Rheumatoid Arthritis
Conditions
Keywords
Rheumatoid Arthritis, web based interactive learning tool
Brief summary
This study is a randomized controlled trial designed to examine the efficacy of an educational decision support tool for patients with rheumatoid arthritis who continue to have active disease despite use of traditional disease modifying drugs. The study will take place at Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, PA. Eligible subjects will be identified by the treating physician and those providing consent will be randomized to usual care versus use of the decision support tool.
Detailed description
Data suggest that undertreatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients may be in part due to inadequate decision support when they face whether or not to start biologic therapy. No proven way exists to inform or support RA patients who are candidates for biologic therapy. Communicating information about biologic medication is particularly challenging because of the sheer number of risks to disclose, the difficulty explaining the risks of extremely rare adverse events (AEs), and the tendency for people to discount (or underweight) future benefits. Dr Liana Fraenkel at Yale University is the Primary Investigator and developer of this theory-based high quality decision support tool to effectively inform RA patients who are candidates for biologics. Dr. Eric Newman will be Principal Investigator for the project which will be conducted at Geisinger Medical Center. All subjects enrolled will complete a baseline survey and then will be randomized to use of the decision support tool or to usual care. Those randomized to usual care will be offered the opportunity to access the tool once enrollment is closed and all follow-up visits have been completed. Outcomes will be assessed at two and six weeks after the baseline visit by the Geisinger Telephone Survey and Interviewing Facility. This facility is equipped with 12 computers and runs two shifts a day. The Survey Unit uses a state-of-the-art Windows based Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) system to administer surveys and collect research data. The group holds 12 interviewer licenses for the CATI system. Trained and experienced interviewers are available to make the calls from 9 am to 9 pm Monday through Friday and from 10 am to 2 pm on Saturdays.
Interventions
Educational decision support tool for patients with rheumatoid arthritis
OTHERUsual Care
Subjects randomized to the Usual Care Group will receive their biologic drug teaching from the rheumatologist as part of their routine care.
Sponsors
Yale University
Geisinger Clinic
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Masking
SINGLE (Investigator)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Subjects must be at least 18 years of age * Able to speak and read English * Meet the revised American College of Rheumatology criteria for the diagnosis of RA * Have active disease warranting initiation of a new biologic (or small molecule if and when FDA-approved) therapy as determined by their rheumatologist
Exclusion criteria
* Fail to meet the inclusion criteria * Have a current infection * Have cancer of any type diagnosed within the past five years (except non-melanoma skin cancer) * Have a history of lymphoma, leukemia, or melanoma * Have a chronic inflammatory disease (in addition to rheumatoid arthritis) requiring treatment with immunosuppressive medications * Have chronic liver disease due to hepatitis C or B * Are HIV positive * Have a positive screening test for tuberculosis (tuberculin skin test or interferon-gamma release assay) or radiographic lesions suggestive of inactive tuberculosis and have not completed an adequate course of chemoprophylactic therapy * Are hearing or visually impaired * Are scheduled for surgery
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| The Proportion of Subjects Who Are Classified as Having Made an Informed Value Concordant Choice at 2 Weeks | 2 weeks | We classified subjects as having made an informed choice to escalate care if they answered at least 75% of the knowledge questions correctly and had low decisional conflict as defined by a score of 25 or lower on the combined subjective knowledge and values clarity subscales. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Use of Biologics | 8 weeks | Use of biologics: The number of patients received a prescription for a new biologic by eight weeks. |
| To Test Screening and Recruitment Procedures | 8 weeks | To test screening and recruitment procedures we will measure the number of eligible patients, the number of patients excluded by each exclusion criterion, the number of patients referred by rheumatologists each week, and the proportion of patients who agree to participate. |
| To Test Uptake | 8 weeks | To test uptake and adherence to the intervention we will measure the proportion of patients randomized to the intervention who access the tool, complete the Best Worse Scaling exercise, print a handout, and use the handout during a follow-up visit with their rheumatologist (for subjects having a second visit within eight weeks). Note, subjects without access to a printer will have the opportunity to do so in the office. |
| Acceptability to Physicians | 8 weeks | Acceptability to physicians will be assessed using four items coded on 5-point Frequency scales (1= None of the time and 5= All of the time) administered by the research assistant once all patient follow-up interviews have been completed: 1. Did the tool make it easier to talk about treatment with your patients? 2. Did the tool increase the amount of time you spent discussing therapy with your patients? 3. Did the tool decrease the amount of time you spent discussing therapy with your patients? 4. Did the tool improve the quality of informed consent for patients initiating biologics? |
