| Characteristic | N | N = 981 |
|---|---|---|
| role | 98 | |
| Accreditor | 1 (1.02%) | |
| Managed care stakeholder | 3 (3.06%) | |
| Pharmaceutical industry stakeholder | 3 (3.06%) | |
| Pharmacy analyst | 9 (9.18%) | |
| Prescribing provider | 12 (12.2%) | |
| RA ambulatory care pharmacist | 8 (8.16%) | |
| SP leadership | 25 (25.5%) | |
| SP technician/liaison | 9 (9.18%) | |
| Specialty pharmacy provider | 28 (28.6%) | |
| 1 n (%) | ||
Identifying Outcome Measures for Specialty Pharmacists in Rheumatoid Arthritis Using the Modified Delphi Method
1 Round 1
1.1 Participant roles
1.2 Bar charts
1.3 Summary of measures
| Characteristic | N |
type
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Important, N = 98 | Usable, N = 98 | ||
| Adherence | 193 | ||
| Mean (SD) | 9.1 (1.7) | 8.8 (1.8) | |
| Median (IQR) | 10.0 (9.0 - 10.0) | 10.0 (8.0 - 10.0) | |
| Range | 2.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 10.0 | |
| Missing | 1 | 2 | |
| Medication outcomes | 192 | ||
| Mean (SD) | 8.2 (2.2) | 7.8 (2.3) | |
| Median (IQR) | 9.0 (7.0 - 10.0) | 8.0 (6.8 - 10.0) | |
| Range | 0.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | |
| Missing | 2 | 2 | |
| Patient response to therapy | 194 | ||
| Mean (SD) | 7.9 (2.5) | 7.5 (2.3) | |
| Median (IQR) | 9.0 (7.0 - 10.0) | 8.0 (6.0 - 9.0) | |
| Range | 0.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | |
| Missing | 1 | 1 | |
| Safety screening | 192 | ||
| Mean (SD) | 7.9 (2.3) | 7.4 (2.5) | |
| Median (IQR) | 9.0 (6.0 - 10.0) | 8.0 (5.0 - 10.0) | |
| Range | 1.0 - 10.0 | 1.0 - 10.0 | |
| Missing | 2 | 2 | |
| Patient functional status | 194 | ||
| Mean (SD) | 7.6 (2.4) | 7.4 (2.3) | |
| Median (IQR) | 8.0 (7.0 - 10.0) | 8.0 (6.0 - 9.0) | |
| Range | 0.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | |
| Missing | 1 | 1 | |
| Disease activity | 196 | ||
| Mean (SD) | 7.4 (2.6) | 7.3 (2.4) | |
| Median (IQR) | 8.0 (6.0 - 9.8) | 8.0 (6.0 - 9.0) | |
| Range | 0.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | |
| Patient quality of life | 192 | ||
| Mean (SD) | 6.8 (2.8) | 6.3 (2.7) | |
| Median (IQR) | 7.0 (5.0 - 9.0) | 6.0 (5.0 - 8.0) | |
| Range | 0.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | |
| Missing | 2 | 2 | |
| Unplanned healthcare utilization | 192 | ||
| Mean (SD) | 6.1 (2.7) | 5.9 (2.6) | |
| Median (IQR) | 7.0 (5.0 - 8.0) | 6.0 (5.0 - 8.0) | |
| Range | 0.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | |
| Missing | 2 | 2 | |
| Planned healthcare utilization | 192 | ||
| Mean (SD) | 6.0 (2.7) | 5.7 (2.6) | |
| Median (IQR) | 6.0 (5.0 - 8.0) | 5.0 (4.0 - 8.0) | |
| Range | 0.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | |
| Missing | 2 | 2 | |
| Productivity | 190 | ||
| Mean (SD) | 5.7 (2.7) | 5.6 (2.5) | |
| Median (IQR) | 6.0 (4.0 - 8.0) | 5.0 (4.0 - 7.0) | |
| Range | 0.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | |
| Missing | 3 | 3 | |
1.4 Boxplot
1.5 Rankings
1.5.1 Mean and SD
1.6 Role-level results
1.6.1 Summary statistics
| Characteristic | N |
role
|
p-value1 | Overall, N = 98 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accreditor, N = 1 | Managed care stakeholder, N = 3 | Pharmaceutical industry stakeholder, N = 3 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 9 | Prescribing provider, N = 12 | RA ambulatory care pharmacist, N = 8 | SP leadership, N = 25 | SP technician/liaison, N = 9 | Specialty pharmacy provider, N = 28 | ||||
