Search

Objective: The study objective was to prioritize topics for future patient-centered research to increase uptake of common vaccines, such as for pneumococcal pneumonia, influenza, herpes zoster, human papillomavirus, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, among adults living with autoimmune conditions. Methods: A steering committee (SC) was formed that included clinicians, patients, patient advocates, and researchers associated with rheumatic diseases (psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, vasculitis), inflammatory bowel disease, and multiple sclerosis. Through a scoping review and discussions, SC members identified research topics regarding vaccine uptake and/or hesitancy for prioritization. A larger multistakeholder alliance that included patients and patient advocates, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, regulators, and vaccine manufacturers conducted a modified Delphi exercise online with three rating rounds and one ranking round. Frequency analysis and comparisons across stakeholder groups were conducted. A weighted ranking score was generated for each item in the ranking round for final prioritization. Results: Through the Delphi process, 33 research topics were identified, of which 13 topics were rated as critical by more than 70% of all stakeholders (n = 31). The two highest ranked critical topics per the full stakeholder group were “How well a vaccine works for adults with autoimmune conditions” and “How beliefs about vaccine safety affect vaccine uptake.”. Conclusion: A multistakeholder group identified key topics as critically important priorities for future research to decrease vaccine hesitancy and improve uptake of vaccines for adults with autoimmune conditions.

To assess the perceptions and preferences of telemedicine among patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic.We conducted an online survey among patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Attitudes about telemedicine (i.e., telemedicine acceptability), evaluated using the validated Telemedicine Perception Questionnaire (TMPQ), and visit satisfaction were assessed for different telemedicine experiences and types of autoimmune rheumatic disease.Of 3,369 invitations, 819 responses were received. Participants had a mean ± SD age of 58.6 ± 11.6 years and were mostly White (n = 759, or 92.7%) and female (n = 702, or 85.7%). Of the 618 participants who said that telemedicine was available to them, 449 (72.7%) reported having a telemedicine visit, with 303 (67.5%) reporting attending a telemedicine video visit. On a 0 to 10 scale, the mean ± SD visit satisfaction score was 7.3 ± 1.8, with 25.8% of respondents being very satisfied (scores of 9 or 10). Video visits and higher TMPQ scores were associated with higher satisfaction. Compared to those who did not experience a telemedicine visit, patients who did were more likely to prefer telemedicine (video or phone) for routine visits (73.7% versus 44.3%; P 0.001), reviewing test results (64.8% versus 53.8%; P 0.001), when considering changing medications (40.5% versus 26.8%; P 0.001), and when starting a new injectable medication (18.9% versus 12.7%; P = 0.02).During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases frequently had telemedicine visits, with the majority held via video, and were satisfied with these visits. These results suggest that because patients prefer telemedicine for certain visit reasons, maximizing effective use of telemedicine will require personalized patient scheduling.

The aim of this study was to characterize employment, work productivity, and biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD) treatment in a predominantly female population of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) patients in a real-world setting.This was a cross-sectional study of axSpA participants within the ArthritisPower registry. Outcomes were assessed with surveys (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment [WPAI], Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI], and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System instruments) and compared between subgroups (employed vs. not employed; taking vs. not taking a bDMARD).Among the 195 participants, 117 (60.0%) were employed and 78 (40.0%) were not employed entirely or partially due to axSpA. The mean age of the participants was 47.6 years and 86.7% were female. Current bDMARD use was reported by 57.4% of those surveyed (59.8% employed vs. 53.9% not employed; p = 0.408). Compared to not employed participants, employed participants had more favorable disease activity (BASDAI 6.0 vs. 7.6; p 0.001) and overall health (self-rated health 2.5 vs. 1.8; p 0.001). Employed participants, compared to not employed participants, were diagnosed at an earlier age (36.0 vs. 42.5 years, respectively) and experienced a shorter time between symptom onset and diagnosis (9.5 vs. 13.6 years, respectively). Employed participants reported missing on average 6.5 days of work and experienced a 52.7% impairment on work productivity due to axSpA over a 3-month period. Absenteeism and presenteeism were statistically similar between participants taking a bDMARD versus those not taking a bDMARD.Although bDMARD treatment rates were similar between employed and not employed participants, disease activity and overall health were better in employed than non-employed participants. Employed participants experienced substantial work productivity impairment due to axSpA.

