Back to Journals » Patient Preference and Adherence » Volume 10

Openness to and preference for attributes of biologic therapy prior to initiation among patients with rheumatoid arthritis: patient and rheumatologist perspectives and implications for decision making

Authors Bolge SC, Goren A, Brown D, Ginsberg S, Allen I

Received 4 March 2016

Accepted for publication 23 April 2016

Published 16 June 2016 Volume 2016:10 Pages 1079—1090

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S107790

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewers approved by Dr Lucy Goodman

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Johnny Chen

Susan C Bolge,1 Amir Goren,2 Duncan Brown,2 Seth Ginsberg,3 Isabel Allen4

1Health Economics & Outcomes Research, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Raritan, NJ, 2Health Outcomes Practice, Kantar Health, New York, 3Global Healthy Living Foundation, Upper Nyack, NY, 4Department of Biostatistics & Epidemiology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

Purpose: Despite American College of Rheumatology recommendations, appropriate and timely initiation of biologic therapies does not always occur. This study examined openness to and preference for attributes of biologic therapies among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), differences in patients’ and rheumatologists’ perceptions, and discussions around biologic therapy initiation.
Patients and methods: A self-administered online survey was completed by 243 adult patients with RA in the US who were taking disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and had never taken, but had discussed biologic therapy with a rheumatologist. Patients were recruited from a consumer panel (n=142) and patient advocacy organization (n=101). A separate survey was completed by 103 rheumatologists who treated at least 25 patients with RA per month with biologic therapy. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were conducted separately for patients and rheumatologists. Attributes of biologic therapy included route of administration (intravenous infusion or subcutaneous injection), frequency of injections/infusions, and duration of infusion.
Results: Over half of patients (53.1%) were open to both intravenous infusion and subcutaneous injection, whereas rheumatologists reported 40.7% of patients would be open to both. Only 26.3% of patients strongly preferred subcutaneous injection, whereas rheumatologists reported 35.2%. Discrepancies were even more pronounced among specific patient types (eg, older vs younger patients and Medicare recipients). Among patients, 23% reported initiating discussion about biologics and 54% reported their rheumatologist initiated the discussion. A majority of rheumatologists reported discussing in detail several key aspects of biologics, whereas a minority of patients reported the same.
Conclusion: Preferences differed among patients with RA from rheumatologists’ perceptions of these preferences for biologic therapy, including greater openness to intravenous infusion among patients than assumed by rheumatologists and relative lack of discussion about key aspects of biologic therapy perceived by patients. There is a need for more open communication about treatment options, which may encourage more appropriate, timely transition to biologic therapy.

Keywords: intravenous infusion, subcutaneous injection, biologics, discussions about treatment, patient-provider communication

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]

 

Other article by this author:

The economic and humanistic costs of chronic lower back pain in Japan

Montgomery W, Sato M, Nagasaka Y, Vietri J

ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research 2017, 9:361-371

Published Date: 23 June 2017