| Disease activity: Important | 98 | <0.001 | ||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 7.0 (NA) | 6.7 (1.5) | 9.7 (0.6) | 9.6 (0.7) | 4.0 (3.0) | 7.4 (2.6) | 8.3 (1.4) | 7.8 (2.8) | 7.1 (2.6) | 7.4 (2.6) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 7.0 (7.0 - 7.0) | 7.0 (6.0 - 7.5) | 10.0 (9.5 - 10.0) | 10.0 (9.0 - 10.0) | 4.5 (2.0 - 5.3) | 8.0 (7.3 - 9.0) | 8.0 (8.0 - 9.0) | 8.0 (7.0 - 10.0) | 8.0 (5.8 - 9.0) | 8.0 (6.0 - 9.8) | ||
| Range | 7.0 - 7.0 | 5.0 - 8.0 | 9.0 - 10.0 | 8.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | ||
| Patient functional status: Important | 97 | 0.047 | ||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 9.0 (NA) | 8.0 (0.0) | 8.3 (1.5) | 8.0 (1.9) | 4.5 (3.2) | 8.0 (1.9) | 8.7 (1.3) | 7.6 (2.2) | 7.7 (2.4) | 7.6 (2.4) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 9.0 (9.0 - 9.0) | 8.0 (8.0 - 8.0) | 8.0 (7.5 - 9.0) | 8.0 (7.0 - 10.0) | 4.5 (2.8 - 5.3) | 8.5 (7.8 - 9.0) | 9.0 (8.0 - 10.0) | 8.0 (6.5 - 9.3) | 8.0 (6.8 - 10.0) | 8.0 (7.0 - 10.0) | ||
| Range | 9.0 - 9.0 | 8.0 - 8.0 | 7.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 4.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 4.0 - 10.0 | 1.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | ||
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Patient response to therapy: Important | 97 | 0.004 | ||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 9.0 (NA) | 8.3 (1.2) | 9.0 (1.7) | 8.3 (2.4) | 4.8 (2.3) | 8.0 (2.1) | 8.6 (1.8) | 9.0 (1.9) | 8.0 (2.7) | 7.9 (2.5) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 9.0 (9.0 - 9.0) | 9.0 (8.0 - 9.0) | 10.0 (8.5 - 10.0) | 10.0 (7.0 - 10.0) | 5.0 (3.0 - 7.0) | 8.5 (6.0 - 10.0) | 9.0 (8.0 - 10.0) | 10.0 (9.3 - 10.0) | 9.0 (7.0 - 10.0) | 9.0 (7.0 - 10.0) | ||
| Range | 9.0 - 9.0 | 7.0 - 9.0 | 7.0 - 10.0 | 4.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 7.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | ||
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Adherence: Important | 97 | 0.054 | ||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 7.0 (NA) | 9.3 (1.2) | 10.0 (0.0) | 9.1 (1.4) | 8.0 (2.6) | 9.6 (0.5) | 9.8 (0.5) | 8.5 (2.3) | 8.9 (1.8) | 9.1 (1.7) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 7.0 (7.0 - 7.0) | 10.0 (9.0 - 10.0) | 10.0 (10.0 - 10.0) | 10.0 (9.0 - 10.0) | 9.0 (7.3 - 10.0) | 10.0 (9.0 - 10.0) | 10.0 (10.0 - 10.0) | 10.0 (7.3 - 10.0) | 10.0 (8.0 - 10.0) | 10.0 (9.0 - 10.0) | ||
| Range | 7.0 - 7.0 | 8.0 - 10.0 | 10.0 - 10.0 | 6.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 10.0 | 9.0 - 10.0 | 8.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 10.0 | ||
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Safety screening: Important | 96 | 0.284 | ||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 8.0 (NA) | 6.7 (2.9) | 9.7 (0.6) | 6.8 (2.6) | 6.7 (3.1) | 8.3 (1.8) | 8.6 (1.8) | 6.9 (2.9) | 8.3 (2.1) | 7.9 (2.3) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 8.0 (8.0 - 8.0) | 5.0 (5.0 - 7.5) | 10.0 (9.5 - 10.0) | 6.0 (5.0 - 10.0) | 7.0 (4.5 - 9.3) | 8.5 (6.8 - 10.0) | 9.0 (8.0 - 10.0) | 6.5 (4.8 - 10.0) | 9.0 (7.0 - 10.0) | 9.0 (6.0 - 10.0) | ||
| Range | 8.0 - 8.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 9.0 - 10.0 | 3.0 - 10.0 | 1.0 - 10.0 | 6.0 - 10.0 | 4.0 - 10.0 | 3.0 - 10.0 | 3.0 - 10.0 | 1.0 - 10.0 | ||
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| Patient quality of life: Important | 96 | 0.013 | ||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 10.0 (NA) | 7.3 (2.9) | 9.0 (1.7) | 7.9 (2.0) | 3.3 (3.3) | 6.4 (2.6) | 7.6 (2.1) | 7.3 (2.4) | 6.7 (2.6) | 6.8 (2.8) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 10.0 (10.0 - 10.0) | 9.0 (6.5 - 9.0) | 10.0 (8.5 - 10.0) | 8.0 (6.0 - 10.0) | 2.0 (0.8 - 5.0) | 6.5 (4.5 - 8.3) | 8.0 (6.0 - 10.0) | 6.5 (5.0 - 10.0) | 7.0 (5.0 - 8.0) | 7.0 (5.0 - 9.0) | ||
| Range | 10.0 - 10.0 | 4.0 - 9.0 | 7.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 3.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | ||
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| Medication outcomes: Important | 96 | 0.190 | ||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 8.0 (NA) | 8.7 (1.5) | 10.0 (0.0) | 7.7 (2.1) | 6.4 (3.7) | 7.4 (2.9) | 8.5 (1.6) | 9.1 (1.2) | 8.5 (1.6) | 8.2 (2.2) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 8.0 (8.0 - 8.0) | 9.0 (8.0 - 9.5) | 10.0 (10.0 - 10.0) | 8.0 (7.0 - 9.0) | 8.0 (4.5 - 9.0) | 7.5 (7.0 - 9.3) | 9.0 (8.0 - 10.0) | 10.0 (8.0 - 10.0) | 9.0 (7.5 - 10.0) | 9.0 (7.0 - 10.0) | ||
| Range | 8.0 - 8.0 | 7.0 - 10.0 | 10.0 - 10.0 | 3.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 1.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 7.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | ||
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| Unplanned healthcare utilization: Important | 96 | 0.501 | ||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 6.0 (NA) | 7.3 (2.9) | 5.7 (4.5) | 7.3 (1.7) | 4.8 (3.7) | 5.6 (2.9) | 6.9 (1.9) | 6.0 (3.4) | 5.7 (2.5) | 6.1 (2.7) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 6.0 (6.0 - 6.0) | 9.0 (6.5 - 9.0) | 6.0 (3.5 - 8.0) | 8.0 (7.0 - 8.0) | 4.0 (2.0 - 7.8) | 5.0 (4.3 - 7.5) | 7.0 (5.0 - 7.0) | 8.0 (2.8 - 8.0) | 5.0 (5.0 - 7.5) | 7.0 (5.0 - 8.0) | ||
| Range | 6.0 - 6.0 | 4.0 - 9.0 | 1.0 - 10.0 | 3.0 - 9.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 10.0 | 4.0 - 10.0 | 1.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | ||
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| Planned healthcare utilization: Important | 96 | 0.666 | ||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 7.0 (NA) | 4.7 (1.5) | 6.7 (2.9) | 7.1 (2.3) | 6.0 (3.5) | 6.0 (2.1) | 6.0 (2.4) | 7.1 (3.1) | 5.2 (2.8) | 6.0 (2.7) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 7.0 (7.0 - 7.0) | 5.0 (4.0 - 5.5) | 5.0 (5.0 - 7.5) | 8.0 (6.0 - 8.0) | 7.5 (4.3 - 8.3) | 6.5 (4.5 - 8.0) | 5.0 (5.0 - 7.0) | 7.5 (4.8 - 10.0) | 5.0 (4.5 - 7.0) | 6.0 (5.0 - 8.0) | ||
| Range | 7.0 - 7.0 | 3.0 - 6.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 3.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 3.0 - 8.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 3.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | ||
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| Productivity: Important | 95 | 0.035 | ||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 7.0 (NA) | 4.0 (1.7) | 6.0 (1.7) | 7.3 (2.2) | 3.1 (3.6) | 6.0 (1.2) | 6.5 (2.2) | 5.3 (3.2) | 5.8 (2.4) | 5.7 (2.7) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 7.0 (7.0 - 7.0) | 3.0 (3.0 - 4.5) | 5.0 (5.0 - 6.5) | 8.0 (7.0 - 9.0) | 2.0 (0.0 - 3.5) | 5.5 (5.0 - 7.0) | 6.0 (5.0 - 8.0) | 5.0 (2.8 - 7.5) | 6.0 (5.0 - 7.8) | 6.0 (4.0 - 8.0) | ||
| Range | 7.0 - 7.0 | 3.0 - 6.0 | 5.0 - 8.0 | 3.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 8.0 | 3.0 - 10.0 | 1.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | ||
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| 1 Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test | ||||||||||||
| Characteristic | N |
role
|
