LAUSR

OBJECTIVE To assess why patients choose TNF- versus non-TNF biologics for treating active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after methotrexate-failure. METHODS Participants responded to the question "What sort of things help a patient decide the treatment choice between the two types of injectable biologics, TNF biologic versus non-TNF biologic, for treating active rheumatoid arthritis when methotrexate fails to control RA disease activity?" They nominated responses, discussed and then voted. RESULTS Forty-four patients participated in 10 nominal groups (Birmingham; n=6; New York City: n=4), who were predominantly female (86%), 68% white, with a mean age of 65 (standard deviation [SD], 12) years. Present/past DMARDs included methotrexate in 88%, glucocorticoids in 12%, and biologics and/or Jak-inhibitors in 68% of participants. Pain and fatigue were mild-moderate with means of 3.9 (SD, 2.5) and 4.3 (SD, 2.5), respectively, on 0-10 scale; mean morning joint stiffness was 1.3 hours (SD, 2.1). The number of groups that nominated each response and total votes were as follows: (1) Side effects/fear of side effects: 10/10; 31% votes (82/264); (2) Efficacy/ability to reduce joint damage: 9/10; 30% votes (80/264); (3) Doctor's opinion, 6/10; 12% votes (32/264); (4) Cost, 7/10; 9% votes (25/264); (5) Other drugs/comorbidity, 4/10; 12% votes (31/264); (6) Experience of others/information-seeking/own research, 2/10; 2% votes (5/264); (7) Newness, 1/10; 2% votes (6/264); and (8) Convenience/frequency of use, 1/10; 1% votes (3/264). CONCLUSIONS We identified the patient perspective of choice between TNF versus non-TNF biologic for treating active RA. This knowledge can help in informative shared decision-making in clinical care.