Search

Purpose: During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, national and international societies have recommended continuing biological agents in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID) in the absence of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms. However, adherence to biological treatment might decrease, because these recommendations contradict patients' beliefs. Especially an increased concern about side effects could have influenced the adherence to biological treatment during the first lockdown. The primary objective was to investigate the impact of the first SARS-CoV-2 lockdown on adherence to biological treatment in IMID patients. Patients and Methods: In this prospective cohort study, IMID patients who received a biological agent before and during the first SARS-CoV-2 lockdown (March 2020- June 2020) were included. Patients were excluded if they did not complete the medication adherence report scale-5 (MARS-5) questionnaire at ≥ 1 visit before the lockdown and ≥ 1 visit during the lockdown. Adherence to biological treatment was measured with the MARS-5 and Medication Possession Ratio (MPR). Results: We included 157 IMID patients. The percentage of adherent patients, defined as MARS-5 score > 21, was significantly lower during the lockdown compared to the period before the lockdown (88.5% vs 84.1%, p< 0.001). Additionally, the overall percentage of adherent patients during the lockdown based on the MPR ≥ 90% was significantly lower compared to adherence based upon the MARS-5 (65.1% vs 84.1%, p< 0.001). Conclusion: This study showed that the first SARS-CoV-2 lockdown negatively impacts adherence to biological treatment in IMID patients. Therefore, treating physicians should be aware of this problem to minimize the potential harmful effects of non-adherence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although patients have different treatment preferences, these individual preferences could often be grouped in subgroups with shared preferences. Knowledge of these subgroups as well as factors associated with subgroup membership supports health care professionals in the understanding of what matters to patients in clinical decision-making. Objectives: To identify subgroups of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) based on their shared preferences toward disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and to identify factors associated with subgroup membership. Methods: A discrete choice experiment to determine DMARD preferences of adult patients with RA was designed based on a literature review, expert recommendations, and focus groups. In this multicenter study, patients were asked to state their preferred choice between two different hypothetical treatment options, described by seven DMARD characteristics with three levels within each characteristic. Latent class analyses and multinomial logistic regressions were used to identify subgroups and the characteristics (patient characteristics, disease-related variables, and beliefs about medicines) associated with subgroup membership. Results: Among 325 participating patients with RA, three subgroups were identified: an administration-driven subgroup (45.6%), a benefit-driven subgroup (29.7%), and a balanced subgroup (24.7%). Patients who were currently using biologic DMARDs were significantly more likely to belong to the balanced subgroup than the administration-driven subgroup (relative risk ratio (RRR): 0.50, 95% CI: 0.28–0.89). Highly educated patients were significantly more likely to belong to the benefit-driven subgroup than the balanced subgroup (RRR: 11.4, 95% CI: 0.97–133.6). Patients' medication-related concerns did not contribute significantly to subgroup membership, whereas a near-significant association was found between patients' beliefs about medication necessity and their membership of the benefit-driven subgroup (RRR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.00–1.23). Conclusion: Three subgroups with shared preferences were identified. Only biologic DMARD use and educational level were associated with subgroup membership. Integrating patient's medication preferences in pharmacotherapy decisions may improve the quality of decisions and possibly medication adherence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: For patients with a chronic disease, the appropriate use of medication is the key to manage their illness. Adherence to medication is therefore important. Adherence can be divided into three parts: the initiation part, the execution phase, and the discontinuation part. Little is known about the determinants of the initiation part. For this reason, we describe the conduct of a stepwise procedure to study determinants of medication initiation for patients with a chronic disease. Methods/design: The stepwise procedure comprises of eliciting a list of all potential determinants via literature review, interviewing patients, and consulting an expert panel. This is followed by embedding the determinants in a theoretical framework, developing a questionnaire, and choosing adherence measurement methods. The consecutive steps that we conducted for the development of a tool for the prediction of adherence in our study sample of early arthritis patients are described. Discussion: Although we used a thorough procedure, there are still some pitfalls to take into account, such as the choice of theoretical framework. A strength of this study is that we use multiple adherence measurement methods and that we also take clinical outcomes into account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]