

Patients on stable background MTX were randomised 2:2:1 to upadacitinib 15 mg, placebo or adalimumab 40 mg. Patients with an insufficient response were switched by week 26 from placebo to upadacitinib, upadacitinib to adalimumab or adalimumab to upadacitinib. Patients who completed the 48-week double-blind period could enter an LTE for up to 10 years. Safety and efficacy results were analysed here through 3 years. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were summarised based on exposure to upadacitinib and adalimumab. Efficacy was analysed by original randomised groups (non-responder imputation), as well as separately by treatment sequence (as observed).

Results

Rates of several AEs were generally comparable between upadacitinib and adalimumab, including AEs leading to discontinuation, serious infections and serious AEs, malignancies, major adverse cardiac events, venous thromboembolism and deaths. Consistent with earlier results, herpes zoster, lymphopaenia, hepatic disorder and CPK elevation were reported at higher rates with upadacitinib versus adalimumab. In terms of efficacy, upadacitinib continued to show numerically better clinical responses than adalimumab over 3 years across all endpoints, including low disease activity and remission.

Conclusion

The safety profile of UPA 15 mg was consistent with previous study-specific and integrated safety reports. Higher levels of clinical response continued to be observed with upadacitinib versus adalimumab through 3 years of treatment.

Drug Survival of Biologic Therapy in Elderly Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Compared With Nonelderly Patients: Results From the Korean College of Rheumatology Biologics Registry

OBJECTIVE

Although the proportion of elderly patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is increasing, the persistency of biologic therapy in elderly patients requires additional investigation. This study evaluated the drug survival of biologic therapy and associated factors in elderly compared with nonelderly patients.

METHODS

This longitudinal observational study included RA patients who were enrolled in the Korean College of Rheumatology Biologics Registry (NCT01965132, started from January 1, 2013) between 2013 and 2015. We compared the retention rate of biologic therapy between elderly (age ≥70 years) and nonelderly (age <70 years) patients, and investigated the causes and predictors of biologic withdrawal in both groups.

RESULTS

Of 682 patients, 122 were aged 70 years or older. The retention rate of biologic therapy at 24 months was 57.8% and 46.5% in nonelderly and elderly patients, respectively (p = 0.027). Biologic withdrawal due to adverse events and inefficacy within 24 months was not significantly different between the 2 groups, although adverse events were more common in elderly patients (20.6% vs 12.8%, p = 0.360). Drug withdrawal due to patient refusal was more common in elderly patients (9.8% vs 1.8%, p < 0.001). In elderly patients, biologic withdrawal was associated with current smoking and older age at disease onset, whereas the use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, nonuse of methotrexate, and combination of corticosteroid were important in nonelderly patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly RA patients are more likely to discontinue biologic agents within 24 months. To increase the retention rate of biologic therapy, rheumatologists should consider patient characteristics before and during biologic therapy.

A robotic pill for oral delivery of biotherapeutics: safety, tolerability, and performance in healthy subjects

Biotherapeutics are highly efficacious, but the pain and inconvenience of chronic injections lead to poor patient compliance and compromise effective disease management. Despite innumerable attempts, oral delivery of biotherapeutics remains unsuccessful due to their degradation in the gastrointestinal (GI) environment and poor intestinal absorption. We have developed an orally ingestible robotic pill (RP) for drug delivery, which protects the biotherapeutic drug payload from digestion in the GI tract and auto-injects it into the wall of the small intestine as a safe, pain-free injection since the intestines are insensate to sharp stimuli. The payload is delivered upon inflation of a balloon folded within the RP, which deflates immediately after drug delivery. Here we present results from two clinical studies demonstrating the safety, tolerability and performance of the RP in healthy humans. In the first study, three versions of the RP (A, B and C) were evaluated, which were identical in all respects except for the diameter of the balloon. The RP successfully delivered a biotherapeutic (octreotide) in 3 out of 12 subjects in group A, 10 out of 20 subjects in group B and 16 out of 20 subjects in group C, with a mean bioavailability of 65 ± 9% (based on successful drug deliveries in groups A and B). Thus,  reliability of drug delivery with the RP ranged from 25 to 80%, with success rate directly related to balloon size. In a separate study, the deployment of the RP was unaffected by fed or fasting conditions suggesting that the RP may be taken with or without food. These promising clinical data suggest that biotherapeutics currently administered parenterally may be safely and reliably delivered via this versatile, orally ingestible drug delivery platform.

Functional capacity vs side effects: treatment attributes to consider when individualising treatment for patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Introduction

Individualisation of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment needs to take account of individual patients’ preferences to increase patient-centeredness in treatment decisions. The aim of this study was to identify patient-relevant treatment attributes to consider when individualising treatment for patients with RA.

Method

Patients with RA in Sweden were invited to rank the most important treatment attributes in an online survey (April to May 2020). Semi-structured interviews were conducted (October to November 2020) to further identify and frame potential attributes for shared decision-making. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic framework analysis. Patient research partners and rheumatologists supported the selection and framing of the treatment attributes across the assessment.

Results

The highest ranked attributes (N = 184) were improved functional capacity, reduced inflammation, reduced pain and fatigue and the risk of getting a severe side effect. The framework analysis revealed two overarching themes for further exploration: treatment goals and side effects. ‘Treatment goals’ emerged from functional capacity, revealing two dimensions: physical functional capacity and psychosocial functional capacity. ‘Side effects’ revealed that mild and severe side effects were the most important to discuss in shared decision-making.

Conclusions

Functional capacity (physical and psychosocial) and potential side effects (mild and severe) are important treatment attributes to consider when individualising RA treatment. Future research should assess how patients with RA weigh benefits and risks against each other, in order to increase patient-centeredness early on the treatment trajectory.

A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiment Studies in Rheumatoid Arthritis Biological Medicines

Objective:

Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic disease with various clinical characteristics. The introduction of biological drugs has enhanced the efficacy and increased diversity of treatment options. Considering the patients’ preferences in decision-making about treatment can improve their adherence. A discrete choice experiment is a type of conjoint method that can elicit preferences in more realistic scenarios. This article reviewed discrete choice experiment (DCE) studies to extract which attributes and levels were included in surveys. In addition, we focused on the process of designing surveys and the method that they used. Method: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Ovid (Medline) and ProQuest were systematically searched in order to find studies that evaluated rheumatoid arthritis patients’ preferences about biological medicines. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals between 1/1/1990 and 12/31/2019 were included. The included studies were analyzed using a narrative synthesis method and descriptive statistics.

Results:

A total of 7124 studies were initially found. After deleting irrelevant and duplicate studies, 15 studies were included. The most common attributes that were used in surveys were efficacy, adverse effect, route of administration, frequency of administration, and cost. Most studies used a literature review for developing attributes and levels. The median number of included attributes and levels were seven and three, respectively. Eight studies explained their experimental design while seven studies did not. Conditional logit and mixed logit were the most common methods for modeling reciprocally.

Conclusion:

Several aspects of DCE studies investigating biological drugs in RA were assessed. Explaining the sample size, experimental design, and qualitative work for developing attributes can improve this type of study.

Evaluating filgotinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Despite the availability of an extensive armamentarium, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) remains a therapeutic challenge for rheumatologists. Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) are an emerging class of targeted therapies. The number of JAKi has been growing and to date, filgotinib is the latest JAKi to be approved for use in RA.

AREAS COVERED

This review focuses on the pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety of filgotinib in patients with RA.

EXPERT OPINION

Filgotinib is an oral targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) that specifically inhibits JAKi. Filgotinib monotherapy, or a combination regimen with conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs, has demonstrated efficacy in decreasing disease activity, with a well-managed safety profile in patients with early RA naive to DMARDs, and in RA that does not adequately respond to csDMARDs and/or biologic DMARDs. The selective inhibition of JAK1 may confer an improved safety profile, but further study is required as a potential testicular toxicity has been suggested. Filgotinib offers several advantages: oral administration, rapidity of action, efficacy as monotherapy, and demonstrated activity in difficult to treat RA. However, the placement of filgotinib in the therapeutic arsenal for RA may be influenced by the ongoing collection of long-term safety data from JAKi as a class.

Patient Preference for Treatment Mode of Biologics in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A 2020 Web-based Survey in Japan

Introduction

Although the proportion of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) has increased steadily, the relationship between patient background and preference for bDMARDs has not been fully investigated.

Methods

We conducted a web-based questionnaire survey among patients aged ≥ 20 years with RA receiving bDMARDs. Participants were recruited through an internet research company in Japan. Study endpoints included factors affecting the preferred bDMARD treatment mode, namely, in-hospital intravenous infusion (infusion), in-hospital subcutaneous injection (in-hospital injection), or self-administered subcutaneous injection (self-injection), and discrepancies between the current and preferred treatment mode.