| Patient-physician Communication | 8 weeks | Patient-physician communication will be measured using the COMRADE (Combined Outcome Measure for Risk communication And treatment Decision making Effectiveness): a 20-item scale composed of two subscales which address the quality of risk communication (process measure) and the quality of the decision making process (outcome measure). Items are measured on a 5-point agree scales. The COMRADE is a includes two sub-scales (each composed of 10 items): one for risk communication (a process measure) and a second for confidence in decision (an outcome measure). Subscales are summed to generate a total score (Range 20-100). Higher scores reflect poorer outcomes. |
| Changes in Knowledge | 8 weeks | Knowledge will be measured using the 20 True/False statements developed for the initial pre-post test study. The number of correct responses are summed to yield a knowledge score (possible range= 0-20). The item order was determined using a random-numbers generator. |
| Changes in Willingness | 8 weeks | Willingness: Patients' propensity towards biologics will be measured using the choice predisposition scale (65): This item is coded on a 11-point scale anchored by Not willing at all and Extremely willing with Unsure at the midpoint (65). Higher scores reflect greater willingness. |
| Changes in Perceived Knowledge | 8 weeks | Perceived knowledge and value clarity will be measured using two subscales from the well-validated Decisional Conflict Scale (66). Each subscale is composed of 3 items measured on 5-point agree scales. Scores are rescaled to range from 0 to 100. Higher scores reflect greater conflict (poorer outcomes). |
| To Test Adherence to the Intervention | 8 weeks | The session management system will record the time spent on each module visited within the tool to assess adherence. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Recruitment details
Subjects were RA patients currently being treated by one of six rheumatologists practicing in the Geisinger Rheumatology Department in Danville, Pennsylvania who were at least 18 years of age, able to speak and read English & had active disease warranting initiation, or change, of a biologic therapy as determined by their treating rheumatologist.
Pre-assignment details
Subjects excluded if hearing or visually impaired; scheduled for surgery;current infection; cancer past five years (except non-melanoma),lymphoma, leukemia,melanoma;chronic inflammatory disease (+ RA) immunosuppressive RX; chronic liver disease, hepatitis C or B;HIV +; TB+x-ray lesions of inactive TB & no chemoprophylactic therapy..
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Decision Support Tool This study will examine the efficacy of a web-based educational decision support tool.
Decision Support Tool: Educational decision support tool for patients with rheumatoid arthritis | 62 |
| Usual Care Usual Care Group will receive their biologic drug teaching from their rheumatologist.
Usual Care: Subjects randomized to the Usual Care Group will receive their biologic drug teaching from the rheumatologist as part of their routine care. | 63 |
| Total | 125 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 | FG001 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study | Lost to Follow-up | 3 | 5 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Decision Support Tool | Usual Care | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Categorical <=18 years | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Age, Categorical >=65 years | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Age, Categorical Between 18 and 65 years | 62 Participants | 63 Participants | 125 Participants |
| Age, Continuous | 54.3 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.3 | 56.2 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.4 | 55.3 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.4 |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 participants | 0 participants | 0 participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Asian | 0 participants | 0 participants | 0 participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Black or African American | 0 participants | 1 participants | 1 participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized More than one of the above races | 0 participants | 0 participants | 0 participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 participants | 0 participants | 0 participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Unknown or Not Reported | 3 participants | 3 participants | 6 participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized White | 59 participants | 59 participants | 118 participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 41 Participants | 44 Participants | 85 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 21 Participants | 19 Participants | 40 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 61 | 0 / 60 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 61 | 0 / 60 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 61 | 0 / 60 |
Outcome results
Primary
The Proportion of Subjects Who Are Classified as Having Made an Informed Value Concordant Choice at 2 Weeks
We classified subjects as having made an informed choice to escalate care if they answered at least 75% of the knowledge questions correctly and had low decisional conflict as defined by a score of 25 or lower on the combined subjective knowledge and values clarity subscales.
