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: 1924

Mitigating Medication Risk Aversion in the Confident Treatment Decisions for Living with Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial

Maria I. Danila1, Lang Chen1, Justin K Owensby1, Ronan O'Beirne1, Joshua A. Melnick1, Eric M. Ruderman2, Leslie R. Harrold3 and Jeffrey R. Curtis1, 1University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, 2Medicine/Rheumatology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, 3University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA

Meeting: 2018 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Keywords: Behavioral strategies and rheumatoid arthritis (RA)

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

Date: Monday, October 22, 2018

Title: 4M104 ACR Abstract: Patient Outcomes, Preferences, & Attitudes I: Beliefs & Behaviors (1923–1928)

Session Type: ACR Concurrent Abstract Session

Session Time: 4:30PM-6:00PM

Background/Purpose: Controlling disease activity in RA using a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy can optimize clinical and patient-important outcomes. Yet, many patients are not familiar with T2T and report medication risk aversion as a major barrier to changing therapy. To improve willingness of patients to escalate treatment, we developed and evaluated an educational, direct-to-patient video intervention that included information relevant to managing RA using a T2T strategy.

Methods: We conducted a controlled, randomized trial of our intervention among US patients with self-reported RA enrolled in the ArthritisPower patient registry. We recruited participants by email, and surveyed their satisfaction with disease control, values about RA medications, decisional conflict about treatment change and willingness to change treatment if/when recommended by their rheumatologist (Table). Intervention group participants were invited to view up to 6 videos (mean duration 2 min each) relevant to T2T; those in the control group viewed vaccination-related videos (mean duration 1:23 min each) unrelated to T2T as an “attention control”. Participants were required to view 3 (intervention) and 2 (control) videos, respectively. The primary outcome, collected using surveys, was patient-reported willingness to change RA treatment, measured by the choice predisposition scale (0-10, anchors: “Not willing at all”; “Extremely willing”) that reflected preference for RA treatment change. We stopped recruitment when 208 (N=104 per group) participants enrolled based on a priori sample size estimation. We compared the difference in pre-post differences in willingness to change RA treatment between the two groups using t-test.

Results: We invited 1264 RA patients by email. We reached our enrollment goal in 8 weeks. Study participants (N=208) were 90% Caucasian, 90% women, with mean (SD) age 50 (11) years, in good health (51%); 52% reported familiarity with T2T. A majority (89%) reported having values that favored RA medications. We observed no differences in baseline sociodemographics, patient global assessment of disease activity, health literacy, willingness to change treatment, or decisional conflict (Table). We found a significant improvement in pre-post willingness to change treatment in intervention vs. control participants (0.5 vs 0.01, p=0.01). We calculated an effect size (Glass’s delta) for the intervention of 0.48 (i.e. moderate). Moreover, decisional conflict about treatment change decreased; there was no significant difference in pre-post differences in decision conflict between groups.

Conclusion: This randomized trial testing a novel patient-directed intervention advocating for T2T strategy implementation in RA care increased self-reported willingness to change RA treatment. Further studies are needed to evaluate if this effect is sustained over time and if it translates into actionable behavior change.

Table: Patient Demographic, Clinical Characteristics, Values Regarding Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) Treatment, Decisional Conflict about RA Treatment and Willingness to Change RA Treatment by Group.

Variable

Intervention (N=104)

Control (N=104)

p value

Baseline

Age, years, mean (SD)

49.31 (10.75)

49.81 (11.15)

0.82

Race, Caucasian, N (%)

92 (88.5)

96 (92.3)

0.60

Sex, female, N (%)

92 (88.5)

94 (91.3)

0.51

Biologic DMARD use, ever, N (%)

29 (27.9)

36 (35.0)

0.27

Conventional DMARD use, ever, N (%)

33 (31.7)

43 (41.7)

0.14

General health, good or better, N (%)

53 (51.0)

54 (51.9)

0.89

Health literacy, excellent, N (%)

102 (98.1)

104 (100.0)

0.16

Familiar with T2T strategy, N (%)

54 (51.9)

54 (51.9)

1

Patient global assessment of disease activity*

5.44 (2.31)

5.68 (2.29)

0.37

Patient acceptable symptoms state, yes, N (%)

42 (40.4)

39 (37.5)

0.67

Reported values that favored RA medication use†, yes, N (%)

91 (87.5)

95 (91.3)

0.38

Prior year discussion with rheumatologist about active RA, yes, N (%)

89 (85.6)

91 (87.5)

0.69

Prior year discussion with rheumatologist about goals of RA treatment, yes, N (%)

77 (74.0)

81 (77.9)

0.52

Decisional conflict about RA treatment change‡, mean (SD)

32.59 (16.81)

32.74 (18.75)

0.98

Willingness to change RA treatment§, mean (SD)

6.72 (2.44)

7.25 (2.24)

0.15

Follow up

Decisional conflict about RA treatment change‡, mean (SD)

29.73 (16.62)

29.82 (19.12)

0.84

Willingness to change RA treatment§, mean (SD)

7.22 (2.20)

7.26 (2.15)

0.93

DMARD, disease modifying antirheumatic drug, T2T, treat-to-target; *Patient global assessment of disease activity, 0-10 scale, 0=very well, 10=very poorly, lower scores are better; † Values that favored RA medication use assessed using a previously published tool that determines participants’ agreement with 5 positive and 5 negative statements about use of medications in RA. ‡Decisional conflict about RA treatment change measured by decisional conflict scale, 16 items, 5-point Likert items ranging from “Strongly agree” to “Strongly disagree”, lower scores are better; §Willingness to change RA treatment measured by choice predisposition scale, 0-10 scale anchored by “Not willing at all” and “Extremely willing” with “Unsure” at the midpoint, higher scores are better.


Disclosure: M. I. Danila, Pfizer, Inc., 2; L. Chen, None; J. K. Owensby, None; R. O'Beirne, Pfizer, Inc., 2; J. A. Melnick, None; E. M. Ruderman, Pfizer, Inc., 2, 5; L. R. Harrold, Corrona, LLC, 1,Corrona, LLC, 3,Pfizer, Inc., 2,Roche and Bristol Myers Squibb, 5; J. R. Curtis, AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corrona, Janssen, Lilly, Myriad, Pfizer, Radius, Roche/Genentech, UCB, 2,AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corrona, Janssen, Lilly, Myriad, Pfizer, Radius, Roche/Genentech, UCB, 5.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Danila MI, Chen L, Owensby JK, O'Beirne R, Melnick JA, Ruderman EM, Harrold LR, Curtis JR. Mitigating Medication Risk Aversion in the Confident Treatment Decisions for Living with Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018; 70 (suppl 9). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/mitigating-medication-risk-aversion-in-the-confident-treatment-decisions-for-living-with-rheumatoid-arthritis-trial/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

« Back to 2018 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/mitigating-medication-risk-aversion-in-the-confident-treatment-decisions-for-living-with-rheumatoid-arthritis-trial/

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