Results

Of the 400 patients surveyed for preferred treatment mode, 15.3% preferred infusion, 18.0% preferred in-hospital injection, and 66.8% preferred self-injection. A preference for infusion (odds ratio [OR] 2.218 and 6.165) and in-hospital injection (OR 4.735 and 6.026) versus self-injection was significantly associated with higher current frequency of hospital visits and anxiety or other hurdles related to self-injection. A flexible administration setting was significantly associated with a preference for self-injection versus infusion (OR 0.401) and versus in-hospital injection (OR 0.445). Further, age (< 40 vs. ≥ 60 years) was significantly associated with a preference for self-injection versus in-hospital injection (OR 0.120). Many patients reported no discrepancy between their current and preferred treatment mode (patients receiving infusion, 68.0%; in-hospital injection, 71.2%; and self-injection, 94.0%). However, > 90% of patients responded that they would change their current mode in the future following a recommendation by a medical professional, aging, or a change in RA symptoms.

Conclusions

This web-based survey showed that patient preference for bDMARD treatment mode was significantly associated with age, frequency of hospital visits, flexible administration setting, and anxiety or other hurdles to self-injection. Changes in patient background which affect the preferred treatment mode should be considered in decision-making for RA therapy with bDMARDs.

Trial registration

R000048089 (UMIN-CTR)

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40744-021-00325-9.

Elicitation of Rheumatologist Preferences for the Treatment of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis After the Failure of a First Conventional Synthetic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Agent

Introduction

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) clinical guidelines do not provide strong recommendations for the choice of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD) in patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX), and only limited evidence is available on factors influencing rheumatologist treatment decisions. We aimed to describe therapeutic preferences after the failure of a first-line strategy of MTX in simulated cases of patients with RA.

Methods

Fictional but realistic case-vignettes (n = 64) of patients with RA and an inadequate response to MTX were developed with a combination of RA-poor prognostic factors and comorbidities. Physicians were presented with eight vignettes and chose the most and least appropriate therapeutic option from the following six options randomly proposed 3 by 3: (1) replacing MTX with another csDMARD; (2) combining MTX with one or more csDMARDs; (3) adding a bDMARD of either TNF inhibitors (TNFi), tocilizumab (TCZ), abatacept (ABA), or rituximab (RTZ). A total of 1605 complete case vignettes were produced and randomly assigned to a representative sample of French rheumatologists. For each vignette, whenever a treatment was preferred, one point was incremented for this treatment; if this treatment was the least desired, one point was removed. Preferences were elicited using a normalized best–worst score.

Results

Two hundred and four French rheumatologists participated in the study with each vignette being assessed 20–28 times for a completion rate of 94%. TNFi was the first-choice strategy (80% of vignettes), except in cases with a history of infection and pulmonary comorbidity, where ABA was the first preference (85%). TCZ came third in 83% of the cases. Other options were never preferred and repeatedly yielded negative scores.

Conclusions

We observed a conservative trend with TNFi as the main therapeutic choice for patients with RA and inadequate response to MTX. Preference for bDMARD-based strategies increased with the number of RA-poor prognosis factors, whereas an increase in the number of comorbidities resulted in an increased preference for ABA. Understanding clinical decision-making will be particularly important as the therapeutic landscape for RA continues to evolve.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40744-021-00311-1.

Comparative Cost-Effectiveness of Tofacitinib With Continuing Conventional Synthetic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs for Active Rheumatoid Arthritis in South Korea

Introduction

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of initiating treatment with tofacitinib and subsequently incorporating it into a conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (csDMARD) treatment sequence and to compare the cost-effectiveness of this sequence with that of continuing csDMARDs alone in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

A cohort-based Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of two tofacitinib treatment sequences compared with that of continuing the csDMARD treatment sequence over a lifetime. Of the two tofacitinib sequences, the first consisted of initial tofacitinib treatment followed by biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) and the second consisted of csDMARD treatments followed by tofacitinib. A third treatment sequence, continuing the csDMARD treatment sequence before starting bDMARDs, was used as a comparator. Efficacy was assessed using the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates (ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70) after 6 months, which were converted to changes in the health assessment questionnaire-disability index (HAQ-DI) score. Utility was estimated by mapping from the HAQ-DI score, costs were analyzed from a Korean societal perspective, and outcomes were considered in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to assess the robustness of the model.

Results

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios over a lifetime for starting with tofacitinib and incorporating tofacitinib into the csDMARD treatment sequence versus continuing csDMARDs only were US$14,537 per QALY and US$7,086 per QALY, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of these results.