Time frame: 2 weeks
| Arm | Measure | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention Group | The Proportion of Subjects Who Are Classified as Having Made an Informed Value Concordant Choice at 2 Weeks | 32 Percentage of subjects |
| Control | The Proportion of Subjects Who Are Classified as Having Made an Informed Value Concordant Choice at 2 Weeks | 13 Percentage of subjects |
Secondary
Acceptability to Physicians
Acceptability to physicians will be assessed using four items coded on 5-point Frequency scales (1= None of the time and 5= All of the time) administered by the research assistant once all patient follow-up interviews have been completed: 1. Did the tool make it easier to talk about treatment with your patients? 2. Did the tool increase the amount of time you spent discussing therapy with your patients? 3. Did the tool decrease the amount of time you spent discussing therapy with your patients? 4. Did the tool improve the quality of informed consent for patients initiating biologics?
Time frame: 8 weeks
Population: Data not collected
Secondary
Changes in Knowledge
Knowledge will be measured using the 20 True/False statements developed for the initial pre-post test study. The number of correct responses are summed to yield a knowledge score (possible range= 0-20). The item order was determined using a random-numbers generator.
Time frame: 8 weeks
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention Group | Changes in Knowledge | 1 units on a scale |
| Control | Changes in Knowledge | 0 units on a scale |
Secondary
Changes in Perceived Knowledge
Perceived knowledge and value clarity will be measured using two subscales from the well-validated Decisional Conflict Scale (66). Each subscale is composed of 3 items measured on 5-point agree scales. Scores are rescaled to range from 0 to 100. Higher scores reflect greater conflict (poorer outcomes).
Time frame: 8 weeks
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention Group | Changes in Perceived Knowledge | -16.7 units on a scale |
| Control | Changes in Perceived Knowledge | -8.3 units on a scale |
Secondary
Changes in Willingness
Willingness: Patients' propensity towards biologics will be measured using the choice predisposition scale (65): This item is coded on a 11-point scale anchored by Not willing at all and Extremely willing with Unsure at the midpoint (65). Higher scores reflect greater willingness.
Time frame: 8 weeks
Population: Follow-up data not collected because of ceiling effect.
Secondary
Patient-physician Communication
Patient-physician communication will be measured using the COMRADE (Combined Outcome Measure for Risk communication And treatment Decision making Effectiveness): a 20-item scale composed of two subscales which address the quality of risk communication (process measure) and the quality of the decision making process (outcome measure). Items are measured on a 5-point agree scales. The COMRADE is a includes two sub-scales (each composed of 10 items): one for risk communication (a process measure) and a second for confidence in decision (an outcome measure). Subscales are summed to generate a total score (Range 20-100). Higher scores reflect poorer outcomes.
Time frame: 8 weeks
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention Group | Patient-physician Communication | 35.8 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 12.2 |
| Control | Patient-physician Communication | 35.6 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 11.3 |
Secondary
To Test Adherence to the Intervention
The session management system will record the time spent on each module visited within the tool to assess adherence.
Time frame: 8 weeks
Population: These data were not collected.
Secondary
To Test Screening and Recruitment Procedures
To test screening and recruitment procedures we will measure the number of eligible patients, the number of patients excluded by each exclusion criterion, the number of patients referred by rheumatologists each week, and the proportion of patients who agree to participate.
Time frame: 8 weeks
Population: Data not collected
Secondary
To Test Uptake
To test uptake and adherence to the intervention we will measure the proportion of patients randomized to the intervention who access the tool, complete the Best Worse Scaling exercise, print a handout, and use the handout during a follow-up visit with their rheumatologist (for subjects having a second visit within eight weeks). Note, subjects without access to a printer will have the opportunity to do so in the office.
Time frame: 8 weeks
Population: Data not collected
Secondary
Use of Biologics
Use of biologics: The number of patients received a prescription for a new biologic by eight weeks.
Time frame: 8 weeks
| Arm | Measure | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention Group | Use of Biologics | 51 Number of subjects |
| Control | Use of Biologics | 49 Number of subjects |