ArticlePatient preference and adherence2016
Examining patient preferences in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis using a discrete-choice approach.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04985435 (Better After CHoosing. Randomly Allocated or Patient Preference Based Treatment With Filgotinib or TNFi in Patients With Active Rheumatoid Arthritis), which is not on this map. Cited by 50 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Better After CHoosing. Randomly Allocated or Patient Preference Based Treatment With Filgotinib or TNFi in Patients With Active Rheumatoid Arthritis (BACH)
Who cites it
50 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers to, Facilitators of, and Interventions to Support Treat-to-Target Implementation in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review.Arthritis care & research · 2024Pooled it
- Bisphosphonate alternative regimens for the prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures: BLAST-OFF, a mixed-methods study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Systematic review of quantitative preference studies of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis among patients and at-risk populations.Arthritis research & therapy · 2022Pooled it
- Acceptability of bisphosphonates among patients, clinicians and managers: a systematic review and framework synthesis.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Trial
- Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis refractory to biologic therapy: 2-year clinical and radiographic results from the open-label extension of the SELECT-AXIS 2 study.Arthritis research & therapy · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Choosing the next option: a scenario-based roadmap for b/tsDMARD sequencing in rheumatoid arthritis.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Review
- Efficacy/Effectiveness, Safety and Treatment Persistence of Filgotinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Narrative Review of Clinical Trials and Real-World Evidence.Rheumatology and therapy · 2026Review
- Patient Preferences for Treatments of Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Discrete Choice Experiment Evaluating Preference for Novel Neuroimmune Modulation Devices.Journal of patient experience · 2026Article
- Janus kinase inhibitors show a longer drug survival than biologics in a real-world cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis - a retrospective analysis from the RHADAR database.Rheumatology international · 2025Article
- Preferences for Tapering Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs Among People With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Arthritis care & research · 2025Article
- Real-world experience with filgotinib for rheumatoid arthritis in Germany : A retrospective chart review.Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie · 2025Article
- Pipeline Therapies for Gout.Current rheumatology reports · 2024Review
- Article
- Preference for a Novel Oral Alternative to Parenterally Administered Medications.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- Adolescent and caregiver preferences for juvenile idiopathic arthritis treatment: a discrete-choice experiment.Pediatric rheumatology online journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBiological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) used in second-line treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are administered parenterally. However, so-called targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) - developed more recently - offer alternative (ie, oral) administration forms in second-line treatment. Since bDMARDs and tsDMARDs can be regarded as equal in terms of efficacy, the present study examines whether such characteristics as route of administration drive RA patients' treatment choice. This may ultimately suggest superiority of some second-line DMARDs over equally effective options, at least according to RA-patient preferences.
objectiveThe current study assessed the importance of oral administration among other treatment characteristics differing between available second-line DMARDs for RA patients' preferences using a discrete-choice experiment (DCE). MATERIALS AND
methodsThe DCE involved scenarios of three hypothetical treatment options in a
resultsA total of 1,588 subjects completed the DCE and were eligible for final analyses. Across all characteristics included in the DCE, "oral administration" was most desired and "intravenous infusion" was most strongly rejected. This was followed by "no combination with methotrexate" being strongly preferred and "intake every 1-2 weeks" being strongly rejected. On average, levels of route of administration showed strongest influences on patients' decisions in post hoc bootstrapping analysis.
conclusionAccording to the results, an oral DMARD that does not have to be combined with methotrexate and is not administered (only) every 1-2 weeks appears a highly favorable treatment option for patients with RA. DMARDs meeting these preferences may increase compliance and adherence in RA treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.