Treatment Mode Preferences in Psoriatic Arthritis: A Qualitative Multi-Country Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Daniel Aletaha,1 M Elaine Husni,2 Joseph F Merola,3 Roberto Ranza,4 Heidi Bertheussen,5 Ralph Lippe,6 Pamela M Young,7 Joseph C Cappelleri,8 T Michelle Brown,9 Claire Ervin,9 Ming-Ann Hsu,10 Lara Fallon11 1Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine 3, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; 2Cleveland Clinic, Department of Rheumatic and Immunologic Diseases, Cleveland, OH, USA; 3Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; 4Serviço de Reumatología, Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Uberlândia, Minas Gerais, Brazil; 5Patient Representative, Oslo, Norway; 6Inflammation & Immunology, Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Berlin, Germany; 7Inflammation & Immunology, Pfizer Inc, Collegeville, PA, USA; 8Statistics, Pfizer Inc, Groton, CT, USA; 9RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA; 10Health Economics & Outcomes Research, Pfizer Inc, Groton, CT, USA; 11Medical Affairs, Pfizer Inc, Montreal, QC, CanadaCorrespondence: Daniel AletahaDivision of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine 3, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18– 20, Vienna 1090, AustriaEmail daniel.aletaha@meduniwien.ac.atObjective: Qualitative research exploring patient preferences regarding the mode of treatment administration for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is limited. We report patient preferences and their reasons across PsA treatment modes.Methods: In this global, cross-sectional, qualitative study, interviews were conducted with adult patients with PsA in Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, and the US. Patients were currently taking a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). Patients indicated the order and strength of preference (0– 100; 100 = strongest) across four modes of treatment administration: oral (once daily), self-injection (weekly), clinic injection (weekly), and infusion (monthly); reasons for preferences were qualitatively assessed. Descriptive statistics were reported. Fisher’s exact tests and t-tests were conducted for treatment mode outcomes.Results: Overall, 85 patients were interviewed (female, 60.0%; mean age, 49.8 years). First-choice ranking (%) and mean [standard deviation] preference points were: oral (49.4%; 43.9 [31.9]); self-injection (34.1%; 32.4 [24.8]); infusion (15.3%; 14.5 [20.0]); clinic injection (1.2%; 9.2 [10.0]). Of 48 (56.5%) patients with a strong first-choice preference (ie point allocation ≥ 60), 66.7% chose oral administration. Self-injection was most often selected as second choice (51.8%), clinic injection as third (49.4%), and infusion as fourth (47.1%). Oral administration was the first-choice preference in the US (88.0% vs 38.0% in Europe). The most commonly reported reason for oral administration as the first choice was speed and ease of administration (76.2%); for self-injection, this was convenience (75.9%). The most commonly reported reason for avoiding oral administration was concern about possible drug interactions (63.6%); for self-injection, this was a dislike of needles or the injection process (66.7%).Conclusion: Patients with PsA preferred oral treatment administration, followed by self-injection; convenience factors were common reasons for these preferences. Overall, 43.5% of patients did not feel strongly about their first-choice preference and may benefit from discussions with healthcare professionals about PsA treatment administration options.Keywords: psoriatic arthritis, patient preference, qualitative research, treatment administration
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".