p-value1 | Overall, N = 98 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accreditor, N = 1 | Managed care stakeholder, N = 3 | Pharmaceutical industry stakeholder, N = 3 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 9 | Prescribing provider, N = 12 | RA ambulatory care pharmacist, N = 8 | SP leadership, N = 25 | SP technician/liaison, N = 9 | Specialty pharmacy provider, N = 28 | ||||
| Disease activity: Usable | 98 | 0.369 | ||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 6.0 (NA) | 6.7 (1.5) | 7.7 (2.1) | 8.7 (1.7) | 6.1 (2.8) | 7.4 (3.1) | 7.5 (1.6) | 7.9 (2.5) | 7.0 (2.8) | 7.3 (2.4) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 6.0 (6.0 - 6.0) | 7.0 (6.0 - 7.5) | 7.0 (6.5 - 8.5) | 9.0 (8.0 - 10.0) | 6.0 (5.0 - 8.0) | 8.5 (6.5 - 9.3) | 7.0 (7.0 - 9.0) | 8.0 (7.0 - 10.0) | 7.5 (5.0 - 9.0) | 8.0 (6.0 - 9.0) | ||
| Range | 6.0 - 6.0 | 5.0 - 8.0 | 6.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 1.0 - 10.0 | 1.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 3.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | ||
| Patient functional status: Usable | 97 | 0.198 | ||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 8.0 (NA) | 8.0 (0.0) | 8.7 (1.5) | 7.2 (2.2) | 5.5 (2.9) | 7.5 (2.7) | 8.3 (1.7) | 7.4 (2.0) | 7.3 (2.3) | 7.4 (2.3) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 8.0 (8.0 - 8.0) | 8.0 (8.0 - 8.0) | 9.0 (8.0 - 9.5) | 7.0 (5.0 - 9.0) | 5.0 (4.8 - 7.3) | 9.0 (5.0 - 9.3) | 9.0 (7.0 - 10.0) | 7.5 (5.8 - 8.5) | 8.0 (6.0 - 9.0) | 8.0 (6.0 - 9.0) | ||
| Range | 8.0 - 8.0 | 8.0 - 8.0 | 7.0 - 10.0 | 4.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 3.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 1.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | ||
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Patient response to therapy: Usable | 97 | 0.496 | ||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 8.0 (NA) | 7.7 (1.5) | 7.0 (2.6) | 7.1 (2.4) | 6.2 (2.1) | 7.1 (2.7) | 7.9 (2.0) | 8.0 (2.5) | 7.8 (2.4) | 7.5 (2.3) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 8.0 (8.0 - 8.0) | 8.0 (7.0 - 8.5) | 6.0 (5.5 - 8.0) | 7.0 (5.0 - 9.0) | 6.5 (5.0 - 7.3) | 7.5 (5.8 - 9.3) | 8.0 (6.0 - 9.0) | 9.5 (5.0 - 10.0) | 8.5 (6.8 - 10.0) | 8.0 (6.0 - 9.0) | ||
| Range | 8.0 - 8.0 | 6.0 - 9.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 4.0 - 10.0 | 3.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | ||
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Adherence: Usable | 96 | 0.069 | ||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 8.0 (NA) | 9.7 (0.6) | 10.0 (0.0) | 8.2 (1.6) | 8.1 (2.4) | 9.6 (0.7) | 9.4 (1.4) | 8.4 (2.2) | 8.6 (1.9) | 8.8 (1.8) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 8.0 (8.0 - 8.0) | 10.0 (9.5 - 10.0) | 10.0 (10.0 - 10.0) | 8.0 (8.0 - 10.0) | 8.5 (8.0 - 10.0) | 10.0 (9.8 - 10.0) | 10.0 (10.0 - 10.0) | 9.5 (7.3 - 10.0) | 9.0 (8.0 - 10.0) | 10.0 (8.0 - 10.0) | ||
| Range | 8.0 - 8.0 | 9.0 - 10.0 | 10.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 10.0 | 8.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 10.0 | ||
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| Safety screening: Usable | 96 | 0.632 | ||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 6.0 (NA) | 8.7 (1.2) | 7.7 (2.1) | 6.0 (2.8) | 7.1 (3.1) | 8.1 (2.0) | 7.9 (2.5) | 6.8 (2.6) | 7.3 (2.3) | 7.4 (2.5) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 6.0 (6.0 - 6.0) | 8.0 (8.0 - 9.0) | 7.0 (6.5 - 8.5) | 5.0 (5.0 - 7.0) | 8.0 (5.8 - 9.3) | 8.5 (6.0 - 10.0) | 9.0 (5.0 - 10.0) | 6.5 (5.0 - 8.5) | 8.0 (5.0 - 9.5) | 8.0 (5.0 - 10.0) | ||
| Range | 6.0 - 6.0 | 8.0 - 10.0 | 6.0 - 10.0 | 1.0 - 10.0 | 1.0 - 10.0 | 6.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 10.0 | 3.0 - 10.0 | 3.0 - 10.0 | 1.0 - 10.0 | ||
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| Patient quality of life: Usable | 96 | 0.286 | ||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 7.0 (NA) | 6.0 (1.0) | 7.3 (2.1) | 7.6 (2.2) | 4.3 (3.3) | 5.4 (2.4) | 6.8 (2.6) | 6.9 (3.0) | 6.1 (2.6) | 6.3 (2.7) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 7.0 (7.0 - 7.0) | 6.0 (5.5 - 6.5) | 8.0 (6.5 - 8.5) | 7.0 (6.0 - 10.0) | 5.0 (1.8 - 5.8) | 5.5 (4.3 - 7.3) | 7.0 (5.0 - 9.0) | 6.5 (5.0 - 10.0) | 6.0 (5.0 - 8.0) | 6.0 (5.0 - 8.0) | ||
| Range | 7.0 - 7.0 | 5.0 - 7.0 | 5.0 - 9.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 8.0 | 1.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | ||
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| Medication outcomes: Usable | 96 | 0.379 | ||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 8.0 (NA) | 7.7 (2.5) | 8.0 (2.6) | 6.1 (2.2) | 7.1 (3.2) | 7.5 (3.1) | 8.1 (2.2) | 8.8 (1.9) | 8.3 (1.7) | 7.8 (2.3) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 8.0 (8.0 - 8.0) | 8.0 (6.5 - 9.0) | 9.0 (7.0 - 9.5) | 7.0 (5.0 - 8.0) | 8.0 (5.0 - 10.0) | 8.5 (7.3 - 9.3) | 9.0 (6.0 - 10.0) | 10.0 (7.8 - 10.0) | 8.0 (7.0 - 10.0) | 8.0 (6.8 - 10.0) | ||
| Range | 8.0 - 8.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 3.0 - 9.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 1.0 - 10.0 | 3.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | ||
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| Unplanned healthcare utilization: Usable | 96 | 0.587 | ||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 5.0 (NA) | 8.7 (1.5) | 7.0 (2.6) | 6.7 (1.6) | 5.8 (3.5) | 5.9 (2.9) | 5.8 (2.2) | 5.8 (3.2) | 5.5 (2.5) | 5.9 (2.6) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 5.0 (5.0 - 5.0) | 9.0 (8.0 - 9.5) | 6.0 (5.5 - 8.0) | 7.0 (6.0 - 8.0) | 6.0 (2.8 - 8.5) | 6.0 (4.3 - 7.5) | 5.0 (5.0 - 7.0) | 6.5 (3.5 - 8.0) | 5.0 (5.0 - 7.5) | 6.0 (5.0 - 8.0) | ||
| Range | 5.0 - 5.0 | 7.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 3.0 - 8.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 10.0 | 1.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | ||
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| Planned healthcare utilization: Usable | 96 | 0.795 | ||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 6.0 (NA) | 5.7 (1.5) | 6.7 (2.9) | 5.6 (1.8) | 6.8 (3.2) | 5.8 (2.2) | 5.4 (2.4) | 6.5 (3.0) | 5.0 (2.7) | 5.7 (2.6) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 6.0 (6.0 - 6.0) | 6.0 (5.0 - 6.5) | 5.0 (5.0 - 7.5) | 5.0 (4.0 - 7.0) | 7.5 (6.3 - 9.0) | 5.5 (4.5 - 7.3) | 5.0 (4.0 - 7.0) | 5.0 (4.8 - 10.0) | 5.0 (4.5 - 7.0) | 5.0 (4.0 - 8.0) | ||
| Range | 6.0 - 6.0 | 4.0 - 7.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 3.0 - 8.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 3.0 - 9.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 3.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | ||
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| Productivity: Usable | 95 | 0.389 | ||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 5.0 (NA) | 4.0 (1.0) | 8.0 (2.6) | 6.4 (1.9) | 4.4 (3.7) | 5.5 (1.4) | 6.1 (2.4) | 5.8 (2.9) | 5.5 (2.4) | 5.6 (2.5) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 5.0 (5.0 - 5.0) | 4.0 (3.5 - 4.5) | 9.0 (7.0 - 9.5) | 7.0 (5.0 - 8.0) | 3.5 (1.8 - 8.0) | 5.0 (5.0 - 7.0) | 6.0 (5.0 - 7.0) | 5.0 (4.8 - 7.5) | 5.0 (4.0 - 7.0) | 5.0 (4.0 - 7.0) | ||
| Range | 5.0 - 5.0 | 3.0 - 5.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 3.0 - 9.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 3.0 - 7.0 | 2.0 - 10.0 | 1.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | ||
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| 1 Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test | ||||||||||||
1.6.2 Means by role
1.6.3 Scatterplot - mean
2 Round 2
2.1 Participant roles
| Characteristic | N | N = 901 |
|---|---|---|
| Please select your expert panel type based on the below descriptions. | 90 | |
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA | 11 (12.2%) | |
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement | 16 (17.8%) | |
| Specialty pharmacy technician/liaison | 7 (7.78%) | |
| Prescribing provider (MD/Advanced practice provider) | 13 (14.4%) | |
| Ambulatory care pharmacist | 3 (3.33%) | |
| Managed care stakeholder | 2 (2.22%) | |
| Pharmaceutical industry stakeholder | 4 (4.44%) | |
| Accreditor | 1 (1.11%) | |
| Pharmacy analyst | 5 (5.56%) | |
| Specialty pharmacy leader | 28 (31.1%) | |
| 1 n (%) | ||
2.2 Bar charts
2.2.1 Summary of measures
| Characteristic | N |
type
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Important, N = 90 | Usable, N = 90 | ||
| Disease activity | 180 | ||
| Mean (SD) | 7.8 (1.9) | 7.2 (2.0) | |
| Median (IQR) | 8.0 (7.0 - 9.0) | 7.0 (6.0 - 8.0) | |
| Range | 0.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 10.0 | |
| Patient functional status | 178 | ||
| Mean (SD) | 7.5 (1.9) | 7.1 (2.0) | |
| Median (IQR) | 8.0 (7.0 - 9.0) | 7.0 (6.0 - 8.0) | |
| Range | 0.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 10.0 | |
| Missing | 1 | 1 | |
| Patient quality of life | 178 | ||
| Mean (SD) | 6.6 (2.2) | 6.1 (2.3) | |
| Median (IQR) | 7.0 (5.0 - 8.0) | 6.0 (5.0 - 8.0) | |
| Range | 0.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 10.0 | |
| Missing | 1 | 1 | |
2.2.2 Boxplot
2.3 Rankings - Mean and SD
2.4 Role-level results
2.4.1 Summary statistics
| Characteristic | N |
Please select your expert panel type based on the below descriptions.
|
p-value1 | Overall, N = 90 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 11 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 16 | Specialty pharmacy technician/liaison, N = 7 | Prescribing provider (MD/Advanced practice provider), N = 13 | Ambulatory care pharmacist, N = 3 | Managed care stakeholder, N = 2 | Pharmaceutical industry stakeholder, N = 4 | Accreditor, N = 1 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 5 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 28 | ||||
| Disease activity: Important | 90 | 0.090 | |||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 7.8 (1.5) | 7.8 (1.3) | 6.7 (2.9) | 6.3 (2.7) | 8.3 (0.6) | 7.5 (0.7) | 9.3 (1.0) | 8.0 (NA) | 8.8 (0.8) | 8.3 (1.4) | 7.8 (1.9) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 8.0 (7.0 - 9.0) | 7.5 (7.0 - 8.0) | 7.0 (5.0 - 9.0) | 7.0 (5.0 - 8.0) | 8.0 (8.0 - 8.5) | 7.5 (7.3 - 7.8) | 9.5 (8.8 - 10.0) | 8.0 (8.0 - 8.0) | 9.0 (8.0 - 9.0) | 8.0 (7.8 - 9.3) | 8.0 (7.0 - 9.0) | ||
| Range | 5.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 8.0 - 9.0 | 7.0 - 8.0 | 8.0 - 10.0 | 8.0 - 8.0 | 8.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | ||
| Patient functional status: Important | 89 | 0.341 | |||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 8.1 (1.4) | 7.6 (1.3) | 7.4 (2.1) | 5.9 (2.8) | 7.7 (0.6) | 8.0 (0.0) | 9.0 (1.2) | 8.0 (NA) | 7.2 (2.3) | 7.8 (1.9) | 7.5 (1.9) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 8.0 (7.5 - 9.0) | 8.0 (6.0 - 8.3) | 7.0 (6.5 - 9.0) | 7.0 (4.0 - 8.0) | 8.0 (7.5 - 8.0) | 8.0 (8.0 - 8.0) | 9.0 (8.0 - 10.0) | 8.0 (8.0 - 8.0) | 7.0 (5.0 - 9.0) | 8.0 (7.5 - 9.0) | 8.0 (7.0 - 9.0) | ||
| Range | 6.0 - 10.0 | 6.0 - 10.0 | 4.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | 7.0 - 8.0 | 8.0 - 8.0 | 8.0 - 10.0 | 8.0 - 8.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 3.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | ||
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Patient quality of life: Important | 89 | 0.134 | |||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 5.7 (2.0) | 6.6 (2.1) | 8.3 (2.1) | 5.2 (2.6) | 7.7 (2.5) | 5.5 (2.1) | 8.0 (1.4) | 7.0 (NA) | 7.8 (1.5) | 6.7 (2.1) | 6.6 (2.2) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 6.0 (5.0 - 7.0) | 7.0 (5.0 - 8.0) | 9.0 (7.0 - 10.0) | 5.0 (4.0 - 7.0) | 8.0 (6.5 - 9.0) | 5.5 (4.8 - 6.3) | 7.5 (7.0 - 8.5) | 7.0 (7.0 - 7.0) | 8.0 (7.0 - 8.0) | 7.0 (5.0 - 8.0) | 7.0 (5.0 - 8.0) | ||
| Range | 2.0 - 8.0 | 3.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 9.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 4.0 - 7.0 | 7.0 - 10.0 | 7.0 - 7.0 | 6.0 - 10.0 | 3.0 - 10.0 | 0.0 - 10.0 | ||
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 1 Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test | |||||||||||||
| Characteristic | N |
Please select your expert panel type based on the below descriptions.
|
p-value1 | Overall, N = 90 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 11 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 16 | Specialty pharmacy technician/liaison, N = 7 | Prescribing provider (MD/Advanced practice provider), N = 13 | Ambulatory care pharmacist, N = 3 | Managed care stakeholder, N = 2 | Pharmaceutical industry stakeholder, N = 4 | Accreditor, N = 1 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 5 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 28 | ||||
| Disease activity: Usable | 90 | 0.417 | |||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 6.6 (1.9) | 6.9 (2.0) | 7.9 (1.8) | 6.3 (2.5) | 6.3 (3.8) | 6.0 (2.8) | 8.5 (1.7) | 6.0 (NA) | 8.4 (1.1) | 7.6 (1.6) | 7.2 (2.0) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 6.0 (5.0 - 8.0) | 7.0 (5.8 - 8.0) | 8.0 (7.0 - 9.0) | 7.0 (4.0 - 8.0) | 8.0 (5.0 - 8.5) | 6.0 (5.0 - 7.0) | 8.5 (7.0 - 10.0) | 6.0 (6.0 - 6.0) | 8.0 (8.0 - 9.0) | 8.0 (7.0 - 8.3) | 7.0 (6.0 - 8.0) | ||
| Range | 4.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 9.0 | 4.0 - 8.0 | 7.0 - 10.0 | 6.0 - 6.0 | 7.0 - 10.0 | 4.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 10.0 | ||
| Patient functional status: Usable | 89 | 0.716 | |||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 6.7 (2.1) | 7.4 (1.4) | 7.3 (2.3) | 6.2 (2.5) | 5.7 (3.2) | 7.0 (1.4) | 8.3 (1.3) | 7.0 (NA) | 6.8 (2.2) | 7.6 (1.9) | 7.1 (2.0) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 7.0 (5.5 - 8.0) | 7.0 (7.0 - 8.0) | 7.0 (6.0 - 9.0) | 7.0 (4.0 - 8.0) | 7.0 (4.5 - 7.5) | 7.0 (6.5 - 7.5) | 8.0 (7.8 - 8.5) | 7.0 (7.0 - 7.0) | 6.0 (5.0 - 8.0) | 7.0 (7.0 - 9.0) | 7.0 (6.0 - 8.0) | ||
| Range | 3.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 4.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 8.0 | 6.0 - 8.0 | 7.0 - 10.0 | 7.0 - 7.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 3.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 10.0 | ||
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Patient quality of life: Usable | 89 | 0.331 | |||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | 5.5 (2.4) | 6.0 (1.9) | 7.3 (2.3) | 4.9 (2.5) | 4.7 (2.5) | 5.0 (1.4) | 7.5 (0.6) | 6.0 (NA) | 7.0 (2.4) | 6.5 (2.4) | 6.1 (2.3) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 5.0 (4.0 - 8.0) | 5.0 (5.0 - 7.0) | 6.0 (5.5 - 9.5) | 5.0 (3.0 - 6.0) | 5.0 (3.5 - 6.0) | 5.0 (4.5 - 5.5) | 7.5 (7.0 - 8.0) | 6.0 (6.0 - 6.0) | 8.0 (5.0 - 8.0) | 7.0 (5.0 - 8.0) | 6.0 (5.0 - 8.0) | ||
