User menu

Accès à distance ? S'identifier sur le proxy UCLouvain

A Nationwide Survey on Patient's versus Physician´s Evaluation of Biological Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis in Relation to Disease Activity and Route of Administration: The Be-Raise Study.

Primary tabs

download
  • Open access
  • PDF
  • 1.03 M
De Mits, Sophie Lenaerts, Jan Vander Cruyssen, Bert Mielants, Herman Westhovens, René Durez, Patrick [UCL] Houssiau, Frédéric [UCL] Devogelaer, Jean-Pierre [UCL] Lauwerys, Bernard [UCL] Nzeusseu Toukap, Adrien [UCL] Vanden Bergh, Marc [UCL] Dufour, Jean-Pol [UCL] Manicourt, Daniel [UCL]

(eng) OBJECTIVES: Biological treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is one of the cornerstones of current treatment strategies for the disease. Surprisingly little information exists on whether the route of administration affects patients' treatment satisfaction. It is equally unclear whether rheumatologists are able to accurately perceive their patients' appreciation. Thus, the Belgian Be-raise survey aimed to examine whether RA patient's experience of their current biological treatment coincided with the treating physician's perception. METHODS: A nationwide cross-sectional survey was conducted by 67 Belgian rheumatologists providing data obtained from 550 RA patients. Patients under stable dose of biologics for at least 6 months, were enrolled consecutively and all completed questionnaires. Separate questionnaires were completed by the treating rheumatologist which evaluated their patient's perception of the route of treatment administration. This study therefore evaluates whether a treating physician perceives the satisfaction with the route of administration to the same degree as the patient. RESULTS: Completed questionnaires were obtained from 293 and 257 patients who obtained treatment via the intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) route of administration, respectively. 58.4% of patients were in DAS28-CRP(3) remission. Patient satisfaction with disease control was higher (44% scored ≥ 9) than that of the treating physician (35%), regardless of the route of administration (p< 0.01). No differences were seen for the patients treated with an IV as opposed to a SC route of administration. The physician´s perception of patient's satisfaction with disease control was markedly lower for IV treated patients as opposed to SC treated patients (p< 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' satisfaction with biological treatment is high, but there is a considerable mismatch between patients´ and rheumatologists´ appreciation on the route of administration of biological therapy in RA. Physicians consistently consider IV biological therapy to be less satisfactory. Patient´s appreciation is largely dependent on disease control, irrespective of the route of administration. Therefore, and encouraging shared decision making, we suggest that physicians and patients discuss the route of administration of biologicals in an open way.

Document type Article de périodique (Journal article) – Article de recherche
Access type Accès libre
Publication date 2016
Language Anglais
Journal information "PLoS One" - Vol. 11, no. 11, p. e0166607 [1-10] (2016)
Peer reviewed yes
Publisher Public Library of Science ((United States) San Francisco, CA)
e-issn 1932-6203
Publication status Publié
Affiliations UCL - SSS/IREC/RUMA - Pôle de Pathologies rhumatismales
UCL - (SLuc) Service de rhumatologie
Links
  1. Barton Jennifer, Patient preferences and satisfaction in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with biologic therapy, 10.2147/ppa.s5835
  2. Rau R, Simianer S, van Riel PLCM, van de Putte LBA, Krüger K, Schattenkirchner M, Allaart CF, Breedveld FC, Kempeni J, Beck K, Kupper H, Rapid alleviation of signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis with intravenous or subcutaneous administration of adalimumab in combination with methotrexate, 10.1080/03009740410005467
  3. W Demary, Patient preference and adherence, 8, 1061 (2014)
  4. Genovese M. C., Covarrubias A., Leon G., Mysler E., Keiserman M., Valente R., Nash P., Simon-Campos J. A., Porawska W., Box J., Legerton C., Nasonov E., Durez P., Aranda R., Pappu R., Delaet I., Teng J., Alten R., Subcutaneous abatacept versus intravenous abatacept: A phase IIIb noninferiority study in patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate : Subcutaneous Abatacept Versus Intravenous Abatacept, 10.1002/art.30463
  5. TAYLOR P. C., RITCHLIN C., MENDELSOHN A., BAKER D., KIM L., XU Z., MACK M., KREMER J., Maintenance of Efficacy and Safety with Subcutaneous Golimumab Among Patients with Active Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Previously Received Intravenous Golimumab, 10.3899/jrheum.110570
  6. GR Burmester, Ann Rheum Dis (2015)
  7. TK Huynh, Patient preference and adherence, 8, 93 (2014)
  8. AP Malaviya, Patient preference and adherence, 6, 589 (2012)
  9. M Jeffery, ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES, 63, 510 (2004)
  10. Chilton Frances, Collett Raymond A., Treatment choices, preferences and decision-making by patients with rheumatoid arthritis, 10.1002/msc.110
  11. Scarpato S., Antivalle M., Favalli E. G., Nacci F., Frigelli S., Bartoli F., Bazzichi L., Minisola G., Matucci Cerinic M., , Patient preferences in the choice of anti-TNF therapies in rheumatoid arthritis. Results from a questionnaire survey (RIVIERA study), 10.1093/rheumatology/kep354
  12. Williams E. L., Edwards C. J., Patient preferences in choosing anti-TNF therapies-R1, 10.1093/rheumatology/kel369
  13. Striesow Frank, Brandt Andreas, Preference, satisfaction and usability of subcutaneously administered methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis: results of a postmarketing surveillance study with a high-concentration formulation, 10.1177/1759720x11431004
  14. Augustovski Federico, Beratarrechea Andrea, Irazola Vilma, Rubinstein Fernando, Tesolin Pablo, Gonzalez Juan, Lencina Verónica, Scolnik Marina, Waimann Christian, Navarta David, Citera Gustavo, Soriano Enrique R., Patient Preferences for Biologic Agents in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Discrete-Choice Experiment, 10.1016/j.jval.2012.11.007
  15. Fraenkel L, Patient preferences for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, 10.1136/ard.2003.019422
  16. RH Martin, The Journal of rheumatology, 35, 618 (2008)
  17. Zhang Jie, Xie Fenglong, Delzell Elizabeth, Chen Lang, Kilgore Meredith L., Yun Huifeng, Saag Kenneth G., Lewis James D., Curtis Jeffrey R., Trends in the Use of Biologic Agents Among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Enrolled in the US Medicare Program : Biologic Agents Among US Medicare Beneficiaries With RA, 10.1002/acr.22055
  18. J Smolen, Ann Rheum Dis, 0, 1 (2013)
  19. Garneau Katie, Iversen Maura, Jan Saira, Parmar Kavita, Tsao Peter, Solomon Daniel H., Rheumatoid Arthritis Decision Making : Many Information Sources but Not All Rated as Useful, 10.1097/rhu.0b013e318226a220
  20. P Willeke, Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie, 70, 232 (2011)
  21. Curran D., Bacchi M., Schmitz S. F. Hsu, Molenberghs G., Sylvester R. J., Identifying the types of missingness in quality of life data from clinical trials, 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19980315/15)17:5/7<739::aid-sim818>3.0.co;2-m
  22. Joffe M. M., Rosenbaum P. R., Invited Commentary: Propensity Scores, 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a010011
Bibliographic reference De Mits, Sophie ; Lenaerts, Jan ; Vander Cruyssen, Bert ; Mielants, Herman ; Westhovens, René ; et. al. A Nationwide Survey on Patient's versus Physician´s Evaluation of Biological Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis in Relation to Disease Activity and Route of Administration: The Be-Raise Study.. In: PLoS One, Vol. 11, no. 11, p. e0166607 [1-10] (2016)
Permanent URL http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/182815