ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 1893

Eliciting Prescribing Choices of Anti-Tumour Necrosis Factor Therapy From Rheumatology Trainees

Rodney A. Hughes1 and Alison J. Carr2, 1Rheumatology, St. Peters Hospital, Chertsey Surrey, United Kingdom, 2Clinical Director, Hamell Communications, London, United Kingdom

Meeting: 2012 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Keywords: Anti-TNF therapy and treatment

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Session Information

Title: Medical Education

Session Type: Abstract Submissions (ACR)

Background/Purpose: A rheumatologist’s choice of anti-TNF prescription is likely to be influenced by a number of factors.  Doctors believe their prescribing to be evidence-based, rational and justifiable.  With greater understanding of health behaviour, it is likely that prescribing decisions about anti-TNF will involve conscious and sub-conscious factors.  We conducted a clinical decision exercise with senior rheumatology trainees to try better to understand these influences and whether all doctors take into account patient perceptions and preferences.

Methods: 12 trainees were each given an IPad with details of 30 individual simulated patients, based on real patients with RA.  For each individual ‘iPad’ patient doctors were asked to decide whether to start anti-TNF and which brand they would prescribe if they did.  Each doctor was in training at a different hospital with different local anti-TNF guidelines for therapy although all purported to follow UK national guidelines for anti-TNF drug therapy.  IPad patients differed in gender, age, disease duration and disease activity score, previous drug history and symptoms of stiffness and function.  Work status varied as did quality of life measures and aspects of patient choice.  iPads were coded to allow attribution of answers and data were analysed anonymously by a third party from the recorded iPad answers at a later time and place.

Results:

The analysis of results indicated that doctors could be fitted broadly into one of two categories;  Evidence-based decision makers (EBDs) and Intuitive patient-focused decision makers (IPDs) according to the way that doctors in these two groups made decisions.  Prescribing choice appeared independent of the background of the doctor and geographical area of training and extent of rheumatological experience.

EBD’s stuck rigidly to guidelines for initiation of anti-TNF therapy and took no account of subjective data or patient specific concerns of preferences.  EBD’s were rigid in their choice of anti-TNF and chose the same product for all patients who were going to be initiated onto anti-TNF.  EBD’s appeared not to feel that patients could make informed decisions or choices about treatment.  EBD’s did not think that adherence would be a problem with ant-TNF therapy.  In contrast IPD’s ignored guidelines around the threshold for starting anti-TNF in cases where they felt that patients would benefit from anti-TNF.  With IPD’s patient factors were important in driving treatment decisions – quality of life and impact of RA on the ability to work strongly influenced decisions.  IPD’s responded to patient requests, concerns and preferences in making prescribing choices and were more likely to tailor their choice to fit best with patient-specific characteristics.  IPD’s felt that patients could and should make informed decisions about their treatment and recognised that adherence was potentially a problem even with anti-TNF drugs.

Conclusion:

As with many health care decisions there appear to be strong sub-conscious influences on anti-TNF prescribing that introduce variance into treatment decisions.  Recognition of different groups of prescribers suggests that information given to doctors might be processed differently by different groups


Disclosure:

R. A. Hughes,
None;

A. J. Carr,
None.

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

« Back to 2012 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/eliciting-prescribing-choices-of-anti-tumour-necrosis-factor-therapy-from-rheumatology-trainees/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology