Rheumatoid Arthritis: Fraenkel L

Constantinescu F, Goucher S, Weinstein A, Smith W, Fraenkel L. · Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #19333986 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patient preferences may account for some of the variability in treatment between racial groups. How and why treatment preferences differ by race is not well understood. We sought to determine whether African American and white RA patients differ in how they evaluate the specific risks and benefits related to medications. METHODS: A total of 136 RA patients completed a conjoint analysis interactive computer survey to determine how they valued the specific risks and benefits related to treatment characteristics. The importance that respondents assigned to each characteristic and the ratio of the importance that patients attached to overall benefit versus overall risk were calculated. Subjects having a risk ratio <1 were classified as being risk averse. RESULTS: The mean age of the study sample was 55 years (range 22-84). Forty-nine percent were African American and 51% were white. African American subjects assigned the greatest importance to the theoretical risk of cancer, whereas white subjects were most concerned with the likelihood of remission and halting radiographic progression. Fifty-two percent of African American subjects were found to be risk averse compared with 12% of the white subjects (P < 0.0001). Race remained strongly associated with risk aversion (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 8.4 [3.1, -23.1]) after adjusting for relevant covariates. CONCLUSION: African American patients attach greater importance to the risks of toxicity and less importance to the likelihood of benefit than their white counterparts. Effective risk communication and improved understanding of expected benefits may help decrease unwanted variability in health care.

Constantinescu F, Goucher S, Weinstein A, Fraenkel L. · Virginia Commonwealth University, USA. · Med Care. · Pubmed #19165120 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Data suggest that differences in patient preferences may account for racial disparities in the use of medical interventions. Racial disparities have also been noted in outcomes and the delivery of healthcare services in chronic disease. Whether treatment preferences in chronic disease differ by race is not known. METHODS: We elicited treatment preferences for aggressive therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who identified themselves as being black or white. RESULTS: One hundred fifty consecutive eligible patients were invited to participate. Of these, 136 subjects completed the interview. In unadjusted analysis, 51% of white participants preferred aggressive therapy compared with 16% of blacks (P < 0.0001). Subjects who were married and reported having at least some college education had stronger preferences for aggressive therapy compared with their respective counterparts. After adjusting for covariates, race remained the strongest predictor of aggressive therapy examined in this study [adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) = 11.2 (1.9-64.9)]. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, fewer black patients preferred aggressive treatment compared with white patients with similar disease severity. These results have important clinical implications because use of aggressive treatment improves both short- and long-term outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis. Efforts to improve patient education and physician communication should be made to ensure that all patients have an accurate understanding of the benefits, as well as risks, associated with the best available treatment options.

Fraenkel L, Rabidou N, Dhar R. · Department of Medicine, VA Connecticut Healthcare System, Section of Rheumatology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520-8031, USA. · Rheumatology (Oxford). · Pubmed #16690762 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine whether physicians' treatment preferences are influenced by patients' age. METHODS: We mailed a survey to a random sample of rheumatologists practicing in the US. The survey included a scenario describing a hypothetical patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine and low-dose prednisolone, who presents with active disease during a follow-up appointment. The scenario was formulated in two versions that were identical except for the age of the patient. After reading the scenario, respondents were asked to rate (on a 10 cm numerical rating scale) their recommendations for each of the three options: (i) increasing the dose of prednisolone, (ii) adding a new disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) and (iii) switching DMARDs. Rheumatologists who rated either adding a new DMARD or switching DMARDs higher than increasing the dose of prednisolone were classified as 'preferring aggressive treatment with DMARDs', while the others were classified as 'NOT preferring aggressive treatment with DMARDs'. RESULTS: A total of 480 rheumatologists were mailed a questionnaire; 204 responded, giving a response rate of 42.5%. Overall 163 (80%) respondents were classified as preferring aggressive treatment with DMARDs. Rheumatologists responding to this survey were more likely to prefer aggressive DMARD treatment for the young RA patient vs the older RA patient (87 vs 71%, P= 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that rheumatologists' treatment recommendations may be influenced by age. Future educational efforts should increase physician awareness of this possible bias in order to ensure equal service delivery across ages.

Suter LG, Fraenkel L, Holmboe ES. · VA Connecticut Healthcare System, and Yale University School of Medicine, IE-61 SHM, c/o RWJ CSP, PO Box 208088, New Haven, CT 06520-8088, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #16583428 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common, costly, and disabling disease. Early referral and treatment reduce long-term joint damage and improve functional outcomes. Despite efforts to improve referral, half of patients with RA are not referred in a timely manner. Our objective was to explore the factors influencing the decision of a primary care physician (PCP) to refer or not refer a patient with suspected RA, and to identify modifiable factors influencing timely referral. METHODS: Using qualitative methods and in-depth, face-to-face interviews, we asked Connecticut PCPs to describe the last patient encounter where they suspected RA and the factors influencing referral and nonreferral. Participants represented a range of clinical experience, access to rheumatologists, and practice settings. Sample size was determined by thematic saturation. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using the constant comparative method of qualitative data analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 19 PCPs, 9 of whom were women. Our analysis identified clinical characteristics, patient preferences, access issues, clinical and administrative leadership, physician confidence and expectations, and interpersonal relationships as important domains influencing the referral decision. These domains interacted to impact timely referral and quality of care. Previously underappreciated factors, such as the magnitude of the effect of physician rapport, appeared to be critical in determining whether or not patients are promptly referred. CONCLUSION: Issues such as physician rapport, as well as clinical and system issues, influence referral for suspected RA. To improve referral for RA, clinical guidelines, medical education, and quality improvement efforts should address all domains influencing the referral decision.