Conclusion

Starting with tofacitinib and incorporating it into a csDMARDs treatment sequence is cost-effective compared to continuing csDMARDs alone in patients with RA.

Treatment Satisfaction, Patient Preferences, and the Impact of Suboptimal Disease Control in a Large International Rheumatoid Arthritis Cohort: SENSE Study

BACKGROUND

Patients' needs and perspectives are important determinants of treatment success in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Assessing patients' perspectives can help identify unmet needs and enhance the understanding of treatment benefits.

OBJECTIVE

The SENSE study assessed the impact of inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) on treatment satisfaction, disease outcomes, and patient perspectives related to RA disease management.

METHODS

SENSE was a noninterventional, cross-sectional study conducted in 18 countries across Europe, Asia, and South America. Adult patients with poorly controlled RA of moderate/high disease activity were eligible. Patient satisfaction was assessed by the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM v1.4). Treatment adherence, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), quality of life (QoL), work ability, digital health literacy (DHL), patient preference information, and treatment strategy were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 1624 patients were included in the study: most were female (84.2%) and middle-aged, and mean disease duration was 10.5 years. Mean TSQM global satisfaction subscore was 60.9, with only 13.5% of patients reporting good treatment satisfaction (TSQM global ≥80). The strongest predictor of good treatment satisfaction was treatment with advanced therapies. Most patients (87.4%) reported good treatment adherence. In general, patients had impaired QoL and work ability, high HRU, and 67.4% had poor DHL. Leading treatment expectations were "general improvement of arthritis" and "less joint pain". Most patients preferred oral RA medications (60.7%) and rapid (≤1 week) onset of action (71.1%). "Increased risk for malignancies" and "increased risk for cardiovascular disease" were the least acceptable side effects. Despite suboptimal control, advanced therapies were only used in a minority of patients, and DMARD switches were planned for only half of the patients.

CONCLUSION

Suboptimal disease control negatively impacts treatment satisfaction, work ability, QoL, and HRU. Data collected on patient perspectives may inform shared decision-making and optimize treat-to-target strategies for improving patient outcomes in RA.

A microneedle platform for buccal macromolecule delivery

Alternative means for drug delivery are needed to facilitate drug adherence and administration. Microneedles (MNs) have been previously investigated transdermally for drug delivery. To date, drug loading into MNs has been limited by drug solubility in the polymeric blend. We designed a highly drug-loaded MN patch to deliver macromolecules and applied it to the buccal area, which allows for faster delivery than the skin. We successfully delivered 1-mg payloads of human insulin and human growth hormone to the buccal cavity of swine within 30 s. In addition, we conducted a trial in 100 healthy volunteers to assess potential discomfort associated with MNs when applied in the oral cavity, identifying the hard palate as the preferred application site. We envisage that MN patches applied on buccal surfaces could increase medication adherence and facilitate the painless delivery of biologics and other drugs to many, especially for the pediatric and elderly populations.

Patient preferences on rheumatoid arthritis second-line treatment: a discrete choice experiment of Swedish patients

Background

Preference assessments of patients with rheumatoid arthritis can support clinical therapeutic decisions for including biologic and targeted synthetic medicines to use. This study assesses patient preferences for attributes of second-line therapies and heterogeneity within these preferences to estimate the relative importance of treatment characteristics and to calculate the minimum benefit levels patients require to accept higher levels of side effects.

Methods

Between November 2018 to August 2019, patients with rheumatoid arthritis were recruited to a survey containing demographic and disease-related questions as well as a discrete choice experiment to measure their preferences for second-line therapies using biologics or Janus kinases inhibitors. Treatment characteristics included were route of administration, frequency of use, probability of mild short-term side effects, probability of side effects changing appearance, probability of psychological side effects, probability of severe side effects and effectiveness of treatment.

Results

A total of 358 patients were included in the analysis. A latent class analysis revealed three preference patterns: (1) treatment effectiveness as the single most important attribute, (2) route of administration as the most important attribute, closely followed by frequency of use and psychological side effects and (3) severe side effects as the most important attribute followed by psychological side effects. In addition, disease duration and mild side effects influenced the patients’ choices.

Conclusion

Respondents found either effectiveness, route of administration or severe side effects as the most important attribute. Patients noting effectiveness as most important were more willing than other patients to accept higher risks of side effects.