This study's objective was to test whether an online video intervention discussing appropriate treatment escalation improves willingness to change treatment in people living with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).We conducted a controlled, randomized trial among patients with RA enrolled in ArthritisPower, a United States patient registry. We recruited participants by email and surveyed their assessment of disease activity (patient global), satisfaction with disease control (patient acceptable symptom state), attitudes about RA medications, decisional conflict (decisional conflict scale), and willingness to modify RA treatment (choice predisposition scale, higher scores are better) if or when recommended by their rheumatologist. Intervention groups watched educational videos relevant to a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy, whereas control groups viewed vaccination-related videos as an "attention control." We compared the between-group difference in patients' willingness to modify RA treatment (primary outcome) and difference in decisional conflict about changing RA treatment (secondary outcome) after watching the videos using t tests.Participants with self-reported RA (n = 208) were 90% White and 90% women, with a mean (standard deviation) age of 50 (11) years, and 52% reported familiarity with the RA T2T strategy. We found a significant improvement in between-group difference in willingness to change RA treatment among intervention versus control participants (0.49 [95% confidence interval 0.09-0.88], P = 0.02). The effect size (Glass's delta) for the intervention was 0.48. Decisional conflict about treatment change decreased, but the between-group difference was not significant.This novel educational patient-directed intervention discussing appropriate treatment escalation was associated with improved willingness to change RA treatment if or when recommended by a rheumatologist. Further studies should evaluate whether this change in patients' predisposition translates into actual treatment escalation.

Introduction The magnitude and frequency of temporally related methotrexate (MTX)-associated side effects in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients are difficult to quantify using traditional research methods. As proof of concept designed in part to implement digital data collection for remote patient monitoring, we conducted a study implementing self-controlled case series analytic methods to understand MTX-related symptoms in RA or PsA. Methods In study phase 1, adults with RA or PsA from the ArthritisPower® Registry (past or current oral MTX users) participated in a cross-sectional survey. In phase 2, current MTX users participated in a longitudinal study and completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) 1-day nausea/vomiting and fatigue measure. Within-person change in PROMIS scores between risk (6–36 h post-dose) and control (96–144 h post-dose) windows were compared using mixed models. Results The baseline survey was completed by 671 participants (mean age: 54 years, 88% female, 92% white, 79% with RA). Among current MTX users (353/671 [53%]), most reported MTX-associated side effects (216/353 [61%]), most frequently fatigue (161/353 [46%]). Among phase 2 participants with (n = 39) and without (n = 84) baseline nausea, mean increase in PROMIS nausea was 5.1 units (P

Objective This study explored how women's beliefs about drug safety and interactions with their health care providers influenced their decisions to continue arthritis medications during pregnancy and lactation. Methods We collaborated with ArthritisPower, a patient-powered research network, and CreakyJoints, its partner online community, to develop and disseminate a survey among members with inflammatory arthritis who had at least one pregnancy after diagnosis. Participants' free-text responses were evaluated by using thematic analysis. Results Women in the sample were 40 years old on average (N = 66). Nineteen of their pregnancies had ended in fetal loss. Fifteen percent of all pregnancies were exposed to methotrexate. Among women who used safe arthritis medications, up to 80% discontinued treatment either in preparation for pregnancy or during pregnancy or lactation. Women's decisions to continue medications during pregnancy were influenced by their perceptions of safety and advisement from health care providers, although they often described that advice about medication safety was inconsistent between providers. Conclusion Women often chose to endure active inflammatory arthritis rather than to use disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs because of concerns about medication safety during pregnancy and lactation. Conflicting medical advice from health care providers undermined patients' trust in their providers and in the safety of their medications. The high rate of peripartum exposure to methotrexate, a fetotoxic drug, underscores the need for better family planning care for women with childbearing potential.

Patient-Powered Research Networks (PPRNs) are US-based registry infrastructures co-created by advocacy groups, patient research partners, academic investigators, and other healthcare stakeholders. Patient-Powered Research Networks collect information directly from patients to conduct and disseminate the results of patient-centered/powered research that helps patients make more informed decisions about their healthcare. Patient-Powered Research Networks gather and utilize real-world data and patient-reported outcomes to conduct comparative effectiveness, safety, and other research, and leverage the Internet to accomplish this effectively and efficiently. Four PPRNs focused on autoimmune and immune-mediated conditions formed the Autoimmune Research Collaborative: ArthritisPower (rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, and other rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases), IBD Partners (inflammatory bowel disease), iConquerMS (multiple sclerosis), and the Vasculitis PPRN (vasculitis). The Autoimmune Research Collaborative aims to inform the healthcare decision making of patients, care partners, and other stakeholders, such as clinicians, regulators, and payers. Illustrated by practical applications from the Autoimmune Research Collaborative and its constituent PPRNs, this article discusses the shared capacities and challenges of the PPRN model, and the opportunities presented by collaborating across autoimmune conditions to design, conduct, and disseminate patient-centered outcomes research.

