Subcutaneous Biological Drugs Research Articles

Patients' perceptions on shared decision making during prescription of subcutaneous biological drug treatments for inflammatory arthritis: The RHEU-LIFE survey.

The aim of this study was to explore the preferences of patients with rheumatic diseases and their perceived experience regarding participation in shared decision making (SDM) when they were prescribed a subcutaneous (SC) biological drug. A printed survey was handed to 1,000 patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases treated with SC biological drug. The survey included closed questions about preferences regarding decision making and about patients' experience when they were prescribed an SC biological drug. Descriptive statistics were performed with stratification by patient profiles, using chi-square for comparisons between groups. A total of 592 surveys were received (response rate 59.2%, mean age 51.7 years, 57.6% women). Some 28.2% of patients reported preferring to take part in treatment selection, a percentage that was higher in younger patients, in those with higher academic degree and in those who search information in sources different to that of health care professionals. Over half of patients (56.3%) perceived that the rheumatologist considered their opinion when prescribing an SC biological drug, a percentage higher in younger people. Only in 40.8% of cases did the patients' preference match their perception of their participation in the process. No differences were observed by sex, disease or number of biologics. Patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases want information about their treatments but mostly leave the prescription decision to the rheumatologist. Younger people, or those with higher academic degree, more often want to participate in the SDM. There are discrepancies between patient preferences and perceptions of this process.

Discordance between doctor and patient assessments and non-adherence to subcutaneous biological drugs.

To estimate the agreement level between patient and physician assessment of disease activity and to explore whether agreement is associated with adherence to subcutaneous (SC) biological drugs in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Cross-sectional study of RA patients who had been prescribed a SC biological drug in the past 12-18monthswas performed. Patients and physicians global disease activity on visual analogue scale (VAS) were collected. Disagreement was defined as an absolute difference ≥ 3 points between VAS scores. Adherence was assessed by the Medication Possession Ratio (MPR), considering adherence an MPR > 80%. We analysed 360 patients of whom 15.5% presented disagreement with their physicians. The mean patient global VAS was 5.75 ± 1.8 (median 5.5 [5-7]) in the disagreement group versus 2.7 ± 2.2 (median 2 [1-4]) in the agreement group (p < 0.001). There were also differences in physicians global VAS between groups (p = 0.01). The non-adherence to SC biological drugs rate was 10.7% and 14.5% in the disagreement and agreement groups (p = 0.45). No association between adherence and discordance was found. Disagreement in the global disease activity between patients and physicians was detected in 15.5% of patients. In general, patients perceived higher disease activity. No associations between patient-physician disagreement in VAS and adherence were observed.

Perceptions of Patients With Rheumatic Diseases Treated With Subcutaneous Biologicals on Their Level of Information: RHEU-LIFE Survey

ObjectiveTo investigate, in Spanish patients with rheumatic diseases treated with subcutaneous biological drugs, their sources of information, which sources they consider most relevant, and their satisfaction with the information received in the hospital. MethodsRheumatologists from 50 hospitals handed out an anonymous survey to 20 consecutive patients with rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis treated with subcutaneous biologicals. The survey was developed ad hoc by 4 rheumatologists and 3 patients, and included questions with closed-ended responses on sources of information and satisfaction. ResultsThe survey was handed-out to 1000 patients, 592 of whom completed it (response rate: 59.2%). The rheumatologist was mentioned as the most important source of information (75%), followed by the primary care physician, nurses, and electronic resources; 45.2% received oral and written information about the biological, 46.1% oral only, and 6.0% written only; 8.7% stated that they had not been taught to inject the biological. The percentage of patients satisfied with the information received was high (87.2%), although the satisfaction was lower in relation to safety. If the information came from the rheumatologist, the satisfaction was higher (89.6%) than when coming from other sources (59.6%; P<.001). Satisfaction was also higher if the information was provided orally and written (92.8%) than if provided only orally (86.1%; P=.013); 45.2% reported having sought information from sources outside the hospital. ConclusionsThe rheumatologist is key in transmitting satisfactory information on biological treatment to patients. He or she must also act as a guide, since a high percentage of patients seeks information in other different sources.

Correction to: The beliefs of rheumatoid arthritis patients in their subcutaneous biological drug: strengths and areas of concern.

In the original publication, the family name of the last author was incorrect. The correct name should read as Jaime Calvo-Alén.

The beliefs of rheumatoid arthritis patients in their subcutaneous biological drug: strengths and areas of concern.

Patients' beliefs about their prescribed medication are an important factor influencing intentional non-adherence. This study describes rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients' beliefs about their subcutaneous (SC) biological medication through the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ), and potential associations. As part of the ARCO study (Study on Adherence of Rheumatoid arthritis patients to subCutaneous and Oral drugs), patients completed the BMQ specifically for their SC biological medication, encompassing a necessity and a concerns scale. The medication possession ratio (MPR) was calculated to assess adherence to the SC biological medication. The BMQ was completed by 321 patients. Between 71.0 and 89.7% of patients agreed/strongly agreed with necessity scale statements, and only 7.2% had low necessity scores. Between 20.0 and 49.8% of patients agreed/strongly agreed with four of five concern scale statements, and 72.3% agreed/strongly agreed with the concern statement regarding long-term medication effects. The percentage with high concerns was 58.9%, and was higher in patients not satisfied with, or with less fulfillment of, tolerability expectations. Non-adherence percentages were, respectively, 13.8 and 13.0% (p = 0.919) in those with high or low necessity, and 16.0 and 10.6% (p = 0.171) in those with high or low concerns. Most patients were categorized as 'ambivalent' (58.5%; high necessity/high concerns) or 'accepting' (36.1%; high necessity/low concerns) of their SC biological medication. The BMQ identified patients' concerns with their SC biological medication. Because patients' concerns could influence non-adherence to medication and future outcomes, physicians should address this issue in the clinic by informing patients and setting clear expectations.

