Search

Introduction: Although the burden of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) has a significant impact on patients’ quality of life, thorough knowledge about patients’ perspectives on the burden of ADRs attributed to biologics is lacking. Objectives: This study was conducted to gain insight into the patient burden of ADRs experienced with biologic use. Methods: The Dutch Biologic Monitor is a prospective, multicentre, event monitoring cohort system including information collected by web-based questionnaires from patients using biologics, mainly for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). Patients were asked to complete bimonthly questionnaires on biologics used, indication for the biologic, experienced ADRs, consequences of ADRs and burden on a five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (no burden) to 5 (very high burden). We assessed potential factors associated with patient-reported burden of ADRs. Results: A total of 1355 patients completed 6293 questionnaires between 1 January 2017 and 1 May 2019. Almost half of the patients (665 patients, 49%), 69% with rheumatic diseases and 31% with other diseases, collectively reported 1720 unique ADRs. Infections and musculoskeletal complaints were the most burdensome ADRs and injection-site reactions were the least burdensome. ADRs leading to healthcare professional contact were more burdensome than ADRs without healthcare professional contact. Smoking, respiratory and psychiatric comorbidities were associated with higher burden of ADRs. Crohn’s disease, use of adalimumab and use of sulfasalazine as combination therapy were associated with lower burden of ADRs. Conclusions: The patient perspective gives important insights into the burden of ADRs experienced with biologics. This information could be used by healthcare professionals to optimise treatment with biologics.

Introduction: Although the burden of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) has a significant impact on patients’ quality of life, thorough knowledge about patients’ perspectives on the burden of ADRs attributed to biologics is lacking. Objectives: This study was conducted to gain insight into the patient burden of ADRs experienced with biologic use. Methods: The Dutch Biologic Monitor is a prospective, multicentre, event monitoring cohort system including information collected by web-based questionnaires from patients using biologics, mainly for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). Patients were asked to complete bimonthly questionnaires on biologics used, indication for the biologic, experienced ADRs, consequences of ADRs and burden on a five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (no burden) to 5 (very high burden). We assessed potential factors associated with patient-reported burden of ADRs. Results: A total of 1355 patients completed 6293 questionnaires between 1 January 2017 and 1 May 2019. Almost half of the patients (665 patients, 49%), 69% with rheumatic diseases and 31% with other diseases, collectively reported 1720 unique ADRs. Infections and musculoskeletal complaints were the most burdensome ADRs and injection-site reactions were the least burdensome. ADRs leading to healthcare professional contact were more burdensome than ADRs without healthcare professional contact. Smoking, respiratory and psychiatric comorbidities were associated with higher burden of ADRs. Crohn’s disease, use of adalimumab and use of sulfasalazine as combination therapy were associated with lower burden of ADRs. Conclusions: The patient perspective gives important insights into the burden of ADRs experienced with biologics. This information could be used by healthcare professionals to optimise treatment with biologics.

Background: Drug-disease interactions negatively affect the benefit/risk ratio of drugs for specific populations. In these conditions drugs should be avoided, adjusted, or accompanied by extra monitoring. The motivation for many drug-disease interactions in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) is sometimes insufficiently supported by (accessible) evidence. As a consequence the translation of SmPC to clinical practice may lead to non-specific recommendations. For the translation of this information to the real world, it is necessary to evaluate the available knowledge about drug-disease interactions, and to formulate specific recommendations for prescribers and pharmacists. The aim of this paper is to describe a standardized method how to develop practice recommendations for drug-disease interactions by literature review and expert opinion. Methods: The development of recommendations for drug-disease interactions will follow a six-step plan involving a multidisciplinary expert panel (1). The scope of the drug-disease interaction will be specified by defining the disease and by describing relevant effects of this drug-disease interaction. Drugs possibly involved in this drug-disease interaction are selected by checking the official product information, literature, and expert opinion (2). Evidence will be collected from the official product information, guidelines, handbooks, and primary literature (3). Study characteristics and outcomes will be evaluated and presented in standardized reports, including preliminary conclusions on the clinical relevance and practice recommendations (4). The multidisciplinary expert panel will discuss the reports and will either adopt or adjust the conclusions (5). Practice recommendations will be integrated in clinical decision support systems and published (6). The results of the evaluated drug-disease interactions will remain up-to-date by screening new risk information, periodic literature review, and (re)assessments initiat

Background: Although patients have different treatment preferences, these individual preferences could often be grouped in subgroups with shared preferences. Knowledge of these subgroups as well as factors associated with subgroup membership supports health care professionals in the understanding of what matters to patients in clinical decision-making. Objectives: To identify subgroups of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) based on their shared preferences toward disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and to identify factors associated with subgroup membership. Methods: A discrete choice experiment to determine DMARD preferences of adult patients with RA was designed based on a literature review, expert recommendations, and focus groups. In this multicenter study, patients were asked to state their preferred choice between two different hypothetical treatment options, described by seven DMARD characteristics with three levels within each characteristic. Latent class analyses and multinomial logistic regressions were used to identify subgroups and the characteristics (patient characteristics, disease-related variables, and beliefs about medicines) associated with subgroup membership. Results: Among 325 participating patients with RA, three subgroups were identified: an administration-driven subgroup (45.6%), a benefit-driven subgroup (29.7%), and a balanced subgroup (24.7%). Patients who were currently using biologic DMARDs were significantly more likely to belong to the balanced subgroup than the administration-driven subgroup (relative risk ratio (RRR): 0.50, 95% CI: 0.28–0.89). Highly educated patients were significantly more likely to belong to the benefit-driven subgroup than the balanced subgroup (RRR: 11.4, 95% CI: 0.97–133.6). Patients’ medication-related concerns did not contribute significantly to subgroup membership, whereas a near-significant association was found between patients’ beliefs about medication necessity and their membership of t

Introduction Non-Adherence to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) is suspected to relate to health care costs. In this study we investigated this relation in the first year of treatment. Methods In a multi-center cohort study with a one year follow up, non-Adherence was continuously measured using electronic monitored medication jars. Non-Adherence was defined as the number of days with a negative difference between expected and observed opening of the container. Cost measurement focused on hospital costs in the first year: consultations, emergency room visits, hospitalization, medical procedures, imaging modalities, medication costs, and laboratory tests. Cost volumes were registered from patient medical files. We applied multivariate regression analyses for the association between non-Adherence and costs, and other variables (age, sex, center, baseline disease activity, diagnosis, socioeconomic status, anxiety and depression) and costs. Results Of the 275 invited patients, 206 were willing to participate. 74.2% had rheumatoid arthritis, 20.9% had psoriatic arthritis and 4.9% undifferentiated arthritis. 23.7% of the patients were more than 20% non-Adherent over the follow-up period. Mean costs are € 2117.25 (SD € 3020.32). Non-Adherence was positively related to costs in addition to baseline anxiety. Conclusion Non-Adherence is associated with health care costs in the first year of treatment for arthritis. This suggests that improving adherence is not only associated with better outcome, but also with savings.

Introduction: Non-adherence to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) hampers the targets of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment, obtaining low disease activity and decreasing radiological progression. This study investigates if, and to what extent, non-adherence to treatment would lead to a higher 28-j