Objective This study aimed to analyze the concerns and health-related behaviors in patients with vasculitis during the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in North America. Methods Patients with vasculitis in North America were invited to complete an online survey through the Vasculitis Patient-Powered Research Network in collaboration with the Vasculitis Foundation and the Relapsing Polychondritis Foundation. Questions focused on concerns and behaviors related to doctors' visits, tests, medication, and telehealth use. Factors affecting their concern and health-related behaviors were determined. Results Data from 662 patients were included: 90% of patients were White, 78% were women, 83% expressed moderate or high levels of concern about COVID-19, and 87% reported that their vasculitis moderately or extremely affected their level of concern. Older age, female sex, lung disease, and immunosuppression were associated with greater concern. Doctors' visits, laboratory tests, and other tests were avoided by 66%, 46%, and 40% of patients, respectively. Younger age, urban location, higher income, higher concern levels, and prednisone use (>10 mg/day) were associated with greater likelihood of avoiding visits or tests. Ten percent of patients on immunosuppressive therapy stopped their medication. Twenty-nine percent patients on rituximab avoided an infusion. Forty-four percent of patients had telehealth visits; more visits were reported for younger patients, for patients on glucocorticoids, and in Canada versus the United States. Conclusion During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with vasculitis have high levels of concern and exhibit potentially harmful health-related behaviors. Health care use varies across different demographic groups and geographic regions. Specific strategies are warranted to facilitate engagement of these patients with the health care system during the pandemic.

Background Few studies have investigated patients’ own treatment goals in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The objective of this real-world, cross-sectional study of US patients with RA was to identify factors that patients believed influenced their physician’s treatment decisions. Secondary objectives included reasons patients tolerated sub-optimal disease control and their perceived barriers to treatment optimization. Methods Eligible participants were enrolled in the ArthritisPower registry, ≥ 19 years, had physician-diagnosed RA, unchanged treatment within 3 months of baseline, prior/current disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatment (DMARDs), and computer/smartphone access. In December 2017, participants completed Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Computerized Adaptive Tests (PROMIS-CAT) for pain interference, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and physical function. Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) provided disease activity scores (0–30). Participants completed an online survey on barriers to treatment optimization, including self-perception of disease compared to RAPID3/PROMIS scores. Results A total of 249 participants met inclusion criteria and completed the survey. Mean age (SD) was 52 (11) years, and the majority were female (92%) with high RAPID3 disease activity (175/249 [70%]; median score 18). The main reason participants did not change treatment was their physician’s recommendation (66%; n = 32). Of participants with high RAPID3 disease activity, 66 (38%) were offered a treatment change; 19 (29%) of whom declined the change. Most participants who intensified treatment did so because their symptoms had remained severe or worsened (51%; n = 33); only 16 (25%) participants intensified because they had not reached a specified treatment goal. Among participants who self-reported their disease activity as “none/low” or “medium” (n = 202; 81% of cohort), most still had RAPID3 high disease activity (137/202 [68%]; score > 12). Most PROMIS scores showed moderate agreement with participants’ self-assessment of health status, in contrast to RAPID3 (weighted kappa: 0.05 [95% CI − 0.01, 0.11]). Conclusions Most participants trusted their rheumatologist’s treatment decisions and prioritized their physician’s treatment goals over their own. Patients should be encouraged to share their treatment goals/expectations with their rheumatologist, in line with the treat-to-target approach. RAPID3 may be inappropriate for setting patient-centric treatment goals given the poor agreement with self-reported disease activity; most PROMIS scores showed better alignment with patients’ own assessments.

Objective To assess the feasibility and impact of integrating electronic patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into the routine outpatient care of patients with SLE. Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study, utilizing a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design, of SLE outpatients receiving rheumatology care at two academic medical centres. Participants completed electronic PROMs at enrolment and then prior to their next two routine rheumatology visits. PROM score reports were shared with patients and rheumatologists before visits. Patients and rheumatologists completed post-visit surveys evaluating the utility of PROMs in the clinical encounters. Focus groups of patients and interviews with treating rheumatologists were conducted to further explore their experience utilizing PROMs. Results A total of 105 SLE patients and 17 rheumatologists participated in the study. Patients completed PROMs in 159 of 184 encounters (86%), with 93% of surveys completed remotely. Patients reported that PROMs were ‘quite a bit’ or ‘very’ useful (55% of encounters) and beneficial to communication (55% of encounters). In contrast, physicians found PROMs useful (20%) and beneficial to communication (17%) less frequently. There was no significant change in visit length, health-related quality of life or disease activity after implementation of PROMs; however, patient satisfaction improved slightly. Qualitative analyses revealed that patients felt PROMs provided utility primarily by facilitating communication, particularly when physicians discussed the surveys. Conclusion The remote capture and integration of electronic PROMs into clinical care was feasible in a diverse cohort of SLE outpatients. PROMs were useful to patients and enhanced their clinical experience primarily by facilitating communication.

