Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32021123›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2020

Treatment Mode Preferences in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Moving Toward Shared Decision-Making.

Peter C Taylor, Neil Betteridge, T Michelle Brown, John Woolcott, Alan J Kivitz, Cristiano Zerbini, Diane Whalley, Oyebimpe Olayinka-Amao, Connie Chen, Palle Dahl and 3 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2020. 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 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Shared decision-making practices and patient values in pharmacist outpatient care for rheumatic disease: A multiple correspondence analysis.Journal of pharmacy & pharmaceutical sciences : a publication of the Canadian Society for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Societe canadienne des sciences pharmaceutiques · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

13 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Peter C TaylorBotnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7766-6167
Neil BetteridgeNeil Betteridge Associates, London, UK.
T Michelle BrownPatient-Centered Outcomes Assessment Group, RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
John WoolcottPatient and Health Impact, Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Pfizer Inc, Collegeville, PA, USA.
Alan J KivitzAltoona Center for Clinical Research, Duncansville, PA, USA.
Cristiano ZerbiniDepartment of Rheumatology, Centro Paulista De Investigação Clinica, São Paulo, Brazil.
Diane WhalleyPatient-Centered Outcomes Assessment Group, RTI Health Solutions, Manchester, UK.
Oyebimpe Olayinka-AmaoPatient-Centered Outcomes Assessment Group, RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Connie ChenXeljanz, Rheumatology, Inflammation & Immunology Medical Affairs, Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA.
Palle DahlMedical Affairs, International Developed Markets, Inflammation & Immunology, Pfizer Inc, Ballerup, Denmark.
Dario Ponce de LeonMedical Affairs Latin-America, Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA.
David GrubenStatistical Research and Data Science Center, Pfizer Inc, Groton, CT, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3516-5289
Lara FallonGlobal Medical Affairs, Pfizer Inc, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Pfizer (United States) · USTriangle · USAltoona Center for Clinical Research · USCentro Paulista de Investigação Clinica · BRMore Associates · GBPfizer (Canada) · CAUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCurrent knowledge of the reasons for patients' preference for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment modes is limited. This study was designed to identify preferences for four treatment modes, and to obtain in-depth information on the reasons for these preferences. PATIENTS AND

methodsIn this multi-national, cross-sectional, qualitative study, in-depth interviews were conducted with adult patients with RA in the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Brazil. Patients' strength of preference was evaluated using a 100-point allocation task (0-100; 100=strongest) across four treatment modes: oral, self-injection, clinic-injection, and infusion. Qualitative descriptive analysis methods were used to identify, characterize, and summarize patterns found in the interview data relating to reasons for these preferences.

results100 patients were interviewed (female, 75.0%; mean age, 53.9 years; mean 11.6 years since diagnosis). Among the four treatment modes, oral administration was allocated the highest mean (standard deviation) preference points (47.3 [33.1]) and was ranked first choice by the greatest percentage of patients (57.0%), followed by self-injection (29.7 [27.7]; 29.0%), infusion (15.4 [24.6]; 16.0%), and clinic-injection (7.5 [14.1]; 2.0%). Overall, 56.0% of patients had a "strong" first-choice preference (ie, point allocation ≥70); most of these patients chose oral (62.5%) vs self-injection (23.2%), infusion (10.7%), or clinic-injection (3.6%). Speed and/or ease of administration were the most commonly reported reasons for patients choosing oral (52.6%) or self-injection (55.2%). The most common reasons for patients not choosing oral or self-injection were not wanting to take another pill (37.2%) and avoiding pain due to needles (46.5%), respectively.

conclusionThese data report factors important to patients regarding preferences for RA treatment modes. Patients may benefit from discussions with their healthcare professionals and/or patient support groups, regarding RA treatment modes, to facilitate shared decision-making.

Indexed as

drug administrationpatient perspectivequalitative researchsurveys

Identifiers

PMID32021123
PMCPMC6980841
OpenAlexW2992915944

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.