Fraenkel L, Bogardus ST, Concato J, Felson DT, Wittink DR. · VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT 06516, USA. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #15020312 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To elicit treatment preferences of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with varying risk profiles. METHODS: Patient values for 16 DMARD characteristics were ascertained using published data about side effects, effectiveness, and cost. Patient preferences were determined by Adaptive Conjoint Analysis, an interactive computer program that predicts preferences by asking patients to make trade-offs between specific treatment characteristics. Simulations were run to derive preferences for four drugs: methotrexate, gold, leflunomide, and etanercept, under different risk-benefit scenarios. Infliximab was not included because it is given with methotrexate, and we did not include preferences for combination therapy. Based on each patient's expressed preferences, and the characteristics of the treatments available at the time of the study, the option that best fitted each patient's perspective was identified. RESULTS: 120 patients (mean age 70 years) were interviewed. For the base case scenario (which assumed the maximum benefits reported in the literature, a low probability of adverse effects, and low equal monthly "co-pays" (out of pocket costs)), 95% of the respondents preferred etanercept over the other treatment options. When all four options were described as being equally effective, 88% continued to prefer etanercept owing to its safer short term adverse effect profile. Increasing etanercept's co-pay to $30.00 decreased the percentage of patients preferring this option to 80%. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, older patients with RA, when asked to consider trade-offs between specific risk and benefits, preferred etanercept over other treatment options. Preference for etanercept is explained by older patients' risk aversion for drug toxicity.

Fraenkel L, Bogardus S, Concato J, Felson D. · VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, Connecticut 06520-8031, USA. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #12610798 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Some people believe that certain issues should be protected from all trade-offs. These issues are referred to as "protected values." We investigated whether some patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treat the risk of adverse effects (AE) as "protected values," i.e., as unacceptable regardless of how small the risk. METHODS: Patients with RA rated willingness to risk 17 different AE on a visual analog scale, where 0 = not willing under any circumstances and 100 = definitely willing. Participants then rated willingness to take medication as the risk of each AE was progressively decreased by 2 levels from its actual risk, using a 5 level scale ranging from 10 in 100 to 1 in 100,000. RESULTS: Between 32% and 39% of participants were not more willing to accept a risk of AE causing reversible cosmetic changes (e.g., acne), between 35% and 47% were not more willing to accept a risk of AE causing reversible discomfort (e.g., rash), and between 41% and 45% were not more willing to accept a risk of AE causing potential irreversible damage (e.g., pneumonitis) as the probability of each of these AE was substantially decreased. Unwillingness to accept risk of toxicity was especially evident for cancer, where 66% of patients refused to accept a risk of cancer occurring in 1 in 100,000 persons. CONCLUSION: Among patients particularly concerned with the risk of drug toxicity, many remain unwilling to accept the risk of AE even when their probability is decreased to levels far below their actual risk. These results suggest that patients may treat particularly worrisome AE as protected values, which may lead to poor decision-making in clinical practice.

Fraenkel L, Bogardus S, Concato J, Felson D. · Department of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, VA Connecticut Health Care System, West Haven, CT 06516, USA. · Rheumatology (Oxford). · Pubmed #11934960 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient willingness to accept the risk of adverse effects (AEs) commonly associated with arthritis medications. METHODS: Rheumatoid arthritis patients were asked to rate their willingness to take a medication associated with 17 specific AEs using a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: We interviewed 100 patients. Eighty-one were currently using one or more disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and 29 had previously experienced AEs related to DMARDs. Seventy-five stated that they were doing very well or well with respect to their arthritis compared with other people their age. Thirty-five per cent of those interviewed were unwilling to accept the risk of cosmetic changes, 38% were unwilling to accept the risk of temporary discomfort and 45% were unwilling to accept the risk of major toxicity. Patients who had previously experienced AEs were more willing to accept the risk of cosmetic changes (83 vs. 58%, P=0.02), temporary discomfort (79 vs. 55%, P=0.02) and major toxicity (83 vs. 44%, P=0.001) compared with those who had not previously experienced AEs. CONCLUSIONS: Many rheumatoid arthritis patients are very concerned about potential drug toxicity. However, risk adversity appeared to be attenuated by past experience with AEs. Our results suggest that certain patients, especially those with milder disease activity, might be reluctant to accept commonly used arthritis medications if they are fully informed of their potential toxicity.

Fraenkel L, Bogardus S, Concato J, Felson D. · Department of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8031, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #11324776 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To quantify preference for disclosure of information among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to examine sex-specific correlates of information preference. METHODS: We interviewed patients with RA and assessed preference for disclosure of information using 4 questions from the previously validated "Information Preference Seeking Scale." Three questions addressed preference for disclosure of side effects and 1 question addressed preference for disclosure of therapeutic options. Associations between preference for information and patient characteristics were examined using stepwise multiple linear regression. RESULTS: One hundred RA patients (mean age 68+/-12 years; 73% female) were interviewed; 89 respondents agreed or strongly agreed with all 4 statements reflecting a preference for full disclosure, and an additional 8 respondents agreed or strongly agreed with 3 of the 4 statements. The mean score (+/- SD) for information preference was 86+/-13, on a scale from 0 to 100 where 100 reflected a strong preference for full disclosure. In bivariate analyses, female sex and current employment were associated with stronger preferences for being informed (mean score for women 88+/-11, for men 80+/-15 [P = 0.02]; for employed 92+/-11, for unemployed 84+/-13 [P = 0.04]). Multivariate sex-specific analyses demonstrated that current employment and higher education level were positively associated with preference for disclosure among women and men, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results of our survey suggest that RA patients want to be fully informed about the risks associated with medications and about alternative options. The challenge remaining for rheumatologists is how to effectively communicate the risks and benefits related to the many options that are currently available for RA patients.