Despite recent advances in treatment for psoriatic arthritis (PsA), many patients experience inadequate response or intolerance to therapy, indicating that unmet treatment-related needs remain. To further characterize these unmet needs, we evaluated patients' experiences regarding the burden of PsA symptoms and disease impacts, and patients' preferences for treatment.Patients from ArthritisPower, a rheumatology research registry, completed a web-based survey. Object case best-worst scaling (BWS) was used to evaluate the relative burden of 11 PsA-related symptoms and the relative importance of improvement in nine PsA-related disease impacts. BWS data were analyzed using a random-parameters logit model. Patient demographics, preferences for mode and frequency of therapy, and preferences for methotrexate were analyzed descriptively.Among the 332 participants, most were White (94%), female (80%), with mean age of 54 years (SD 11.4). In the BWS, joint pain was the most bothersome symptom, followed by other musculoskeletal pain and fatigue. The BWS for disease impacts found that improvements in the ability to perform physical activities were most important, followed by improvements in the ability to function independently, sleep quality, and the ability to perform daily activities. The most burdensome symptoms and desired disease impact improvements were similar in patients regardless of their experience with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The most preferred mode and frequency of treatment administration was oral, once-daily medication (preferred by 38% of respondents), and 74% prioritized therapies that significantly improved joint-related symptoms versus psoriasis-related symptoms. The majority of respondents (65%) preferred PsA treatment regimens that did not include methotrexate.Patients with PsA from a rheumatology registry found musculoskeletal pain symptoms to be the most bothersome and prioritized improvements to functional impacts of their disease. These findings can better inform development of new therapies and guide shared patient-provider treatment decision-making.

Background Mindfulness can improve overall well-being by training individuals to focus on the present moment without judging their thoughts. However, it is unknown how much mindfulness practice and training are necessary to improve well-being. Objective The primary aim of this study was to determine whether a standard 8-session web-based mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) program, compared with a brief 3-session mindfulness intervention, improved overall participant well-being. In addition, we sought to explore whether the treatment effects differed based on the baseline characteristics of the participants (ie, moderators). Methods Participants were recruited from 17 patient-powered research networks, web-based communities of stakeholders interested in a common research area. Participants were randomized to either a standard 8-session MBCT or a brief 3-session mindfulness training intervention accessed on the web. The participants were followed for 12 weeks. The primary outcome of the study was well-being, as measured by the World Health Organization—Five Well-Being Index. We hypothesized that MBCT would be superior to a brief mindfulness training. Results We randomized 4411 participants, 3873 (87.80%) of whom were White and 3547 (80.41%) of female sex assigned at birth. The mean baseline World Health Organization—Five Well-Being Index score was 50.3 (SD 20.7). The average self-reported well-being in each group increased over the intervention period (baseline to 8 weeks; model-based slope for the MBCT group: 0.78, 95% CI 0.63-0.93, and brief mindfulness group: 0.76, 95% CI 0.60-0.91) as well as the full study period (ie, intervention plus follow-up; baseline to 20 weeks; model-based slope for MBCT group: 0.41, 95% CI 0.34-0.48; and brief mindfulness group: 0.33, 95% CI 0.26-0.40). Changes in self-reported well-being were not significantly different between MBCT and brief mindfulness during the intervention period (model-based difference in slopes: −0.02, 95% CI −0.24 to 0.19; P=.80) or during the intervention period plus 12-week follow-up (−0.08, 95% CI −0.18 to 0.02; P=.10). During the intervention period, younger participants (P=.05) and participants who completed a higher percentage of intervention sessions (P=.005) experienced greater improvements in well-being across both interventions, with effects that were stronger for participants in the MBCT condition. Attrition was high (ie, 2142/4411, 48.56%), which is an important limitation of this study. Conclusions Standard MBCT improved well-being but was not superior to a brief mindfulness intervention. This finding suggests that shorter mindfulness programs could yield important benefits across the general population of individuals with various medical conditions. Younger people and participants who completed more intervention sessions reported greater improvements in well-being, an effect that was more pronounced for participants in the MBCT condition. This finding suggests that standard MBCT may be a better choice for younger people as well as treatment-adherent individuals. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03844321; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03844321

BACKGROUND Mindfulness can improve overall well-being by training individuals to focus on the present moment without judging their thoughts. However, it is unknown how much mindfulness practice and training are necessary to improve well-being. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to compare standard with brief mindfulness training to improve overall well-being. METHODS Participants were recruited from 17 Patient-Powered Research Networks, online communities of stakeholders interested in a common area of research. Participants were randomized to either a standard 8-session mindfulness based cognitive therapy (MBCT) or a brief 3-session mindfulness training intervention accessed online. Participants were followed for 12 weeks. The primary outcome of the study was well-being as measured by the World Health Organization (WHO)-5 Index. We hypothesized that MBCT would be superior to brief mindfulness training. RESULTS We randomized 4,411 participants, 88% of whom were white and 80% female sex assigned at birth. Baseline WHO-5 score mean was 50.3 (SD = 20.7). Average self-reported well-being in each group increased over the intervention period (baseline to 8 weeks) (model-based slope [95% CI] for MBCT group: 0.78 [0.63, 0.93]; brief mindfulness group: 0.76 [0.60, 0.91]) as well as the full study period (i.e., intervention plus follow-up; baseline to 20 weeks) (model-based slope [95% CI] for MBCT group: 0.41 [0.34, 0.48]; brief mindfulness group: 0.33 [0.26, 0.40]). Change in self-reported well-being was not statistically significantly different between MBCT and brief mindfulness during the intervention period (model-based difference in slopes [95% CI]: -0.02 [-0.24, 0.19], P = .80) or during the intervention period plus 12-week follow-up (-0.08 [-0.18, 0.02], P = .10). During the intervention period, younger participants (P = .05) and participants who completed a higher percentage of intervention sessions (P = .005) experienced greater improvements in well-being across both interventions, effects that were stronger for participants in the MBCT condition. CONCLUSIONS Standard MBCT improved well-being but was not superior to a brief mindfulness intervention. Younger patients and those able to complete more training sessions improved the most. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03844321, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03844321

