Other studies.
| Study ID | Measure | Health States | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rating or ranking of different routes of delivery | |||
| Desplats, et al62 | Stated preference | Route (SC vs IV) | 46% preferred to continue IV therapy. Patients preferring SC were more likely to have experience with other SC treatments. |
| Bolge, et al30 | Likert scale | Route (SC vs IV; frequency not specified) | More patients somewhat or strongly preferred SC (49%) over IV (29%), with 22% of patients expressing no preference. |
| Navarro-Millan, et al31 | Stated preference | SC every 1–2 weeks vs IV every 8 weeks | More patients preferred SC (57%) over IV (22%), with 21% expressing no preference. |
| Huynh, et al63 | Stated preference | Various options that differed in terms of route (SC vs IV) and frequency of administration | 77% of biologic-naive patients preferred SC. Among patients currently taking biologic therapy, strong preference for current route (71% taking SC preferred SC; 85% currently taking IV preferred IV). |
| Scarpato, et al32 | Stated preference | Route (SC vs IV; frequency not specified) | 50% of patients preferred SC and 50% preferred IV. |
| Rating or ranking of treatment outcomes | |||
| Bacalao, et al60 | Ranking of importance of PROMIS domains on effect on quality of life | Pain, fatigue, depression, physical function, social function | In order of priority: physical function (39%), pain (37%), fatigue (16%), social function (3%), depression (5%). |
| van Tuyl, et al61 | Rating of outcome importance | 26 domains relevant to a definition of remission | Domains chosen as top 3 in importance: pain (67%), fatigue (33%), and independence (19%). |
| Buitinga, et al36 | Percent of patients choosing health state as worst-case scenario | Being dependent on others | Twice as many participants chose “being dependent on others” as the worst (35%), relative to other options (11–18%). |
| No longer being able to walk | |||
| Being dependent on medication | |||
| Being extremely fatigued | |||
| Being indifferent | |||
| No longer being able to do any leisure activities | |||
| Sanderson, et al35 | Iterative process of item reduction, including ranking and Likert scales of outcome importance | 32 potential outcomes initially identified in nominal groups | Patients’ top 6 priority outcomes for treatment: pain, activities of daily living, joint damage, mobility, life enjoyment, independence, fatigue, valued activities. |
| Da Silva, et al33 | AIMS2 question 60 (top 3 priorities for improvement) | 12 different priorities for improvement* | Highest-rated priorities for improvement: pain (selected as a top 3 priority area by 69%), hand/finger function (51%), and walking/bending (48%). |
| Heiberg, et al34 | AIMS2 question 60 (top 3 priorities for improvement) | 12 different priorities for improvement* | Highest-rated priorities for improvement: pain (selected as a top 3 priority area by 69%), hand/finger function (45%), and walking/bending (33%). |
| Preference for different treatment options | |||
| Martin, et al64 | Decision aid (patients randomized to 3 different versions) | Hypothetical choice between added etanercept vs not. Patients instructed to assume RA had become “more active than you want to tolerate.” | Percentage of patients who chose to add etanercept varied according to information received: 31% (pharma pamphlet) vs 15% and 14% for short and long versions of a decision aid (p < 0.001). |
| Van Overbeeke, et al38 | Stated preference | Stated preference for biosimilar if (1) cheaper than originator; (2) equal price | Most patients (∼60%) expressed no preference and trusted physician; ∼30% preferred originator and 10% preferred biosimilar if it was cheaper. |
| Fraenkel, et al37 | Judgment of strength/direction of GRADE recommendations by patient panel | 18 recommendations for treatment of early or late RA with mild, moderate, or high disease activity with different combinations of DMARD | Patients disagreed with physician-dominated panel on direction of recommendation for 3 recommendations because of value placed on benefits/harms. All were for MTX/DMARD-naive patients with moderate to high disease activity: (1) patients preferred triple therapy over single therapy; (2) patients preferred 2/3 DMARD over single DMARD; (3) patients preferred tofacitinib over MTX. |
| Goekoop-Ruiterman, et al15 | Stated preference for randomization (posthoc) | 4 arms of the BeST trial: (1) sequential monotherapy; (2) step-up combination therapy; (3) initial combination therapy with high-dose prednisone; (4) initial combination therapy with infliximab | 33% expressed preference for arm 4 (4–8% for other groups; 44% expressed no preference). 38% expressed preference NOT to be randomized to group 3 (1–6% for other groups; 46% expressed no aversion). |
↵* The 12 priority areas for improvement considered in AIMS2 question 60: mobility, walking/bending, hand/finger function, arm function, self-care, household tasks, social activity, support from family, arthritis pain, work, level of tension, mood. SC: subcutaneous; IV: intravenous; AIMS: Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales; PROMIS: Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System; GRADE: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; RA: rheumatoid arthritis; DMARD: disease-modifying antirheumatic drug; MTX: methotrexate.