Subcutaneous Sarilumab in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis who Previously Received Subcutaneous Sarilumab or Intravenous Tocilizumab: An Open-Label Extension of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Objective

This post hoc analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of open‐label sarilumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who completed the phase III double‐blind ASCERTAIN study (NCT01768572) and switched from intravenous (IV) tocilizumab to subcutaneous (SC) sarilumab, or who continued SC sarilumab in the open‐label extension (OLE) study EXTEND (NCT01146652).

Methods

Patients who completed ASCERTAIN were eligible to enroll in EXTEND to receive sarilumab 200 mg SC every 2 weeks (Q2W). Safety and efficacy were reported through 96 weeks in the OLE in patients who switched from tocilizumab IV to sarilumab 200 mg SC Q2W, who switched from sarilumab 150 mg SC Q2W to sarilumab 200 mg SC Q2W, or who continued sarilumab 200 mg SC Q2W.

Results

Of 175 patients who completed ASCERTAIN, 168 (96%) enrolled in EXTEND, and 38 of these patients (23%) discontinued the OLE. Cumulative sarilumab exposure during follow‐up was 273.7 patient‐years. No new safety signals were identified, infections occurred at a rate of 59.9/100 patient‐years, and there were no cases of grade 4 neutropenia. Efficacy—as assessed by Disease Activity Score (28 joints) based on C‐reactive protein, Clinical Disease Activity Index, and Health Assessment Questionnaire‐Disability Index scores—was sustained over 96 weeks of follow‐up when switching to, or continuing, sarilumab 200 mg SC Q2W.

Conclusion

Switching from IV to SC interleukin‐6 receptor inhibitor therapy produced no new safety concerns, and clinical efficacy was sustained over 96 weeks of follow‐up. These findings alleviate potential concerns over switching route of administration with interleukin‐6 receptor inhibitor therapy for RA.

Acceptability of bisphosphonates among patients, clinicians and managers: a systematic review and framework synthesis

OBJECTIVE

To explore the acceptability of different bisphosphonate regimens for the treatment of osteoporosis among patients, clinicians and managers, payers and academics.

DESIGN

A systematic review of primary qualitative studies. Seven databases were searched from inception to July 2019. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment of full-articles selected for inclusion were performed independently by two authors. A framework synthesis was applied to extracted data based on the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA). The TFA includes seven domains relating to sense-making, emotions, opportunity costs, burden, perceived effectiveness, ethicality and self-efficacy. Confidence in synthesis findings was assessed.

SETTING

Any developed country healthcare setting.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients, healthcare professionals, managers, payers and academics.

INTERVENTION

Experiences and views of oral and intravenous bisphosphonates.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies were included, mostly describing perceptions of oral bisphosphonates. We identified, with high confidence, how patients and healthcare professionals make sense (coherence) of bisphosphonates by balancing perceptions of need against concerns, how uncertainty prevails about bisphosphonate perceived effectiveness and a number of individual and service factors that have potential to increase self-efficacy in recommending and adhering to bisphosphonates. We identified, with moderate confidence, that bisphosphonate taking induces concern, but has the potential to engender reassurance, and that both side effects and special instructions for taking oral bisphosphonates can result in treatment burden. Finally, we identified with low confidence that multimorbidity plays a role in people's perception of bisphosphonate acceptability.

CONCLUSION

By using the lens of acceptability, our findings demonstrate with high confidence that a theoretically informed, whole-system approach is necessary to both understand and improve adherence. Clinicians and patients need supporting to understand the need for bisphosphonates, and clinicians need to clarify to patients what constitutes bisphosphonate treatment success. Further research is needed to explore perspectives of male patients and those with multimorbidity receiving bisphosphonates, and patients receiving intravenous treatment.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019143526.

Mining social media data to investigate patient perceptions regarding DMARD pharmacotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

We hypothesise that patients have a positive sentiment regarding biological/targeted synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) and a negative sentiment towards conventional synthetic agents (csDMARDs). We analysed discussions on social media platforms regarding DMARDs to understand the collective sentiment expressed towards these medications.

METHODS

Treato analytics were used to download all available posts on social media about DMARDs in the context of rheumatoid arthritis. Strict filters ensured that user generated content was downloaded. The sentiment (positive or negative) expressed in these posts was analysed for each DMARD using sentiment analysis. We also analysed the reason(s) for this sentiment for each DMARD, looking specifically at efficacy and side effects.

