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: 488

Patient Preferences for Biologic Treatments in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Beenish Nafees1, Andrew Lloyd1, Carol L. Gaich2, Julie Birt2 and Rodney A. Hughes3, 1Late Phase & Outcomes Research, Oxford Outcomes, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2Global Health Outcomes, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, 3Rheumatology, St. Peters Hospital, Chertsey Surrey, United Kingdom

Meeting: 2012 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Keywords: patient preferences and rheumatoid arthritis, 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: Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment - Small Molecules, Biologics and Gene Therapy

Session Type: Abstract Submissions (ACR)

Background/Purpose: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and their physicians face a range of treatment choices.  The treatments that patients receive should be driven partly by their views and preferences regarding different aspects of the treatments.  The present study was designed to elicit the treatment preferences of people with RA.

Methods: A stated preference survey was developed based on published literature, discussion with clinicians (n=4) and qualitative interviews with patients (n=5).  The survey presented hypothetical treatments that varied in terms of six key attributes: Mode of administration & frequency, Time medication stays in the body, Effectiveness in treating pain, Functional ability, Number of RA flares in next 12 months, and Out of pocket cost.  Socio-demographic, and clinical data were also collected.  Participants (US n=150; UK n=150) completed the survey following IRB approval.  Survey data were analysed using the conditional logit model whereby the attributes were the independent variables and patient choice data were the dependent variable. The coefficients obtained from the logit model provided an estimate of the (log) odds ratios (ORs) of preference for treatment attributes.

Results: 287 participants (143 patients in UK and 144 in US) completed all study questionnaires. Participants reported a median current pain VAS of 5.0 (0-10 scale) and poor quality of life (EQ-5D score = 0.41 (US) and 0.45 (UK) on a 0 (dead) to 1.0 (full health) scale.  Over 90% of the sample reported experiencing at least 7 flares in the last 12 months. All attributes were significant predictors of choice where all or some levels were significantly more important than the reference case as shown by the ORs. The three most important drivers of preference were number of symptom flares per year, effectiveness in reducing pain and functional ability (Table 1).  Treatments which reduced the number of symptom flares per year from 5 to 0 were of high importance to participants. Participants preferred treatments that reduced pain (assessed on a visual analogue scale) score by 80%. Avoiding functional difficulties was also very important to participants (Table 1).  Oral (daily or twice-daily) and subcutaneous treatments (weekly or bi-weekly) were preferred to intravenous therapies (every 4 weeks or 8 weeks), but this was less important to participants; and time medication is in body was not important to participants.  Cost was somewhat a significant predictor of choice, whereby participants were willing to pay more for improvements of therapy.

Conclusion:

The results show the relative importance of different features of RA treatments to patients.  Improving pain control, functioning, and avoiding flares were the most important aspects of treatment.  Participants were much less concerned about the mode or frequency of administration.

Table 1: Results of logit model by country

 

Attribute and level

Odds Ratios (Lower – Upper 95% Confidence intervals)

          US

                   UK

Administration & Frequency – Sub-cutaneous weekly (reference)‡

Oral daily

   1.03 (0.78 – 1.36)

   1.45 (1.11 – 1.90)

Oral twice daily

   0.82 (0.56 – 1.18)

  1.40 (0.99 – 2.0)

Intravenous- 8 weeks

   0.52 (0.35 – 0.77)

   1.06 (0.73 – 1.55)

Intravenous- 4 weeks

    0.44 (0.29 – 0.66)

   0.85 (0.58 – 1.26)

Sub-cutaneous- biweekly

   0.95 (0.71 – 1.27)

   0.93 (0.74 – 1.30)

Time in Body – 8 weeks (reference)

1 day

 0.77 (0.65 – 0.09)

  0.82 (0.70 – 0.96)

4 weeks

 1.19 (1.01 – 1.41)

  1.12 (0.95 – 1.32)

Level of pain while taking treatment – Current pain level reduced by 20% (reference)

Current pain level reduced by 80%

  6.25 (5.12 – 7.63)

   4.44 (3.71 – 5.30)

Current pain level reduced by 40%

  2.68 (2.24 – 3.20)

   2.12 (1.80 – 2.49)

Functional Ability – Some difficulty & moderate discomfort (reference)

No difficulty

 2.29 (1.89 – 2.77)

  2.20 (1.86 – 2.62)

Some difficulty & mild discomfort

 1.73 (1.44 – 2.08)

  1.37 (1.16 – 1.62)

Number of Flares – 5 (reference)

0

 5.28 (4.32 – 6.46)

   3.85 (3.22 – 4.60)

2

 3.09 (2.55 – 3.74)

   2.60 (2.19 – 3.09)

Cost

Cost ($)

            1.0 (1.0- 1.0)

 0.99 (0.99 – 0.99)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‡ –  reference case is the base profile in each attribute.


Disclosure:

B. Nafees,

Oxford Outcomes ,

3;

A. Lloyd,

Oxford Outcomes,

3;

C. L. Gaich,

Eli Lilly and Company,

1,

Eli Lilly and Company,

3;

J. Birt,

Eli Lilly and Company,

1,

Eli Lilly and Company,

3;

R. A. Hughes,
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/patient-preferences-for-biologic-treatments-in-rheumatoid-arthritis/

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