Taking into account patient preferences: A consensus study on the assessment of psychological dimensions within patient preference studies

Patient preferences are gaining recognition among key stakeholders involved in benefit-risk decision-making along the medical product lifecycle. However, one of the main challenges of integrating patient preferences in benefit-risk decision-making is understanding differences in patient preference, which may be attributable to clinical characteristics (eg age, medical history) or psychosocial factors. Measuring the latter may provide valuable information to decision-makers but there is limited guidance regarding which psychological dimensions may influence patient preferences and which psychological instruments should be considered for inclusion in patient preference studies. This paper aims to provide such guidance by advancing evidence and consensus-based recommendations and considerations. Findings of a recent systematic review on psychological constructs having an impact on patients’ preferences and health-related decisions were expanded with input from an expert group (n = 11). These data were then used as the basis for final recommendations developed through two rounds of formal evaluation via an online Delphi consensus process involving international experts in the field of psychology, medical decision-making, and risk communication (n = 27). Three classes of recommendations emerged. Eleven psychological constructs reached consensus to be recommended for inclusion with the strongest consensus existing for health literacy, numeracy, illness perception and treatment-related beliefs. We also proposed a set of descriptive and check-list criteria to appraise available psychological measures to assist researchers and other stakeholders in including psychological assessment when planning patient preference studies. These recommendations can guide researchers and other stakeholders when designing and interpreting patient preference studies with a potential high impact in clinical practice and medical product benefit-risk decision-making processes

I would never take preventive medication! Perspectives and information needs of people who underwent predictive tests for rheumatoid arthritis

Objective: Little is known about the experiences, values and needs of people without arthritis who undergo predictive biomarker testing for the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Our study aimed to explore the perspectives of these individuals and describe their information needs. Methods: A qualitative, multicenter interview study with a thematic analysis was conducted in Austria, Germany and the UK. Individuals who underwent predictive biomarker testing for RA and had a positive test result, but no diagnosis of any inflammatory joint disease, were interviewed. Participants included patients with arthralgia and asymptomatic individuals. Information and education needs were developed from the qualitative codes and themes using the Arthritis Educational Needs Assessment Tool (ENAT) as a frame of reference. Results: Thematic saturation was reached in 34 individuals (76% female; 24 [71%] with arthralgia and 10 [29%] asymptomatic individuals). Thirty‐seven codes were summarized into four themes, namely (i) decision making around whether to undergo initial predictive testing, (ii) willingness to consider further predictive tests and/or (iii) preventive interventions, including medication and (iv) varying reactions after receiving a positive test result. Individuals with arthralgia were more likely to be willing to take preventive action, undergo further testing, and experience psychological distress than asymptomatic individuals. All participants expressed the need for tailored, lay‐understandable information. Conclusion: Individuals at risk of RA are currently the subjects of research aimed at developing better predictive strategies and preventive approaches. Their perceptions and needs should be addressed to inform the future development of interventions combined with education

Research Priorities to Increase Confidence in and Acceptance of Health Preference Research:What Questions Should be Prioritized Now?

Background and Objective: There has been an increase in the study and use of stated-preference methods to inform medicine development decisions. The objective of this study was to identify prioritized topics and questions relating to health preferences based on the perspective of members of the preference research community. Methods: Preference research stakeholders from industry, academia, consultancy, health technology assessment/regulatory, and patient organizations were recruited using professional networks and preference-targeted e-mail listservs and surveyed about their perspectives on 19 topics and questions for future studies that would increase acceptance of preference methods and their results by decision makers. The online survey consisted of an initial importance prioritization task, a best-worst scaling case 1 instrument, and open-ended questions. Rating counts were used for analysis. The best-worst scaling used a balanced incomplete block design. Results: One hundred and one participants responded to the survey invitation with 66 completing the best-worst scaling. The most important research topics related to the synthesis of preferences across studies, transferability across populations or related diseases, and method topics including comparison of methods and non-discrete choice experiment methods. Prioritization differences were found between respondents whose primary affiliation was academia versus other stakeholders. Academic researchers prioritized methodological/less studied topics; other stakeholders prioritized applied research topics relating to consistency of practice. Conclusions: As the field of health preference research grows, there is a need to revisit and communicate previous work on preference selection and study design to ensure that new stakeholders are aware of this work and to update these works where necessary. These findings might encourage discussion and alignment among different stakeholders who might hold different research priorities. Research on the application of previous preference research to new contexts will also help increase the acceptance of health preference information by decision makers.</p

The potential role of community pharmacy staff in reducing patient delay in consulting with symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory arthritis which can cause joint damage and reduced quality of life. Early treatment of RA within 3 months of symptom onset is associated with improved clinical outcomes. However, this window of opportunity is often missed. One important contributing factor is patients with symptoms of RA delaying consulting their general practitioner (GP). Previous research indicates that patients with inflammatory arthritis are likely to visit pharmacies for advice before consulting their GP. Therefore, pharmacists are well positioned to identify patients with symptoms of early inflammatory arthritis and signpost them appropriately. This research examines community pharmacy staff's knowledge, perceptions, and approaches to management of patients presenting with symptoms of RA in order to identify training needs and other opportunities for intervention to enhance the role of pharmacy staff in the pathway to care. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 community pharmacy staff in the West Midlands (UK), during a 12-month period (2017-2018). The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis facilitated by NVivo 12. RESULTS: There was considerable variation in knowledge and perceptions of RA and the need for early treatment amongst pharmacists and other pharmacy staff. The potential role of pharmacists and other pharmacy staff in reducing delay in help-seeking was also discussed. Four themes emerged from thematic analysis: (1) Variations in perceptions and knowledge about RA. (2) The role of the pharmacy in increasing public awareness about RA. (3) The role of the pharmacy staff in facilitating access to the GP. (4) Practical considerations for pharmacy-based interventions. CONCLUSION: Variability in knowledge and perceptions of RA amongst pharmacists, and amongst other pharmacy staff will affect effective signposting of suspected RA cases. This study identifies opportunities for enhanced training of community pharmacists and other pharmacy staff in relation to inflammatory arthritis as well as other pharmacy-based interventions, such as public awareness campaigns about RA and other musculoskeletal conditions. Together with existing referral services and other pharmacy-based initiatives this could result in enhanced signposting to GP consultation or other appropriate NHS services for inflammatory symptoms and reduced treatment delay

The potential role of community pharmacy staff in reducing patient delay in consulting with symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory arthritis which can cause joint damage and reduced quality of life. Early treatment of RA within 3 months of symptom onset is associated with improved clinical outcomes. However, this window of opportunity is often missed. One important contributing factor is patients with symptoms of RA delaying consulting their general practitioner (GP). Previous research indicates that patients with inflammatory arthritis are likely to visit pharmacies for advice before consulting their GP. Therefore, pharmacists are well positioned to identify patients with symptoms of early inflammatory arthritis and signpost them appropriately. This research examines community pharmacy staff's knowledge, perceptions, and approaches to management of patients presenting with symptoms of RA in order to identify training needs and other opportunities for intervention to enhance the role of pharmacy staff in the pathway to care. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 community pharmacy staff in the West Midlands (UK), during a 12-month period (2017-2018). The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis facilitated by NVivo 12. RESULTS: There was considerable variation in knowledge and perceptions of RA and the need for early treatment amongst pharmacists and other pharmacy staff. The potential role of pharmacists and other pharmacy staff in reducing delay in help-seeking was also discussed. Four themes emerged from thematic analysis: (1) Variations in perceptions and knowledge about RA. (2) The role of the pharmacy in increasing public awareness about RA. (3) The role of the pharmacy staff in facilitating access to the GP. (4) Practical considerations for pharmacy-based interventions. CONCLUSION: Variability in knowledge and perceptions of RA amongst pharmacists, and amongst other pharmacy staff will affect effective signposting of suspected RA cases. This study identifies opportunities for enhanced training of community pharmacists and other pharmacy staff in relation to inflammatory arthritis as well as other pharmacy-based interventions, such as public awareness campaigns about RA and other musculoskeletal conditions. Together with existing referral services and other pharmacy-based initiatives this could result in enhanced signposting to GP consultation or other appropriate NHS services for inflammatory symptoms and reduced treatment delay

Perceptions of first-degree relatives of patients with rheumatoid arthritis about lifestyle modifications and pharmacological interventions to reduce the risk of rheumatoid arthritis development: a qualitative interview study

Background: There is increasing interest in the identification of people at risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to monitor the emergence of early symptoms (and thus allow early therapy), offer lifestyle advice to reduce the impact of environmental risk factors and potentially offer preventive pharmacological treatment for those at high risk. Close biological relatives of people with RA are at an increased risk of developing RA and are therefore potential candidates for research studies, screening initiatives and preventive interventions. To ensure the success of approaches of this kind, a greater understanding of the perceptions of this group relating to preventive measures is needed. Methods: Twenty-four first-degree relatives of patients with an existing diagnosis of RA from the UK, three from Germany and seven from Austria (age: 21–67 years) took part in semi-structured interviews exploring their perceptions of RA risk, preventive medicine and lifestyle changes to reduce RA risk. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Many first-degree relatives indicated that they anticipated being happy to make lifestyle changes such as losing weight or changing their diet to modify their risk of developing RA. Participants further indicated that in order to make any lifestyle changes it would be useful to know their personal risk of developing RA. Others implied they would not contemplate making lifestyle changes, including stopping smoking, unless this would significantly reduce or eliminate their risk of developing RA. Many first-degree relatives had more negative perceptions about taking preventive medication to reduce their risk of RA, and listed concerns about potential side effects as one of the reasons for not wanting to take preventive medicines. Others would be more willing to consider drug interventions although some indicated that they would wish to wait until symptoms developed. Conclusions: Information targeted at those considered to be at risk of RA should contain information about RA, the extent to which risk can be quantified at an individual level and how risk levels may differ depending on whether early symptoms are present. The benefits (and risks) of lifestyle changes and pharmacological interventions as potential preventive measures should be clearly described