RESULTS

Computer algorithms analysed millions of social media posts and included 54 742 posts about DMARDs. We found that both classes had an overall positive sentiment. The ratio of positive to negative posts was higher for b/tsDMARDs (1.210) than for csDMARDs (1.048). Efficacy was the most commonly mentioned reason in posts with a positive sentiment and lack of efficacy was the most commonly mentioned reason for a negative sentiment. These were followed by the presence/absence of side effects in negative or positive posts, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Public opinion on social media is generally positive about DMARDs. Lack of efficacy followed by side effects were the most common themes in posts with a negative sentiment. There are clear reasons why a DMARD generates a positive or negative sentiment, as the sentiment analysis technology becomes more refined, targeted studies could be done to analyse these reasons and allow clinicians to tailor DMARDs to match patient needs.

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug prescription patterns in adult rheumatoid arthritis patients in routine clinical practice in Spain

OBJECTIVE

To describe disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) patterns in routine clinical practice in adult rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients and to ascertain the reasons for methotrexate (MTX) discontinuation.

METHODS

A cross-sectional observational study was conducted from March to October 2014 at the Rheumatology Units of seven hospitals in Spain. In a single visit, the treating rheumatologist completed an online case report form. This report contained sociodemographic and RA variables. This study was conducted in accordance with Good Clinical Practice and local and national research legislations.

RESULTS

A total of 301 patients (71% women) with a mean age of 56.7±14.0 years and disease duration of 3.6±1.5 years were examined. The patients had RA with moderate disease activity, at least one poor prognostic factor, and comorbidities. The mean time between RA diagnosis and prescription of the first conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) was 2.4±6.0 months. A total of 295 patients (98%) started the first csDMARD on monotherapy. MTX was the most-prescribed first-line drug (n=233, 79%). The mean treatment time of the first-line csDMARD was 27.0±19.4 months. Of these patients, 98% progressed to a second-line csDMARD; 118 patients were changed to another DMARD, mainly due to inefficacy (51, 37%), adverse events (AEs, 37, 27%), or intolerance (18, 13%). The use of MTX as second-line therapy reduced from 79% to 51%. At the time of the study, 200 patients (66%) received a csDMARD as monotherapy and 45 (15%) a combination of ≥2 csDMARDs. Fifty-five (18%) patients were being treated with a biological drug in monotherapy (16, 29%) or in a combination with a csDMARD (39, 71%), mainly MTX, 147 patients (57%) received steroids. Biological DMARD were prescribed as the second line for 42% of patients and 51% of patients received the third-line therapy or beyond. The rate of AEs that motivated a change in the csDMARD was 34%.

CONCLUSION

MTX was the most-used csDMARD as first and second-line therapy together with corticosteroids. The combination of two or more csDMARDs as first-line treatment was very infrequent. MTX toxicity and intolerance were higher and more significant than inefficacy but progressively decreased with use.

Quality of life and patient preferences among Danish patients with ulcerative colitis - results from a survey study

Objective: To explore health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and assess preferences for medical treatment attributes to obtain information of the relative importance of the different attributes in a Danish population with ulcerative colitis (UC).Methods: We used data from an online survey collected in March 2018 among people with self-reported UC. A total of 302 eligible respondents answered the HRQoL questionnaires (EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D-5L) and the Short Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (SIBDQ)), and 212 also completed the discrete choice experiment (DCE). The probability of choosing an alternative from a number of choices in the DCE was estimated using a conditional logit model.Results: The respondents had an average SIBDQ score of 4.5 and an HRQoL score of 0.77, applying the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. HRQoL correlated with disease severity, and the respondents had lower HRQoL than did a gender- and age-matched subset of the Danish population. The most important medical treatment attribute was efficacy within eight weeks. Additionally, respondents stated a preference for avoiding taking steroids, for fast onset of effect and for oral formulations.Conclusions: HRQoL correlates with disease severity, and patients with UC have lower HRQoL than the general population. The most important treatment attribute was efficacy, but patients also would like to avoid steroids, value fast onset of effect and prefer oral formulations.

Patient preferences for rheumatoid arthritis treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an overview of recent articles discussing patient preferences for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies examined patient preferences for RA treatment in several populations, finding that most participants were willing to accept certain risks of adverse effects to gain potential benefits. Perspectives regarding cannabis were studied, with patients describing medical marijuana as an alternative therapy to be used with prescription medications or as means of tapering off these medications. Treatment preferences for different RA therapies were explored using a conjoint analysis survey and five distinct preference phenotypes emerged, with members of the largest group most concerned with the cost of medications. Other discrete choice studies demonstrated route of administration as an important attribute influencing treatment preferences, with patients expressing preference for various modes in different studies. Patient preferences for route of administration have demonstrated preference for newer autoinjectors over prefilled syringes as well as currently marketed autoinjectors. Incorporating patient preferences in clinical practice recommendations was described in the development of the 2015 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) RA treatment guidelines as well as the 2017 ACR/American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons guidelines for perioperative management of antirheumatic medications. In addition, other studies explored preferences with regard to predictive testing, medication intensification and tapering, treatment goals, and psychological support.

