Search

Objective: Some immunomodulatory drugs have been shown to delay the onset of, or lower the risk of developing, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), if given to individuals at risk. Several trials are ongoing in this area; however, little evidence is currently available about the views of those at risk of RA regarding preventive treatment., Method: Three focus groups and three interviews explored factors that are relevant to first degree relatives (FDRs) of RA patients and members of the general public when considering taking preventive treatment for RA. The semi-structured qualitative interview prompts explored participant responses to hypothetical attributes of preventive RA medicines. Transcripts of focus group/interview proceedings were inductively coded and analysed using a framework approach., Results: Twenty-one individuals (five FDRs, 16 members of the general public) took part in the study. Ten broad themes were identified describing factors that participants felt would influence their decisions about whether to take preventive treatment if they were at increased risk of RA. These related either directly to features of the specific treatment or to other factors, including personal characteristics, attitude towards taking medication, and an individual's actual risk of developing RA., Conclusion: This research highlights the importance of non-treatment factors in the decision-making process around preventive treatments, and will inform recruitment to clinical trials as well as information to support shared decision making by those considering preventive treatment. Studies of treatment preferences in individuals with a confirmed high risk of RA would further inform clinical trial design.

Objectives: To quantify tolerance to risks of preventive treatments among first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: Preventive treatments for RA are under investigation. In a preference survey, adult FDRs assumed a 60% chance of developing RA within 2 years and made choices between no treatment and hypothetical preventive treatment options with a fixed level of benefit (reduction in chance of developing RA from 60% to 20%) and varying levels of risks. Using a probabilistic threshold technique, each risk was increased or decreased until participants switched their choice. Perceived risk of RA, health literacy, numeracy, Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire and Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire-General were also assessed. Maximum acceptable risk (MAR) was summarised using descriptive statistics. Associations between MARs and participants' characteristics were assessed using interval regression with effects coding., Results: 289 FDRs (80 male) responded. The mean MAR for a 40% reduction in chance of developing RA was 29.08% risk of mild side effects, 9.09% risk of serious infection and 0.85% risk of a serious side effect. Participants aged over 60 years were less tolerant of serious infection risk (mean MAR ±2.06%) than younger participants. Risk of mild side effects was less acceptable to participants who perceived higher likelihood of developing RA (mean MAR ±3.34%) and more acceptable to those believing that if they developed RA it would last for a long time (mean MAR ±4.44%)., Conclusions: Age, perceived chance of developing RA and perceived duration of RA were associated with tolerance to some risks of preventive RA therapy., Competing Interests: Competing interests: GS, JV, LVM, JHH, INB, and MF have no competing interests. EMJ and RLD are employed by Janssen Research and Development and are stockholders in Johnson & Johnson. ME: speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen and Sanofi; paid instructor for AbbVie, Chugai and Roche; consultant for AbbVie, Roche and Sanofi. CR is employed by and a shareholder of Eli Lilly and Company. BH is employed by Pfizer and holds stock or stock options in Pfizer. KR declares personal fees from AbbVie and Sanofi, and grant/research support from Bristol Myers Squibb., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

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., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: To compare the incident risk of RA in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and to explore the role of glycaemic control and associated therapeutic use in the onset of RA., Methods: This study was a retrospective cohort study using patients derived from the IQVIA Medical Research Data (IMRD-UK) database between 1995 and 2019. A total of 224 551 newly diagnosed patients with T2DM were matched to 449 101 patients without T2DM and followed up to assess their risk of RA. Further analyses investigated the effect of glycaemic control, statin use and anti-diabetic drugs on the relationship between T2DM and RA using a time-dependent Cox regression model., Results: During the study period, the incidence of RA was 8.1 and 10.6 per 10 000 person-years in the exposed and unexposed groups, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) was 0.73 (95% CI 0.67, 0.79). In patients who had not used statins in their lifetime, the aHR was 0.89 (95% CI 0.69, 1.14). When quantifying the effects of glycaemic control, anti-diabetic drugs and statins using time-varying analyses, there was no association with glycaemic control [aHR 1.00 (95% CI 0.99, 1.00)], use of metformin [aHR 1.00 (95% CI 0.82, 1.22)], dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors [DPP4is; aHR 0.94 (95% CI 0.71, 1.24)] and the development of RA. However, statins demonstrated a protective effect for progression of RA in those with T2DM [aHR 0.76 (95% CI 0.66, 0.88)], with evidence of a duration-response relationship., Conclusion: There is a reduced risk of RA in patients with T2DM that may be attributable to the use of statins., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Objectives: There is an increased interest in patient preferences informing the development and authorisation of medical products. A requirement for robust and meaningful results of such studies is that patients adequately understand the risks and benefits associated with treatments for which their preferences are elicited. This study aims to determine the influence of an educational tool, compared with traditional written information on patient preferences elicited in a discrete choice experiment (DCE)., Methods: Treatment preferences of Swedish patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were assessed using a DCE. Patients were recruited via clinics, a research panel, and the Swedish Rheumatism Association. Respondents received training materials either as plain written text or as an online educational tool. The educational tool was designed to enhance understanding of the written text by using graphics, pictograms, icon arrays, spoken text, and click-on functions. Data were analysed using random parameter logit models., Results: 675 patients with RA were included in the analysis. The patients received either a written information (n = 358) or information via an educational tool (n = 317). Respondents receiving the educational tool placed relatively more importance on all included side effects in their decision making, compared to respondents receiving the written text, who placed greater importance on treatment effectiveness and administration methods., Conclusion: Compared to the respondents receiving the written text, the decisions of respondents receiving the educational tool were more influenced by medication side effects. Further research is needed to provide guidance on how and when to use educational tools to inform and elicit patients' preferences., Practice Implications: The ways in which attributes are presented to patients significantly impacts preferences measured in a DCE., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest KSB, JV, MH, EB, MF and UK have no conflict of interest to declare. KR is supported by the Birmingham NIHR Biomedical Research Centre and is a member of the Research into Inflammatory Arthritis Centre Versus Arthritis and the MRC Versus Arthritis Centre for Musculoskeletal Ageing Research., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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.

Effective treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are available and can lead to remission for some patients, but most patients remain on potentially toxic and expensive medications in the long term. Interest is increasingly turning to the disease phases preceding the development of RA that represent opportunities for preventive interventions. At-risk target populations include individuals with genetic and environmental risk factors, those who have developed systemic autoimmunity, and those who have developed clinically suspect symptoms (eg, arthralgias without synovitis, or an early arthritis). Ongoing prospective studies will inform the development of increasingly accurate predictive tools to identify individuals at risk of developing RA. Furthermore, a range of preventive approaches has been suggested, including lifestyle modification (eg, smoking cessation) and pharmacologic interventions (eg, hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, abatacept, rituximab) that are currently the subject of randomized controlled trials. As prediction and prevention of RA evolve, it is increasingly likely that individuals at risk (including asymptomatic individuals) may be faced with complex decisions about whether to accept assessment of their risk status or to take a preventive intervention associated with risk of serious adverse events and uncertain benefit. Acceptance of preventive medication in other contexts can be low. For example, <25% of women at high risk of breast cancer are willing to take preventive hormonal treatments. Actual uptake is lower still. Patients' beliefs and preferences predict treatment uptake and adherence. Before the dream of preventing RA can become reality, health care providers need to understand the perspectives of individuals in the target population and to identify barriers and facilitators for this approach. This commentary reviews what is currently known about the perspectives of patients and individuals at risk about predictive and preventive approaches for RA and identifies gaps to be addressed to inform the development of efficient preventive strategies., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)