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: 2779

The Patient Perspective on Bdmard Dose Reduction: A Mixed Methods Study

L.M. Verhoef1, E.M.H. Selten1, J.E. Vriezekolk1, A.J.L. de Jong2, F.H.J. van den Hoogen1,3, A.A. Den Broeder1,3 and M.E.J.L. Hulscher4, 1Rheumatology, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, Netherlands, 2Department of Rheumatology, Rijnstate Arnhem, Arnhem, Netherlands, 3Rheumatology, Radboud university medical centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands, 4Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ healthcare, Radboud university medical centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands

Meeting: 2017 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Date of first publication: September 18, 2017

Keywords: Biologics, patient preferences 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: Tuesday, November 7, 2017

Title: Patient Outcomes, Preferences, and Attitudes II

Session Type: ACR Concurrent Abstract Session

Session Time: 2:30PM-4:00PM

Background/Purpose: biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) are effective in the treatment of RA, but are also associated with side-effects and high costs. Dose reduction of bDMARDs, after low disease activity is reached, is safe and effective1. To date, few studies have focused on bDMARD dose reduction from the patient perspective. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify the factors that play a role for patients when considering dose reduction, and to determine their relative importance.

Methods: A mixed methods design was used in which we 1) identified influencing factors by performing qualitative interviews and 2) ranked these factors using a Maximum Difference Scaling questionnaire.

Phase 1: We performed semi-structured interviews with RA patients. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and two researchers analyzed the transcriptions by inductive thematic analysis.

Phase 2: The influencing factors were derived from the interviews and used in a Maximum Difference Scaling experiment with RA patients from 3 different centers in the Netherlands (an academic hospital, a specialized hospital and a large general hospital). The survey included 18 questions in which patients were asked to choose the most and least important factor from a subset of 5 factors. The mean relative importance score (RIS) for each factor was calculated using hierarchical Bayes modeling.

Results: For phase 1 and phase 2, 22 and 195 patients were included respectively (table 1). Thirty factors were identified from the interviews and used in the questionnaire. The 10 factors that were ranked the highest, are shown in table 2. Most respondents had a positive attitude towards bDMARD dose reduction. The results show that patients are concerned that dose reduction will lead to a disease flare that affects their daily life (pain, function). It is important for them to know that it is possible to increase the dose if (further) reduction is not possible and that the bDMARD will be effective again. Patients value the opinion of their rheumatologist, and being involved in the decision to start tapering is highly ranked as well.

 

Table 1. Patient characteristics (mean (SD) or N (%))

Characteristic

Phase 1 (n=22)

Phase 2 (n=195)

Female

15 (68%)

126 (65%)

Age (years)

62 (7.6)

59 (12.0)

Disease duration (years)

13 (9.4)

16 (10.0)

Number of respondents per center

Specialized hospital: 22 (100%)

Specialized hospital: 69 (35%)

Academic hospital: 65 (33%)

Large general hospital: 61 (31%)

Experience with bDMARD dose reduction

Yes: 16 (73%)

No: 6 (27%)

Yes: 119 (61%)

No: 72 (37%)

I don’t know: 4 (2%)

General attitude towards bDMARD dose reduction

Not applicable

Very positive: 64 (33%)

Positive: 79 (41%)

Neutral: 28 (14%)

Negative: 12 (6%)

Very negative: 2 (1%)

I don’t know: 10 (5%)

 

Table 2. Top-10 factors from the Maximum Difference Scaling questionnaire

Nr.

Factor

1

The possibility to increase the dose when disease symptoms worsen

2

The risk that my disease activity will increase

3

My current disease activity

4

The risk that my physical function will deteriorate (e.g. I won’t be able to work)

5

The confidence I have in my rheumatologist

6

To what extent I’m involved in the decision on bDMARD dose reduction

7

Whether the bDMARD is (still) necessary for the RA

8

What my rheumatologist advises regarding bDMARD dose reduction

9

The risk that I will experience more pain

10

The effect of the bDMARD after increasing the dose

 

Conclusion: Although preferences will vary between individual patients, the results from this study could facilitate implementation of bDMARD dose reduction by informing care providers on what is important for patients and providing a basis for shared decision making. 

1.       Nam et al, Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Jun;76(6):1113-1136

 

 

 


Disclosure: L. M. Verhoef, None; E. M. H. Selten, None; J. E. Vriezekolk, None; A. J. L. de Jong, None; F. H. J. van den Hoogen, Biogen Idec, 5,Celltrion, 5,Janssen Pharmaceutica Product, L.P., 5,Mundipharma, 5,Sandoz, 5; A. A. Den Broeder, CZ, 2,Menzis, 2,ZonMW, 2,Amgen, 5,Boehringer Ingelheim, 5,Bristol-Myers Squibb, 8,Pfizer Inc, 8; M. E. J. L. Hulscher, None.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Verhoef LM, Selten EMH, Vriezekolk JE, de Jong AJL, van den Hoogen FHJ, Den Broeder AA, Hulscher MEJL. The Patient Perspective on Bdmard Dose Reduction: A Mixed Methods Study [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017; 69 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/the-patient-perspective-on-bdmard-dose-reduction-a-mixed-methods-study/. 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 2017 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/the-patient-perspective-on-bdmard-dose-reduction-a-mixed-methods-study/

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