SUMMARY

Our review of recent studies show variability in patient preferences for RA treatment, highlighting the importance of incorporating patient input into the treatment approach.

What Matters Most to Patients and Rheumatologists? A Discrete Choice Experiment in Rheumatoid Arthritis

INTRODUCTION

To determine patient and rheumatologist preferences for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment attributes in Spain and to evaluate their attitude towards shared decision-making (SDM).

METHODS

Observational, descriptive, exploratory and cross-sectional study based on a discrete choice experiment (DCE). To identify the attributes and their levels, a literature review and two focus groups (patients [P] = 5; rheumatologists [R] = 4) were undertaken. Seven attributes with 2-4 levels were presented in eight scenarios. Attribute utility and relative importance (RI) were assessed using a conditional logit model. Patient preferences for SDM were assessed using an ad hoc questionnaire.

RESULTS

Ninety rheumatologists [52.2% women; mean years of experience 18.1 (SD: 9.0); seeing an average of 24.4 RA patients/week (SD: 15.3)] and 137 RA patients [mean age: 47.5 years (SD: 10.7); 84.0% women; mean time since diagnosis of RA: 14.2 years (SD: 11.8) and time in treatment: 13.2 years (SD: 11.2), mean HAQ score 1.2 (SD: 0.7)] participated in the study. In terms of RI, rheumatologists and RA patients viewed: time with optimal QoL: R: 23.41%/P: 35.05%; substantial symptom improvement: R: 13.15%/P: 3.62%; time to onset of treatment action: R: 16.24%/P: 13.56%; severe adverse events: R: 10.89%/P: 11.20%; mild adverse events: R: 4.16%/P: 0.91%; mode of administration: R: 25.23%/P: 25.00%; and added cost: R: 6.93%/P: 10.66%. Nearly 73% of RA patients were involved in treatment decision-making to a greater or lesser extent; however, 27.4% did not participate at all.

CONCLUSION

Both for rheumatologists and patients, the top three decision-making drivers are time with optimal quality, treatment mode of administration and time to onset of action, although in different ranking order. Patients were willing to be more involved in the treatment decision-making process.

Methods for measuring patient preferences: an update and future directions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The current review highlights the growing number of available methods used to measure patient preferences and discusses how this impacts preference research in rheumatology. Spurred by the growing role of preferences in regulatory decisions and drug development, researchers have begun applying preference methods to study questions beyond the clinical context. We explore these trends, provide case studies highlighting changes in measuring patient preferences, compare strengths and weaknesses of common stated-preference methods, and discuss considerations for the future use of these methods.

RECENT FINDINGS

Early literature on patient preferences often mimicked clinical practice, asking whether treatment A is better or worse than treatment B for a patient. Early applications of patient preference methods in rheumatology aimed to value different attributes of treatments, but remained focused on informing clinical questions. Spurred by interest in preferences by regulatory agencies and patient-centeredness throughout the product lifecycle, there are now a wide array of methods available to measure preference.

SUMMARY

Although these different preference methods have strengths and weaknesses, they serve to highlight the broad number of questions that could help rheumatology beyond the clinical context. Researchers in rheumatology now have the opportunity to better serve diverse stakeholders by considering how these methods could aid in clinical trial design, regulatory policy, and other elements of the medical product life cycle.

Assessments of the unmet need in the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: analyses from the NOR-DMARD registry

Objective

To describe the outcomes of MTX and biologic DMARD (bDMARD) treatment in patients with RA and assess unmet needs in patients who fail treatment, using real-world data from the Norwegian DMARD (NOR-DMARD) registry.

Methods

Data included RA treatment courses from January 2007 until July 2016. Patients received MTX monotherapy (in MTX-naïve patients), bDMARD monotherapy, bDMARDs + MTX, or bDMARDs + other conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs). DAS28-4(ESR) was used to measure remission (<2.6) and inadequate response (>3.2) across all groups at Months 6 and 12. Estimated ACR20/50/70 and EULAR good and good/moderate response rates (based on DAS28-4[ESR] score) for bDMARDs were modelled at Months 6 and 12 using logistic mixed regression. DAS28-4(ESR) scores and changes from baseline, and rates and reasons for discontinuation, were evaluated for all groups over 24 months.