To develop a scale to measure methotrexate intolerance for use in adult rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients and to describe its psychometric properties.A three-phase study was conducted. During Phase 1, we conducted individual interviews with RA patients (n = 14) to inform our item development process. During Phase 2, we asked for RA patients' (n = 10) feedback on item readability, clarity and the scale's ability to measure methotrexate intolerance. During Phase 3, we had patients with RA (n = 204) complete the scale to develop a final version and to describe the scale's internal validity (Cronbach's alpha), test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficients), construct validity and discriminant validity and the ability of the scale to discriminate between past and present methotrexate users.The newly developed, weighted scale (Patient-Perceived Methotrexate Intolerance Scale [PPMIS]) includes four subscales: Methotrexate Benefits, Methotrexate Risks-Side Effect Considerations, RA Risks and Methotrexate Risks-Willingness to Take Methotrexate Despite Risks. Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.79 to 0.94. Test-retest reliability at 2 weeks was 0.73-0.88. Construct validity was supported with significant logical relationships between subscale scores and the existing methotrexate intolerance scale and past/present methotrexate use. The PPMIS was able to correctly classify RA patients as a past versus present methotrexate user 77% of the time. At the cut point of 3.29, the sensitivity of the PPMIS is 74% and specificity is 72% to correctly classify patients into past/present methotrexate use.This is the first known scale with favourable measurement properties to evaluate methotrexate intolerance using a patient-centred perspective.

UNSTRUCTURED REMOVE

Sharing clinical trial data can provide value to research participants and communities by accelerating the development of new knowledge and therapies as investigators merge data sets to conduct new analyses, reproduce published findings to raise standards for original research, and learn from the work of others to generate new research questions. Nonprofit funders, including disease advocacy and patient-focused organizations, play a pivotal role in the promotion and implementation of data sharing policies. Funders are uniquely positioned to promote and support a culture of data sharing by serving as trusted liaisons between potential research participants and investigators who wish to access these participants' networks for clinical trial recruitment. In short, nonprofit funders can drive policies and influence research culture. The purpose of this paper is to detail a set of aspirational goals and forward thinking, collaborative data sharing solutions for nonprofit funders to fold into existing funding policies. The goals of this paper convey the complexity of the opportunities and challenges facing nonprofit funders and the appropriate prioritization of data sharing within their organizations and may serve as a starting point for a data sharing toolkit for nonprofit funders of clinical trials to provide the clarity of mission and mechanisms to enforce the data sharing practices their communities already expect are happening.

