Gyanendra Pokharel1, Rob Deardon2, Sindhu R Johnson3,4, George Tomlinson4, Pauline M Hull5, Glen S Hazlewood5,6. 1. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Science, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Canada. 2. Departments of Mathematics and Statistics and Production Animal Health, Faculties of Science and Veterinary Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. 3. Division of Rheumatology, Toronto Western Hospital, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Department of Community Health Sciences, Calgary, Canada. 6. Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To quantify rheumatologists' beliefs about the effectiveness of triple therapy (MTX + HCQ + SSZ) and other commonly used initial treatments for RA. METHODS: In a Bayesian belief elicitation exercise, 40 rheumatologists distributed 20 chips, each representing 5% of their total weight of belief on the probability that a typical patient with moderate-severe early RA would have an ACR50 response within 6 months with MTX (oral and s.c.), MTX + HCQ (dual therapy) and triple therapy. Parametric distributions were fit, and used to calculate pairwise median relative risks (RR), with 95% credible intervals, and estimate sample sizes for new trials to shift these beliefs. RESULTS: In the pooled analysis, triple therapy was perceived to be superior to MTX (RR 1.97; 1.35, 2.89) and dual therapy (RR 1.32; 1.03, 1.73). A pessimistic subgroup (n = 10) perceived all treatments to be similar, whereas an optimistic subgroup (n = 10) believed triple therapy to be most effective of all (RR 4.03; 2.22, 10.12). Similar variability was seen for the comparison between oral and s.c. MTX. Assuming triple therapy is truly more effective than MTX, a trial of 100 patients would be required to convince the pessimists; if triple therapy truly has no-modest effect (RR <1.5), a non-inferiority trial of 475 patients would be required to convince the optimists. CONCLUSION: Rheumatologists' beliefs regarding the effectiveness of triple therapy vary, which may partially explain the variability in its use. Owing to the strength of beliefs, some may be reluctant to shift, even with new evidence.
OBJECTIVES: To quantify rheumatologists' beliefs about the effectiveness of triple therapy (MTX + HCQ + SSZ) and other commonly used initial treatments for RA. METHODS: In a Bayesian belief elicitation exercise, 40 rheumatologists distributed 20 chips, each representing 5% of their total weight of belief on the probability that a typical patient with moderate-severe early RA would have an ACR50 response within 6 months with MTX (oral and s.c.), MTX + HCQ (dual therapy) and triple therapy. Parametric distributions were fit, and used to calculate pairwise median relative risks (RR), with 95% credible intervals, and estimate sample sizes for new trials to shift these beliefs. RESULTS: In the pooled analysis, triple therapy was perceived to be superior to MTX (RR 1.97; 1.35, 2.89) and dual therapy (RR 1.32; 1.03, 1.73). A pessimistic subgroup (n = 10) perceived all treatments to be similar, whereas an optimistic subgroup (n = 10) believed triple therapy to be most effective of all (RR 4.03; 2.22, 10.12). Similar variability was seen for the comparison between oral and s.c. MTX. Assuming triple therapy is truly more effective than MTX, a trial of 100 patients would be required to convince the pessimists; if triple therapy truly has no-modest effect (RR <1.5), a non-inferiority trial of 475 patients would be required to convince the optimists. CONCLUSION: Rheumatologists' beliefs regarding the effectiveness of triple therapy vary, which may partially explain the variability in its use. Owing to the strength of beliefs, some may be reluctant to shift, even with new evidence.
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Gunn E Vist; Regina Kunz; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Holger J Schünemann Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-04-26
Authors: Sindhu R Johnson; George A Tomlinson; Gillian A Hawker; John T Granton; Brian M Feldman Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-08-27 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Josef S Smolen; Robert B M Landewé; Johannes W J Bijlsma; Gerd R Burmester; Maxime Dougados; Andreas Kerschbaumer; Iain B McInnes; Alexandre Sepriano; Ronald F van Vollenhoven; Maarten de Wit; Daniel Aletaha; Martin Aringer; John Askling; Alejandro Balsa; Maarten Boers; Alfons A den Broeder; Maya H Buch; Frank Buttgereit; Roberto Caporali; Mario Humberto Cardiel; Diederik De Cock; Catalin Codreanu; Maurizio Cutolo; Christopher John Edwards; Yvonne van Eijk-Hustings; Paul Emery; Axel Finckh; Laure Gossec; Jacques-Eric Gottenberg; Merete Lund Hetland; Tom W J Huizinga; Marios Koloumas; Zhanguo Li; Xavier Mariette; Ulf Müller-Ladner; Eduardo F Mysler; Jose A P da Silva; Gyula Poór; Janet E Pope; Andrea Rubbert-Roth; Adeline Ruyssen-Witrand; Kenneth G Saag; Anja Strangfeld; Tsutomu Takeuchi; Marieke Voshaar; René Westhovens; Désirée van der Heijde Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2020-01-22 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Jamie A Harris; Vivian P Bykerk; Carol A Hitchon; E C Keystone; J Carter Thorne; Gilles Boire; Boulos Haraoui; Glen Hazlewood; Ashley J Bonner; Janet E Pope Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2013-09-15 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Jan O Jansen; Henry Wang; John B Holcomb; John A Harvin; Joshua Richman; Elenir Avritscher; Shannon W Stephens; Van Thi Thanh Truong; Marisa B Marques; Stacia M DeSantis; Jose-Miguel Yamal; Claudia Pedroza Journal: Transfusion Date: 2020-01-22 Impact factor: 3.157