Table 3.
Top reasons for treatment choice for each class of advanced therapy among patients with moderate-high Disease Activity Score (DAS28 >3.2).
| Class of advanced therapy | |||||
| Base | TNF inhibitors | JAK inhibitors | CD20/28 inhibitors | IL-6 inhibitors | |
| Base | 516 | 291 | 116 | 58 | 51 |
| Strong overall efficacy | 71.3% | 68.0% | 75.0% | 74.1% | 78.4% |
| Inhibition of disease progression | 44.8% | 43.6% | 44.0% | 50.0% | 47.1% |
| My familiarity/experience with product | 37.6% | 37.8% | 30.2% | 43.1% | 47.1% |
| Overall safety profile | 34.1% | 30.9% | 30.2% | 56.9% | 35.3% |
| Control of acute episode/flare | 32.9% | 30.2% | 26.7% | 43.1% | 49.0% |
| Convincing efficacy data in clinical trials | 31.4% | 26.7% | 34.5% | 37.9% | 45.1% |
| Patient centricity combined* | 31.4% | 25.8% | 41.4% | 36.2% | 35.3% |
| Reduction in stiffness | 30.0% | 28.9% | 27.6% | 27.6% | 45.1% |
| Fast onset of action | 28.9% | 24.4% | 39.7% | 19.0% | 41.2% |
| Improvement or maintenance of QoL (work, leisure, outlook, etc.) | 27.7% | 23.7% | 31.0% | 25.9% | 45.1% |
| Achievement of clinical remission | 27.3% | 21.3% | 30.2% | 34.5% | 47.1% |
| Enabling patient to perform everyday tasks/usual activities | 26.9% | 22.7% | 26.7% | 31.0% | 47.1% |
| Achievement of low disease activity | 25.4% | 20.3% | 28.4% | 34.5% | 37.3% |
| Maintenance of efficacy over time | 25.4% | 24.1% | 16.4% | 36.2% | 41.2% |
| Allows reduction in steroid use | 24.8% | 20.3% | 29.3% | 19.0% | 47.1% |
| Product inclusion in local/national formulary | 23.8% | 24.7% | 19.8% | 22.4% | 29.4% |
| Acceptability of method of delivery for the patient | 22.9% | 17.5% | 34.5% | 24.1% | 25.5% |
| Sustained pain relief | 22.9% | 17.5% | 25.0% | 25.9% | 45.1% |
| Strong efficacy as monotherapy | 22.3% | 14.8% | 35.3% | 8.6% | 51.0% |
| I believe it will achieve my treat-to-target goal | 22.3% | 15.8% | 30.2% | 25.9% | 37.3% |
| Reduction of fatigue | 18.8% | 14.1% | 22.4% | 15.5% | 41.2% |
| Ease of product use (for the patient) | 15.9% | 11.0% | 24.1% | 19.0% | 21.6% |
| Does not exacerbate comorbidities | 12.8% | 10.7% | 9.5% | 31.0% | 11.8% |
| Suitability for patients with C/V risk | 11.8% | 9.6% | 10.3% | 20.7% | 17.6% |
| Product provides a reasonable cost benefit ratio | 11.0% | 13.7% | 7.8% | 8.6% | 5.9% |
| Does not exacerbate non-autoimmune conditions | 10.7% | 8.6% | 15.5% | 17.2% | 3.9% |
| Low out of pocket cost/affordability for patients | 9.7% | 10.0% | 7.8% | 10.3% | 11.8% |
| Few administrative controls on product use | 9.5% | 10.3% | 7.8% | 10.3% | 7.8% |
| Improving patient’s mood/state of mind | 9.3% | 8.9% | 6.0% | 10.3% | 17.6% |
| Drug-drug interaction data | 8.3% | 8.9% | 6.9% | 8.6% | 7.8% |
| Contraindication data | 7.6% | 8.2% | 4.3% | 13.8% | 3.9% |
| Also improves concomitant autoimmune conditions | 7.4% | 6.2% | 8.6% | 12.1% | 5.9% |
This question was multichoice, rheumatologists were able to select more than one option, if appropriate.
*Patient centricity combined included the proportion of physicians to have selected at least one of the following three patient-centric reasons for choice: ‘ease of product use (for the patient)’, ‘acceptability of method of delivery for the patient’ and ‘low out-of-pocket cost/affordability for patients’.
C/V, cardiovascular; IL-6, interleukin-6; JAK, Janus kinase; QoL, quality of life; TNF, tumour necrosis factor.