Introduction Many rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients do not achieve their treatment goals and experience symptoms that affect psychosocial outcomes and daily activities. This study aimed to identify and quantify the unmet needs perceived by US patients with RA currently taking a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). Methods A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted with RA patients recruited through CreakyJoints, an online patient support community, and ArthritisPower®, an online patient research registry, from December 2017 to January 2018. Participant patients were aged ≥ 21 years, failed ≥ 1 DMARDs, and were receiving their current DMARD(s) for ≥ 6 months; they answered 50 questions about treatment history, RA symptoms, and flares and completed the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) questionnaire and the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM). Treatment satisfaction was defined by a TSQM global satisfaction score ≥ 80. Results Of 415 patients screened, 258 (62%) were eligible and completed the survey; 87% were women, and 87% white, with mean (SD) age of 54.5 (11.4) years. A total of 232 patients (90%) had current or past biologic DMARD (bDMARD) use, with 67% currently on a bDMARD, 65% on ≥ 1 conventional synthetic DMARD, and 40% on methotrexate. Forty-three percent of patients reported daily/almost daily use of prescription pain medications, and 44% reported a current flare. Mean (SD) TSQM scores were 59 [20] for effectiveness, 59 [26] for side effects, 72 [18] for convenience, and 65 [21] for global satisfaction. The mean (SD) RAID overall score was 5.1 (2.0) on a 0–10 scale. Only 26% (67 patients) were satisfied with their RA treatment. Patients not satisfied with treatment reported higher RAID scores overall and by domain, and approximately half reported a current flare. Conclusions Results from this real-world survey suggest that three-fourths of RA patients are not satisfied with treatments, which include bDMARDs. Patients continued to experience bothersome symptoms that impacted their daily activities and life. There remains a need for improved disease management among currently treated RA patients. Funding Eli Lilly and Company (Indianapolis, IN, USA). Electronic Supplementary Material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40744-019-00168-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective Women with inflammatory arthritis appear to have fewer children as compared with healthy women, but few studies have assessed how patients' attitudes and decision making influence their family sizes. Little is also known about how patients experience other aspects of their reproductive lives, such as menstruation and contraception. Methods We partnered with ArthritisPower, a patient‐powered research network, and its associated online patient community, CreakyJoints, to create and disseminate a survey among female members aged 18‐50 years with inflammatory arthritis. Results Women in the final sample (n = 267) were 40 years old on average; most had rheumatoid arthritis (79%) and were predominantly white and college educated. Many women chose to limit childbearing because of their arthritis (58%); they feared that their arthritis was heritable, their diseases and medications could directly harm a fetus, they would be incapable of physically caring for a child, and arthritis could cause premature death, preventing them from raising their children. Infertility affected 40% of the sample. Half of women experienced subjective arthritis flares around the time of menstruation. Oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) did not worsen disease activity for most women and even prevented menstrual‐associated arthritis flares for a subset of women. Conclusion Our findings suggest that infertility, but also potentially outsized fear and anxiety related to their diagnoses, may affect the family sizes of women with inflammatory arthritis. The observation that menstruation worsens disease activity for some women requires additional study, and OCP use should be explored as a possible treatment for menstrual‐associated arthritis. Clinicians may wish to consider how they communicate patients' individual pregnancy‐associated risks, reassure patients when appropriate, and help to guide and support patients to make well‐informed reproductive decisions.

Introduction We describe the journey to diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) from the patient perspective and examine differences in this journey by sex. Methods US adults aged ≥ 18 years with a self-reported AS diagnosis were recruited online through CreakyJoints, a patient support community, and ArthritisPower, a patient research registry. Respondents completed a web-based survey on sociodemographics, disease burden, and diagnosis history. Results were stratified by sex and time to diagnosis using two-sample t tests and χ2 tests, respectively, to observe differences across the groups; P

OBJECTIVE Patients have a poor understanding of outcomes related to total knee replacement (TKR) surgery, with most patients underestimating the potential benefits and overestimating the risk of complications. In this study, we sought to compare the impacts of descriptive information alone or in combination with an icon array, experience condition (images), or spinner on participants' preference for TKR. METHODS A total of 648 members of an online arthritis network were randomized to 1 of 4 outcome presentation formats: numeric only, numeric with an icon array, numeric with a set of 50 images, or numeric with a functional spinner. Preferences for TKR were measured before and immediately after viewing the outcome information using an 11-point numeric rating scale. Knowledge was assessed by asking participants to report the frequency of each outcome. RESULTS Participants randomized to the icon array, images, and spinner had stronger preferences for TKR (after controlling for baseline preferences) compared to those viewing the numeric only format (P < 0.05 for all mean differences). Knowledge scores were highest in participants randomized to the icon array; however, knowledge did not mediate the association between format and change in preference for TKR. CONCLUSION Decision support at the point-of-care is being increasingly recognized as a vital component of care. Our findings suggest that adding graphic information to descriptive statistics strengthens preferences for TKR. Although experience formats using images may be too complex to use in clinical practice, icon arrays and spinners may be a viable and easily adaptable decision aid to support communication of probabilistic information.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are common in women of childbearing age and are often treated with teratogenic medications. In this study, we assessed contraceptive methods in young women with RA or PsA and correlated contraceptive method efficacy with use of concomitant rheumatic medications. We combined the data from several cross-sectional surveys of women under the age of 40 with RA or PsA. Two surveys recruited participants from a clinic setting (RA and PsA Clinic Surveys), and the third survey recruited participants from CreakyJoints.org , an online forum for patients with inflammatory arthritis (CreakyJoints Survey). Of the 164 women included, 138 had RA (67 in RA Clinic Survey, 71 in CreakyJoints Survey) and 26 had PsA (19 in PsA Clinic Survey, 7 in CreakyJoints Survey). Use of specific contraceptive and rheumatic medications were similar between the clinic and online surveys. In the pooled analysis of the Clinic and CreakyJoints survey data, women with RA and PsA reported similar utilization of highly effective contraception methods (31.9% RA, 34.6% PsA) and effective methods (31.2% RA, 30.8% PsA), but different utilization of ineffective methods (35.5% RA, 11.5% PsA) and no methods (1.5% RA, 23.1% PsA), p = 0.0002. These proportions remained similar across subgroups taking methotrexate, anti-TNF biologics, and novel medications. Approximately two thirds of women with RA and PsA reported using effective or highly effective methods of contraception, though women with PsA were more likely to report no methods of contraception.

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on community-based rheumatology care and the use of telehealth is unclear. We undertook this study to investigate the impact of the pandemic on rheumatology care delivery in a large community practice-based network.Using a community practice-based rheumatologist network, we examined trends in in-person versus telehealth visits versus canceled visits in 3 time periods: pre-COVID-19, COVID-19 transition (6 weeks beginning March 23, 2020), and post-COVID-19 transition (May-August). In the transition period, we compared patients who received in-person care versus telehealth visits versus those who cancelled all visits. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with canceled or telehealth visits.Pre-COVID-19, there were 7,075 visits/week among 60,002 unique rheumatology patients cared for by ~300 providers practicing in 92 offices. This number decreased substantially (24.6% reduction) during the COVID-19 transition period for in-person visits but rebounded to pre-COVID-19 levels during the post-COVID-19 transition. There were almost no telehealth visits pre-COVID-19, but telehealth increased substantially during the COVID-19 transition (41.4% of all follow-up visits) and slightly decreased during the post-COVID-19 transition (27.7% of visits). Older age, female sex, Black or Hispanic race/ethnicity, lower socioeconomic status, and rural residence were associated with a greater likelihood of canceling visits. Most factors were also associated with a lower likelihood of having telehealth versus in-office visits. Patients living further from the rheumatologists' office were more likely to use telehealth.COVID-19 led to large disruptions in rheumatology care; these disruptions were only partially offset by increases in telehealth use and disproportionately affected racial/ethnic minorities and patients with lower socioeconomic status. During the COVID-19 era, telehealth continues to be an important part of rheumatology practice, but disparities in access to care exist for some vulnerable groups.

Background There is substantial prior research on the perspectives of patients on the use of health information for research. Numerous communication barriers challenge transparency between researchers and data participants in secondary database research (eg, waiver of informed consent and knowledge gaps). Individual concerns and misconceptions challenge the trust in researchers among patients despite efforts to protect data. Technical software used to protect research data can further complicate the public's understanding of research. For example, MiNDFIRL (Minimum Necessary Disclosure For Interactive Record Linkage) is a prototype software that can be used to enhance the confidentiality of data sets by restricting disclosures of identifying information during the record linkage process. However, software, such as MiNDFIRL, which is used to protect data, must overcome the aforementioned communication barriers. One proposed solution is the creation of an interactive web-based frequently asked question (FAQ) template that can be adapted and used to communicate research issues to data subjects. Objective This study aims to improve communication with patients and transparency about how complex software, such as MiNDFIRL, is used to enhance privacy in secondary database studies to maintain the public's trust in researchers. Methods A Delphi technique with 3 rounds of the survey was used to develop the FAQ document to communicate privacy issues related to a generic secondary database study using the MiNDFIRL software. The Delphi panel consisted of 38 patients with chronic health conditions. We revised the FAQ between Delphi rounds and provided participants with a summary of the feedback. We adopted a conservative consensus threshold of less than 10% negative feedback per FAQ section. Results We developed a consensus language for 21 of the 24 FAQ sections. Participant feedback demonstrated preference differences (eg, brevity vs comprehensiveness). We adapted the final FAQ into an interactive web-based format that 94% (31/33) of the participants found helpful or very helpful. The template FAQ and MiNDFIRL source code are available on GitHub. The results indicate the following patient communication considerations: patients have diverse and varied preferences; the tone is important but challenging; and patients want information on security, identifiers, and final disposition of information. Conclusions The findings of this study provide insights into what research-related information is useful to patients and how researchers can communicate such information. These findings align with the current understanding of health literacy and its challenges. Communication is essential to transparency and ethical data use, yet it is exceedingly challenging. Developing FAQ template language to accompany a complex software may enable researchers to provide greater transparency when informed consent is not possible.

Objective While patients often contribute data for research, they want researchers to protect their data. As part of a participatory design of privacy-enhancing software, this study explored patients’ perceptions of privacy protection in research using their healthcare data. Materials and Methods We conducted 4 focus groups with 27 patients on privacy-enhancing software using the nominal group technique. We provided participants with an open source software prototype to demonstrate privacy-enhancing features and elicit privacy concerns. Participants generated ideas on benefits, risks, and needed additional information. Following a thematic analysis of the results, we deployed an online questionnaire to identify consensus across all 4 groups. Participants were asked to rank-order benefits and risks. Themes around “needed additional information” were rated by perceived importance on a 5-point Likert scale. Results Participants considered “allowance for minimum disclosure” and “comprehensive privacy protection that is not currently available” as the most important benefits when using the privacy-enhancing prototype software. The most concerning perceived risks were “additional checks needed beyond the software to ensure privacy protection” and the “potential of misuse by authorized users.” Participants indicated a desire for additional information with 6 of the 11 themes receiving a median participant rating of “very necessary” and rated “information on the data custodian” as “essential.” Conclusions Patients recognize not only the benefits of privacy-enhancing software, but also inherent risks. Patients desire information about how their data are used and protected. Effective patient engagement, communication, and transparency in research may improve patients’ comfort levels, alleviate patients’ concerns, and thus promote ethical research.

