Dataset Information

Real-world questions and concerns about disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs): a retrospective analysis of questions to a medicine call center.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have transformed the treatment of numerous autoimmune and inflammatory diseases but their perceived risk of harm may be a barrier to use.

Methods

In a retrospective mixed-methods study, we analysed conventional (c) and biologic (b) DMARDs-related calls and compared them with rest of calls (ROC) from consumers to an Australian national medicine call center operated by clinical pharmacists from September 2002 to June 2010. This includes the period where bDMARDs became available on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the government-subsidized prescription medicines formulary. We compared caller and patient demographics, enquiry types and motivation to information-seek for both cDMARDs and bDMARDs with ROC, using a t-test for continuous data and a chi-square test for categorical data. We explored call narratives to identify common themes.

Results

There were 1547 calls involving at least one DMARD. The top three cDMARD enquiry types were side effects (27.2%), interactions (21.9%), and risk versus benefit (11.7%). For bDMARDs, the most common queries involved availability and subsidized access (18%), mechanism and profile (15.8%), and side effects (15.1%). The main consumer motivations to information-seek were largely independent of medicines type and included: inadequate information (44%), wanting a second opinion (23.6%), concern about a worrying symptom (18.8%), conflicting information (6.9%), or information overload (2.3%). Question themes common to conventional and biological DMARDs were caller overemphasis on medication risk and the need for reassurance. Callers seeking information about bDMARDs generally overestimated effectiveness and focused their attention on availability, cost, storage, and medicine handling.

Conclusion

Consumers have considerable uncertainty regarding DMARDs and may overemphasise risk. Patients cautiously assess the benefits and risks of their DMARDs but when new treatments emerge, they tend to overestimate their effectiveness.

SUBMITTER: El Masri H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7296694 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Real-world questions and concerns about disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs): a retrospective analysis of questions to a medicine call center.

El Masri Hiba H Hollingworth Samantha A SA van Driel Mieke M Benham Helen H McGuire Treasure M TM

BMC rheumatology 20200616

<h4>Background</h4>Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have transformed the treatment of numerous autoimmune and inflammatory diseases but their perceived risk of harm may be a barrier to use.<h4>Methods</h4>In a retrospective mixed-methods study, we analysed conventional (c) and biologic (b) DMARDs-related calls and compared them with rest of calls (ROC) from consumers to an Australian national medicine call center operated by clinical pharmacists from September 2002 to June 2010. Th ...[more]

PMID: 32550294

Similar Datasets

Project description:Recent research suggests that rheumatoid arthritis increases the risk of venous thromboembolism. This study compared the risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis initiating a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) with those initiating methotrexate or a nonbiologic DMARD.We conducted a population-based cohort study using US insurance claims data (2001-2012). Three mutually exclusive, hierarchical DMARD groups were used: (1) a biologic DMARD with and without nonbiologic DMARDs; (2) methotrexate without a biologic DMARD; or (3) nonbiologic DMARDs without a biologic DMARD or methotrexate. We calculated the incidence rates of venous thromboembolism. Cox proportional hazard models stratified by propensity score (PS) deciles after asymmetric PS trimming were used for 3 pairwise comparisons, controlling for potential confounders at baseline.We identified 29,481 patients with rheumatoid arthritis with 39,647 treatment episodes. From the pairwise comparison after asymmetric PS trimming, the incidence rate of hospitalization for venous thromboembolism per 1000 person-years was 5.5 in biologic DMARD initiators versus 4.4 in nonbiologic DMARD initiators and 4.8 in biologic DMARD initiators versus 3.5 in methotrexate initiators. The PS decile-stratified hazard ratio of venous thromboembolism associated with biologic DMARDs was 1.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-3.66) versus nonbiologic DMARDs and 1.39 (95% CI, 0.73-2.63) versus methotrexate. The hazard ratio of venous thromboembolism in biologic DMARD initiators was the highest in the first 180 days versus nonbiologic DMARD initiators (2.48; 95% CI, 1.14-5.39) or methotrexate initiators (1.80; 95% CI, 0.90-3.62).The absolute risk for venous thromboembolism was low in patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis. Initiation of a biologic DMARD seems to be associated with an increased short-term risk of hospitalization for venous thromboembolism compared with initiation of a nonbiologic DMARD or methotrexate.

Dataset Information

Real-world questions and concerns about disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs): a retrospective analysis of questions to a medicine call center.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Real-world questions and concerns about disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs): a retrospective analysis of questions to a medicine call center.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets