Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27843301›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2016

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

Rieke Alten, Klaus Krüger, Julian Rellecke, Julia Schiffner-Rohe, Olaf Behmer, Guido Schiffhorst, Hans-Dieter Nolting

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04985435 phase4recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Better After CHoosing. Randomly Allocated or Patient Preference Based Treatment With Filgotinib or TNFi in Patients With Active Rheumatoid Arthritis (BACH)

TypeinterventionalSponsorR.BosRan2021 to 2025Enrolled100ConditionsRheumatoid ArthritisArmsFilgotinib, Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha Drug (Product), 50 patients will have a Free Choice between Filgotinib and anti TNF
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Pipeline Therapies for Gout.Current rheumatology reports · 2024
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Rieke AltenSchlosspark-Klinik, Charité, University Medicine Berlin.
Klaus KrügerPraxiszentrum St Bonifatius, Munich.
Julian RelleckeIGES Institut GmbH.
Julia Schiffner-RohePfizer Deutschland GmbH.
Olaf BehmerPfizer Pharma GmbH, Berlin, Germany.
Guido SchiffhorstIGES Institut GmbH.
Hans-Dieter NoltingIGES Institut GmbH.
IGES Institut · DEPfizer (Germany) · DESchlosspark-Klinik · DESt. Bonifatius Hospital · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

best–worst scalingdiscrete-choice experimentdisease-modifying antirheumatic drugspatient preferencesrheumatoid arthritis

Identifiers

PMID27843301
PMCPMC5098563
OpenAlexW2548985910

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.