ObjectiveTo assess concerns and healthcare-related behaviors of patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.MethodsAdults from the United States with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) from the ArthritisPower Patient-Powered Research Network and CreakyJoints patient community completed surveys. Concerns and behaviors were compared among patients with different autoimmune conditions, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use, and geographic measures of urban status, income, education, and COVID-19 activity.ResultsAmong 1517 participants (925 RA, 299 PsA, 185 AS, 108 SLE), mean age was 55.1 years, 88.3% were female, and 89.5% were White. COVID-19 concerns were similar across the country and were higher in biologic users (P < 0.001). Avoidance of doctor’s office visits (56.6%) or laboratory testing (42.3%) and use of telehealth (29.5%) were more common in urban areas. Among participants receiving a DMARD without COVID-19 or other respiratory illness, 14.9% stopped a DMARD, with 78.7% of DMARD interruptions not recommended by a physician. DMARD stopping was more common in participants with lower socioeconomic status (SES) and in participants who avoided an office visit (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.04–2.04) or reported lack of telehealth availability OR 2.26 (95% CI 1.25–4.08).ConclusionIn the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with RA, PsA, AS, and SLE frequently avoided office visits and laboratory testing. DMARD interruptions commonly occurred without the advice of a physician and were associated with SES, office visits, and telehealth availability, highlighting the need for adequate healthcare access and attention to vulnerable populations during the pandemic.

UNSTRUCTURED Sharing clinical trial data can provide value to research participants and communities by accelerating the development of new knowledge and therapies as investigators merge data sets to conduct new analyses, reproduce published findings to raise standards for original research, and learn from the work of others to generate new research questions. Nonprofit funders, including disease advocacy and patient-focused organizations, play a pivotal role in the promotion and implementation of data sharing policies. Funders are uniquely positioned to promote and support a culture of data sharing by serving as trusted liaisons between potential research participants and investigators who wish to access these participants’ networks for clinical trial recruitment. In short, nonprofit funders can drive policies and influence research culture. The purpose of this paper is to detail a set of aspirational goals and forward thinking, collaborative data sharing solutions for nonprofit funders to fold into existing funding policies. The goals of this paper convey the complexity of the opportunities and challenges facing nonprofit funders and the appropriate prioritization of data sharing within their organizations and may serve as a starting point for a data sharing toolkit for nonprofit funders of clinical trials to provide the clarity of mission and mechanisms to enforce the data sharing practices their communities already expect are happening.

BACKGROUND There is substantial prior research on the perspectives of patients on the use of health information for research. Numerous communication barriers challenge transparency between researchers and data participants in secondary database research (eg, waiver of informed consent and knowledge gaps). Individual concerns and misconceptions challenge the trust in researchers among patients despite efforts to protect data. Technical software used to protect research data can further complicate the public's understanding of research. For example, MiNDFIRL (Minimum Necessary Disclosure For Interactive Record Linkage) is a prototype software that can be used to enhance the confidentiality of data sets by restricting disclosures of identifying information during the record linkage process. However, software, such as MiNDFIRL, which is used to protect data, must overcome the aforementioned communication barriers. One proposed solution is the creation of an interactive web-based frequently asked question (FAQ) template that can be adapted and used to communicate research issues to data subjects. OBJECTIVE This study aims to improve communication with patients and transparency about how complex software, such as MiNDFIRL, is used to enhance privacy in secondary database studies to maintain the public's trust in researchers. METHODS A Delphi technique with 3 rounds of the survey was used to develop the FAQ document to communicate privacy issues related to a generic secondary database study using the MiNDFIRL software. The Delphi panel consisted of 38 patients with chronic health conditions. We revised the FAQ between Delphi rounds and provided participants with a summary of the feedback. We adopted a conservative consensus threshold of less than 10% negative feedback per FAQ section. RESULTS We developed a consensus language for 21 of the 24 FAQ sections. Participant feedback demonstrated preference differences (eg, brevity vs comprehensiveness). We adapted the final FAQ into an interactive web-based format that 94% (31/33) of the participants found helpful or very helpful. The template FAQ and MiNDFIRL source code are available on GitHub. The results indicate the following patient communication considerations: patients have diverse and varied preferences; the tone is important but challenging; and patients want information on security, identifiers, and final disposition of information. CONCLUSIONS The findings of this study provide insights into what research-related information is useful to patients and how researchers can communicate such information. These findings align with the current understanding of health literacy and its challenges. Communication is essential to transparency and ethical data use, yet it is exceedingly challenging. Developing FAQ template language to accompany a complex software may enable researchers to provide greater transparency when informed consent is not possible.