ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Home
  • Meetings Archive
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting
    • 2017-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • Meeting Resource Center

Abstract Number: 2492

Mode of Administration in Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatments: An Exploration of Patient Preference for an ‘Ideal Treatment’

Peter C. Taylor1, Rieke Alten2, Juan Jesus Gomez-Reino3, Roberto Caporali4, Philippe Bertin5, Laura Grant6, Elaine Brohan6, Jane Wells6, Radu Vasilescu7 and Miriam Tarallo8, 1Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2Charité University Medicine, Berlin, Germany, 3Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, 4Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy, 5Rheumatology, CHU Dupuytren, Limoges, France, 6Adelphi Values, Bollington, United Kingdom, 7Medical Affairs, Pfizer, Brussels, Belgium, 8GHV, Pfizer, Rome, Italy

Meeting: 2016 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Date of first publication: September 28, 2016

Keywords: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA)

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print
Session Information

Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Session Title: Rheumatoid Arthritis – Clinical Aspects - Poster III: Treatment – Monitoring, Outcomes, Adverse Events

Session Type: ACR Poster Session C

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose: The high prevalence and significant burden of RA has led to the development of a wide variety of treatments; specifically, conventional synthetic DMARDs, and biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs). Mode of administration and dosing frequency can impact on patient treatment satisfaction and adherence. This study qualitatively explored patients’ and clinicians’ views of the ‘ideal’ treatment, and the preferred mode of administration, in patients with moderate to severe disease activity and on active treatment.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 46 patients with RA from Germany (n=15), France (n=15), UK (n=10), and Spain (n=5). Eligible patients had been diagnosed for 2-5 years and had a current disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28) >3.2. Initial questions were open-ended followed by more probing questions. Patients reflected on their treatment experiences, in relation to mode of administration (oral and subcutaneous injection), dosing frequency, and advantages/disadvantages of each mode of administration. Patients completed an ‘ideal treatment task’ and answered the following question: “How would the treatment be administered?” Qualitative interviews were conducted with 10 rheumatologists from Germany (n=2), France (n=2), UK (n=4), and Spain (n=2), to explore their perspectives on modes of treatment administration.

Results: Patients had a DAS28 mean score of 4.23 (SD=1.0) and either, were eligible for but had not yet received bDMARDs (23/46; 50.0%), were receiving bDMARDs (12/46; 26.1%), had received >1 anti-TNF treatment previously and were now receiving a treatment with a different mode of action (3/46; 6.5%), or were receiving another treatment regimen (8/46; 17.4%). Of the 41 patients who took part in the ‘ideal treatment task’, 22/41 (53.7%) would prefer an oral treatment, 14/41 (34.1%) an injectable treatment, and 5/41 (12.2%) had no preference. Patients reported an oral treatment to be: easy to manage (2/41), convenient (especially when travelling) (1/41), and preferable to an injection (9/41); however, patients acknowledged that an oral treatment can be difficult to remember to take (4/41), can be harsh on the stomach (1/41), and can have a strange taste (1/41). Patients reported the advantages of an injectable treatment to be: independence associated with self-injecting (3/41), and less harsh on the stomach than an oral treatment (1/41); however, their disadvantages included: a dislike of needles (5/41), problems at injection site (1/41), and difficulty in gripping an injection device (1/41). The majority of clinicians (6/10; 60.0%) perceived patients to prefer an oral treatment, compared with 2/10 (20%) who perceived patients to prefer an injectable treatment (2/10 [20%] did not report a perceived preference). Of the 10 patients who discussed frequency of oral treatment, 8/10 (80%) would find a daily tablet acceptable.

Conclusion: Patients and physicians in this survey identified a range of perceived advantages and disadvantages associated with different modes of drug administration. These findings help inform the dialogue between patient and physician when considering the most appropriate treatment choice for an individual.


Disclosure: P. C. Taylor, GSK, UCB, JANSSEN, 2,JANSSEN, UCB, PFIZER, ABBVIE, LILLY, BMS, ROCHE, GSK, NOVARTIS, SANDOZ, BIOGEN, BAXALTA, SANOFI., 5; R. Alten, None; J. J. Gomez-Reino, None; R. Caporali, Lilly, Abbvie, MSD, Pfizer, UCB, Celgene, Mundiharma, 5; P. Bertin, None; L. Grant, Adelphi Values, 3; E. Brohan, Adelphi Values, 3; J. Wells, Adelphi Values, 3; R. Vasilescu, Pfizer Inc, 1,Pfizer Inc, 3; M. Tarallo, Pfizer Inc, 1,Pfizer Inc, 3.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Taylor PC, Alten R, Gomez-Reino JJ, Caporali R, Bertin P, Grant L, Brohan E, Wells J, Vasilescu R, Tarallo M. Mode of Administration in Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatments: An Exploration of Patient Preference for an ‘Ideal Treatment’ [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016; 68 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/mode-of-administration-in-rheumatoid-arthritis-treatments-an-exploration-of-patient-preference-for-an-ideal-treatment/. Accessed May 29, 2023.
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print

« Back to 2016 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/mode-of-administration-in-rheumatoid-arthritis-treatments-an-exploration-of-patient-preference-for-an-ideal-treatment/

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 »

© COPYRIGHT 2023 AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RHEUMATOLOGY

Wiley

  • Home
  • Meetings Archive
  • Advanced Search
  • Meeting Resource Center
  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences