Patients' perspectives towards biologic dose reduction in psoriasis: a qualitative study.

Dose reduction of biologics for psoriasis could contribute to more efficient use of these expensive medicines. Evidence on opinions of patients with psoriasis regarding dose reduction is sparse. The objective of this study was therefore to explore patients' perspectives towards dose reduction of biologics for psoriasis. A qualitative study was conducted, comprising semi-structured interviews with 15 patients with psoriasis with different characteristics and treatment experiences. Interviews were analyzed by inductive thematic analysis. Perceived benefits of biologic dose reduction according to patients were minimizing medication use, lowering risks of adverse effects and lowering societal healthcare costs. Patients reported to have experienced a large impact of their psoriasis, and expressed concerns about loss of disease control due to dose reduction. Fast access to flare treatment and adequate monitoring of disease activity were among reported preconditions. According to patients, they should have confidence in dose reduction effects and should be willing to change their effective treatment. Moreover, addressing information needs and involvement in decision-making were deemed important among patients. In conclusion, addressing patients' concerns, fulfilling information needs, providing the possibility of resuming standard dose, and involving patients in decision-making are important according to patients with psoriasis when considering biologic dose reduction.

National consensus on biologic dose reduction in psoriasis: a modified eDelphi procedure.

BACKGROUND: Dose reduction of biologics for psoriasis is applied in daily practice, although guidelines are lacking. Striving for clear criteria is important, as it leads to a consistent application of dose reduction. OBJECTIVE: To achieve consensus on criteria for biologic dose reduction in psoriasis patients with stable and low disease activity. METHODS: An online Delphi procedure (eDelphi) was conducted. Dutch dermatologists were invited to participate in a maximum of 3 voting rounds. Proposed statements were selected based on literature review and included criteria for the application of dose reduction and dosing schedules. Biologic dose reduction was defined as 'application of injection interval prolongation'. Proposed statements were rated using a 9-point Likert scale; consensus was reached when ≥70% of all voters rated 'agree' (7-9) and <15% rated 'disagree' (1-3). RESULTS: A total of 27 dermatologists participated and reached a consensus on 15 recommendations over 2 voting rounds. Agreed statements included criteria for dose reduction eligibility, criteria for dose reduction (dis)continuation, and dosing schedules for adalimumab, etanercept, and ustekinumab. Based on the eDelphi outcomes, an algorithm fit for implementation in current practice was developed. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations of this national consensus process can guide clinicians, and consequently their patients, toward consistent application of biologic dose reduction.

Freedom from disease in psoriasis: a Delphi consensus definition by patients, nurses and physicians.

BACKGROUND: Physician-reported clinical outcome and quality of life (QoL) measures are currently used to assess outcomes and direct treatment of plaque psoriasis. However, people with psoriasis may have different criteria for judging treatment success. OBJECTIVES: To build a unified consensus on the definition of 'freedom from disease' from a European stakeholder group, including people with psoriasis, dermatologists and nurses. METHODS: The modified Delphi consensus methodology was used to define 'freedom from disease', with a consensus group consisting of people with psoriasis, nurses and dermatologists. This methodology involved people with psoriasis during the entire process and consisted of a 15-member Facilitating Consensus Panel to drive the programme content and a larger Voting Consensus Panel to vote on defining 'freedom from disease'. The Facilitating Panel agreed on disease domains, and aspects of each domain were put forward to the Voting Consensus Panel to establish relative importance. Following two voting rounds, a meeting was held to agree on a final consensus statement. RESULTS: The Facilitating Panel consisted of six patient advocacy group representatives, three specialist nurses and six dermatologists. Voting rounds 1 and 2 were completed by 166 and 130 respondents from the Voting Consensus Panel, respectively. The outputs from both rounds of voting were similar, focusing on normality of living, symptom control, and a relationship of mutual respect and trust between the individual with psoriasis and their healthcare professional. The consensus statement emphasizes that 'freedom from disease' is multifaceted and includes the following domains 'management of clinical symptoms', 'psychosocial elements', 'QoL and well-being', 'treatment' and 'healthcare team support'. 'Freedom from disease' means all aspects are addressed. CONCLUSIONS: Freedom from disease in psoriasis is a multicomponent concept including five main domains. This diverse and multifaceted patient perspective will help us to improve understanding of the outcomes of treatment interventions in people with psoriasis.

This is an older men's world: A qualitative study of men's experiences with prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer is highly prevalent and invasive among older men. Not knowing their experiences hampers care and support to men with prostate cancer and prostate cancer survivors. This study aims to provide insight into older men's experiences with prostate cancer in order to improve personalised care. METHODS: A qualitative research design through semi-structured interviews with 22 older men with prostate cancer was conducted in two areas of the Netherlands in 2015. Patients were selected through systematic non-probabilistic sampling. The transcripts were analysed with conventional content analysis and affinity diagramming. RESULTS: Four themes emerged from the data: impact of prostate cancer, dealing with prostate cancer and treatment, involvement of and with others, and experiences with professional care and the care trajectory. The way patients dealt with prostate cancer and their experiences with the care they received varied. Overall, hospital care was rated positively, and communication was a crucial determinant of the patient's satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Some patients lacked information about their health status, which may have influenced decision-making processes. Some were reluctant to talk about their disease with other people and sometimes hesitated to ask for help. CONCLUSION: Despite many positive care experiences, some patients felt that the communication, information provision and decision-making were inadequate. Vulnerable patients with severe complications or limited social support may need additional psychosocial care. Lowering the threshold for patients to ask for help and the availability of a professional with expert knowledge about prostate cancer and ageing may decrease unnecessary hardship and increase personal strengths.

Patient navigation and activation interventions for elderly patients with cancer: A systematic review.

Patient navigation (PN) and patient activation (PA) interventions are widely used to help patients with cancer to manage the disease and the care trajectory. However, the usability and impact of these interventions on older patients and their well-being are unclear. This study aims to show which PN and PA interventions are being used and what impact they have. After systematically searching the literature, we assessed the quality of the publications we found. The publications had to involve at least a subgroup of older people with minimally one abnormal oncologic test result each, and they had to focus on PN or PA interventions. Six PA publications examined the interventions exclusively for elderly patients. Each of the 11 PN and PA publications contained at least one comment about the impact on older patients. The types of impact varied substantially, but there was scant attention to the quality of life. The type of intervention, the outcome measures and the quality of publications also varied considerably. Generally, age is not an important factor in PN and PA studies. To facilitate adjustment of navigation and activation interventions to the individual patient, more rigorous research into the impact of PN and PA interventions on older patients is necessary.