Results

The 2778 treatment courses in this analysis included 714 MTX monotherapy, 396 bDMARD monotherapy, 1460 bDMARDs + MTX and 208 bDMARDs + other csDMARDs. Of patients with DAS28-4(ESR) data at Months 6 and 12 (25.0–34.1%), 33.9–47.2% did not switch treatment and were inadequate-responders at Month 12. There were no significant differences in efficacy between bDMARD groups (bDMARD monotherapy, or bDMARDs + MTX or other csDMARDs). Lack of efficacy was the most common reason for stopping treatment across all groups (13.7–22.1% over 24 months).

Conclusion

An unmet treatment need exists for patients still experiencing inadequate response to MTX monotherapy and bDMARDs as monotherapy or in combination with MTX/other csDMARDs after 12 months.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01581294.

Treatment Mode Preferences in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Moving Toward Shared Decision-Making

PURPOSE

Current knowledge of the reasons for patients' preference for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment modes is limited. This study was designed to identify preferences for four treatment modes, and to obtain in-depth information on the reasons for these preferences.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this multi-national, cross-sectional, qualitative study, in-depth interviews were conducted with adult patients with RA in the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Brazil. Patients' strength of preference was evaluated using a 100-point allocation task (0-100; 100=strongest) across four treatment modes: oral, self-injection, clinic-injection, and infusion. Qualitative descriptive analysis methods were used to identify, characterize, and summarize patterns found in the interview data relating to reasons for these preferences.

RESULTS

100 patients were interviewed (female, 75.0%; mean age, 53.9 years; mean 11.6 years since diagnosis). Among the four treatment modes, oral administration was allocated the highest mean (standard deviation) preference points (47.3 [33.1]) and was ranked first choice by the greatest percentage of patients (57.0%), followed by self-injection (29.7 [27.7]; 29.0%), infusion (15.4 [24.6]; 16.0%), and clinic-injection (7.5 [14.1]; 2.0%). Overall, 56.0% of patients had a "strong" first-choice preference (ie, point allocation ≥70); most of these patients chose oral (62.5%) vs self-injection (23.2%), infusion (10.7%), or clinic-injection (3.6%). Speed and/or ease of administration were the most commonly reported reasons for patients choosing oral (52.6%) or self-injection (55.2%). The most common reasons for patients not choosing oral or self-injection were not wanting to take another pill (37.2%) and avoiding pain due to needles (46.5%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

These data report factors important to patients regarding preferences for RA treatment modes. Patients may benefit from discussions with their healthcare professionals and/or patient support groups, regarding RA treatment modes, to facilitate shared decision-making.

What do Australian patients with inflammatory arthritis value in treatment? A discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to develop an understanding of treatment preferences in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) [rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA)] focussing on treatment attributes that patients' value, their relative importance, and the risk-benefit trade-offs that characterise patients' choices around treatment.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) approach was used. Attributes of interest were clinical efficacy; slowing of disease progression; risk of mild-moderate side effects; risk of severe side effects; frequency of administration; real-world product evidence; management of related conditions; and availability of a patient support programme. Using data from the DCE component, a restricted latent class model (LCM) was estimated to determine discrete 'classes' of treatment preferences.

RESULTS

In this analysis, 206 participants were included (AS n = 59; PsA n = 62; RA n = 85). Two classes were identified. For 'class 1' (59.9%), the most important attributes (across all treatment modalities) were preventing disease progression, clinical efficacy and risk of mild-to-moderate side effects. For 'class 2' (40.1%), clinical and non-clinical attributes were important, and attribute importance depended on treatment modality. Patient demographic and treatment characteristics did not predict class membership.

CONCLUSION

For most patients with IA, clinical efficacy, stopping disease progression and risks of mild-to-moderate side effects are important treatment attributes. Patients with prior biologic DMARD experience had greater preference for injection treatments. For a subset of patients, patient support programmes and the frequency of administration were important. Clinicians should be mindful of preferences when prescribing treatment to patients with IA.Key Points• Most patients consider clinical efficacy, stopping disease progression and the risk of mild-to-moderate side effects as important treatment attributes• Patients with prior biologic DMARD experience have greater preference for injection treatments.• For a subset of patients, patient support programmes, and the frequency of administration were important.• Clinicians should be mindful of preferences when prescribing treatment to patients with IA.