ArticleThe patient2025
Measuring Patient Preferences to Inform Clinical Trial Design: An Example in Rheumatoid Arthritis.
Article in The patient, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAllogeneic bone marrow transplantation (BMT) may be a curative treatment for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but it has serious risks, including death. It is uncertain whether patients would accept the risks and benefits of BMT and participate in clinical trials. We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to quantify risk tolerance and benefit-risk trade-offs to inform the design of a clinical trial for BMT.
methodsWe conducted a DCE with three attributes (three levels each): chance of stopping disease progression (50-90%), increased chance of death in year after transplant (3-15%), and chance of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) (3-15%). An orthogonal main effects design of nine binary choice tasks were presented for two scenarios: one considering their current situation and a second scenario where the patient has failed seven anti-rheumatic drugs. Participants were recruited from the Rheum4U inflammatory arthritis registry. Choice data were analyzed using a logit model accounting for multiple responses per participant.
resultsSixty patients participated. Most (82%) had severe disease, and the median number of anti-rheumatic drugs previously taken was 6 (range 0-18). As expected, an increased chance of stopping disease progression increases the probability of choosing BMT, while increased chance of both risks decreases the probability. Patients were willing to accept a 3% increase in risk of death or 6% increase in chance of chronic GVHD for a 10% increase in the chance of stopping disease progression. For the most clinically likely BMT risk-benefit profiles, and the likely initial target population of patients who have failed multiple biologics, between 72% and 91% of patients would choose BMT.
conclusionsPatients with RA are willing to accept substantial risks for a chance to stop disease progression with BMT, suggesting that a pilot trial of BMT for RA could successfully recruit patients. Preference studies have an important role in informing patient-centered clinical trial planning and design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39666176What 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.