Abatacept in individuals at high risk of rheumatoid arthritis (APIPPRA): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel, placebo-controlled, phase 2b clinical trial

\ua9 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Background: Individuals with serum antibodies to citrullinated protein antigens (ACPA), rheumatoid factor, and symptoms, such as inflammatory joint pain, are at high risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis. In the arthritis prevention in the pre-clinical phase of rheumatoid arthritis with abatacept (APIPPRA) trial, we aimed to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and acceptability of treating high risk individuals with the T-cell co-stimulation modulator abatacept. Methods: The APIPPRA study was a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel, placebo-controlled, phase 2b clinical trial done in 28 hospital-based early arthritis clinics in the UK and three in the Netherlands. Participants (aged ≥18 years) at risk of rheumatoid arthritis positive for ACPA and rheumatoid factor with inflammatory joint pain were recruited. Exclusion criteria included previous episodes of clinical synovitis and previous use of corticosteroids or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated permuted block randomisation (block sizes of 2 and 4) stratified by sex, smoking, and country, to 125 mg abatacept subcutaneous injections weekly or placebo for 12 months, and then followed up for 12 months. Masking was achieved by providing four kits (identical in appearance and packaging) with pre-filled syringes with coded labels of abatacept or placebo every 3 months. The primary endpoint was the time to development of clinical synovitis in three or more joints or rheumatoid arthritis according to American College of Rheumatology and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology 2010 criteria, whichever was met first. Synovitis was confirmed by ultrasonography. Follow-up was completed on Jan 13, 2021. All participants meeting the intention-to-treat principle were included in the analysis. This trial was registered with EudraCT (2013–003413–18). Findings: Between Dec 22, 2014, and Jan 14, 2019, 280 individuals were evaluated for eligibility and, of 213 participants, 110 were randomly assigned to abatacept and 103 to placebo. During the treatment period, seven (6%) of 110 participants in the abatacept group and 30 (29%) of 103 participants in the placebo group met the primary endpoint. At 24 months, 27 (25%) of 110 participants in the abatacept group had progressed to rheumatoid arthritis, compared with 38 (37%) of 103 in the placebo group. The estimated proportion of participants remaining arthritis-free at 12 months was 92\ub78% (SE 2\ub76) in the abatacept group and 69\ub72% (4\ub77) in the placebo group. Kaplan–Meier arthritis-free survival plots over 24 months favoured abatacept (log-rank test p=0\ub7044). The difference in restricted mean survival time between groups was 53 days (95% CI 28–78; p&lt;0\ub70001) at 12 months and 99 days (95% CI 38–161; p=0\ub70016) at 24 months in favour of abatacept. During treatment, abatacept was associated with improvements in pain scores, functional wellbeing, and quality-of-life measurements, as well as low scores of subclinical synovitis by ultrasonography, compared with placebo. However, the effects were not sustained at 24 months. Seven serious adverse events occurred in the abatacept group and 11 in the placebo group, including one death in each group deemed unrelated to treatment. Interpretation: Therapeutic intervention during the at-risk phase of rheumatoid arthritis is feasible, with acceptable safety profiles. T-cell co-stimulation modulation with abatacept for 12 months reduces progression to rheumatoid arthritis, with evidence of sustained efficacy beyond the treatment period, and with no new safety signals. Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb

Diagnosis and Management of Infected Total Knee Arthroplasty§

Infection following total knee arthroplasty can be difficult to diagnose and treat. Diagnosis is multifactorial and relies on the clinical picture, radiographs, bone scans, serologic tests, synovial fluid examination, intra-operative culture and histology. Newer techniques including ultrasonication and molecular diagnostic studies are playing an expanded role. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty with antibiotic cement and 4-6 weeks of intravenous antibiotic treatment remains the most successful intervention for infection eradication. There is no consensus on the optimum type of interval antibiotic cement spacer. There is a limited role for irrigation and debridement, direct one-stage exchange, chronic antibiotic suppression and salvage procedures like arthrodesis and amputation. We examine the literature on each of the diagnostic modalities and treatment options in brief and explain their current significance