Residual disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with subcutaneous biologic drugs that achieved remission or low disease activity: a longitudinal observational study.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the residual disease activity (RDA) and function in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with subcutaneous biologic drugs that achieved a status of remission and low disease activity (LDA) according to the various indices validated for RA and to explore the factors associated with RDA. We consecutively enrolled RA patients that started a new subcutaneous biologic treatment. At baseline and after 3 and 6months of treatment, we assessed the rate of patients that achieved remission or LDA using the Disease Activity Score on 28 joints, Clinical Disease Activity Index, Simplified Disease Activity Index, and American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism remission criteria. The presence of RDA was evaluated as the rate of patients with at least tender joint count > 1, swollen joint count > 1, pain on VAS > 10mm, general health (VAS) > 10, patient's disease activity (VAS) > 10, physician disease activity (VAS) > 10, and C reactive protein > 1mg/dl. We also evaluated the impaired function defined as HAQ score > 0.5. Factors associated to RDA were also investigated. Ninety-three adult patients with RA were enrolled. At 6months, RDA occurred mostly at the level of Patient's reported outcome items and less frequently in tender and swollen joints and acute-phase reactants. Interestingly, about one fourth of patients in LDA and up to one fifth of patients in remission had residual functional impairment with an HAQ score greater than 0.5. RDA in RA was present even in patients with remission or LDA, especially for the patient's reported outcome. Impaired function was also present in a significantly rate of patients.

Perceptions of patients with rheumatic diseases on the impact on daily life and satisfaction with their medications: RHEU-LIFE, a survey to patients treated with subcutaneous biological products

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to explore perceptions of patients with rheumatic diseases treated with subcutaneous (SC) biological drugs on the impact on daily life and satisfaction with current therapy, including preferred attributes.MethodsA survey was developed ad hoc by four rheumatologists and three patients, including Likert questions on the impact of disease and treatment on daily life and preferred attributes of treatment. Rheumatologists from 50 participating centers were instructed to handout the survey to 20 consecutive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (ax-SpA), or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) receiving SC biological drugs. Patients responded to the survey at home and sent it to a central facility by prepaid mail.ResultsA total of 592 patients returned the survey (response rate: 59.2%), 51.4% of whom had RA, 23.8% had ax-SpA, and 19.6% had PsA. Patients reported moderate-to-severe impact of their disease on their quality of life (QoL) (51.9%), work/daily activities (49.2%), emotional well-being (41.0%), personal relationships (26.0%), and close relatives’ life (32.3%); 30%–50% patients reported seldom/never being inquired about these aspects by their rheumatologists. Treatment attributes ranked as most important were the normalization of QoL (43.6%) and the relief from symptoms (35.2%). The satisfaction with their current antirheumatic therapy was high (>80% were “satisfied” or “very satisfied”), despite moderate/severe impact of disease.ConclusionPatients with rheumatic diseases on SC biological therapy perceive a high disease impact on different aspects of daily life, despite being highly satisfied with their treatment; the perception is that physicians do not frequently address personal problems. Normalization of QoL is the most important attribute of therapies to patients.

Subcutaneous Biological Treatments for Moderate to Severe Psoriasis: Interpreting Safety Data by Network Meta-Analysis.

BackgroundWhen multiple treatments are available, network meta-analysis can synthesize evidence and rank their relative profile in terms of effectiveness and/or safety. We applied this approach to the safety of subcutaneous biologicals used in the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis.MethodsOur literature search covered the articles published from January 2000 to September 2014 and was restricted to randomized controlled trials. The agents eligible for our analysis were subcutaneous biological drugs used in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. A network meta-analysis was conducted using the Bayesian model. The analysis was aimed to compare the safety of these treatments based on 95 % credible intervals and to consequently generate a ranking in safety across the treatments. Two safety end-points were considered: any serious adverse events (AE) and any infectious AE. Risk difference was the outcome measure. The analysis estimated 95 % credible intervals for all direct and indirect comparisons as well as the ranking histogram across the treatments which was determined according to model-based probabilistic analysis.ResultsOur literature search selected a total of 13 randomized controlled trials of which three evaluated adalimumab, five ustekinumab (45 and 90 mg), four etanercept (both high-dose and low-dose) and one high-dose etanercept and ustekinumab (45 and 90 mg). For both end-points of any serious AE and any infectious AE, the Bayesian analysis showed no significant difference in all indirect head-to-head comparisons between active agents. For the end-point of any serious AE, the ranking was ustekinumab 45 mg and ustekinumab 90 mg (at the same rank), followed by placebo and by adalimumab and high-dose etanercept (at the same rank). For any infectious AE, the ranking was: low-dose etanercept, placebo, ustekinumab 45 mg and ustekinumab 90 mg, adalimumab and high-dose etanercept.ConclusionOur analysis synthesized the current evidence on the safety of subcutaneous biological treatments for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and was successful in defining their respective rankings.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40801-014-0006-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.