| Range | 2.0 - 9.0 | 3.0 - 10.0 | 5.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 9.0 | 2.0 - 7.0 | 4.0 - 6.0 | 7.0 - 8.0 | 6.0 - 6.0 | 4.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 10.0 | 2.0 - 10.0 | ||
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 1 Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test | |||||||||||||
2.4.2 Scatterplot - mean
2.4.3 Means by role
2.5 Rounds 1 and 2 composite scores
2.6 Measure Specifications
What should be captured related to adherence? (select all that apply)
| Characteristic | N = 871 |
|---|---|
| Documentation that adherence has been assessed | 62 (71.3%) |
| Adherence scores (e.g., PDC 90%, 5% of patients with missed doses) | 76 (87.4%) |
| Actions taken by the pharmacy to address adherence | 78 (89.7%) |
| 1 n (%) | |
What methods should be used by specialty pharmacies to measure adherence (select all that apply)
| Characteristic | N = 871 |
|---|---|
| Patient-reported missed doses | 72 (82.8%) |
| Proportion of Days Covered (PDC) | 67 (77.0%) |
| Medication Possession Ratio (MPR) | 24 (27.6%) |
| Unsure | 3 (3.45%) |
| Other | 2 (2.30%) |
| 1 n (%) | |
What is the OPTIMAL INTERVAL at which adherence should be measured by specialty pharmacies?
| Characteristic | N | N = 901 |
|---|---|---|
| Proportion of Days Covered (PDC) | 67 | |
| Monthly | 5 (7.46%) | |
| Quarterly | 34 (50.7%) | |
| Every 6 months | 18 (26.9%) | |
| Annually | 8 (11.9%) | |
| Other | 1 (1.49%) | |
| Unsure | 1 (1.49%) | |
| Missing | 23 | |
| Please describe the optimal interval at which PDC should be measured | 1 | |
| Annually unless patient-reported missed doses is a concern, then more often. | 1 (100.0%) | |
| Missing | 89 | |
| Medication Possession Ratio (MPR) | 24 | |
| Monthly | 4 (16.7%) | |
| Quarterly | 13 (54.2%) | |
| Every 6 months | 5 (20.8%) | |
| Annually | 2 (8.33%) | |
| Missing | 66 | |
| Patient-reported missed doses | 72 | |
| Monthly | 43 (59.7%) | |
| Quarterly | 16 (22.2%) | |
| Every 6 months | 6 (8.33%) | |
| Annually | 4 (5.56%) | |
| Other | 1 (1.39%) | |
| Unsure | 2 (2.78%) | |
| Missing | 18 | |
| Please describe the optimal interval at which patient-reported missed doses should be measured | 1 | |
| From a reporting perspective, we dont really used missed doses but it should be assessed to send out prescriptions at the right time and manage inventory. in addition, from a patient management, it is an earlier assessment of non-compliance | 1 (100.0%) | |
| Missing | 89 | |
| Other method to evaluate adherence (provided by respondent above) | 2 | |
| Every 6 months | 1 (50.0%) | |
| Annually | 1 (50.0%) | |
| Missing | 88 | |
| 1 n (%) | ||
What medication outcomes should be measured by specialty pharmacies? (select all that apply)
| Characteristic | N = 871 |
|---|---|
| Serious adverse events | 78 (89.7%) |
| Medication discontinuation | 71 (81.6%) |
| Medication switching | 65 (74.7%) |
| Common adverse events | 57 (65.5%) |
| Specific medication persistence | 56 (64.4%) |
| Therapeutic persistence (on ANY condition-related medication) | 43 (49.4%) |
| N/A - should not be measured by specialty pharmacies | 2 (2.30%) |
| 1 n (%) | |
What is the optimal interval at which medication outcomes be measured/aggregated?
| Characteristic | N | N = 901 |
|---|---|---|
| Specific medication persistence | 56 | |
| Monthly | 5 (8.93%) | |
| Quarterly | 18 (32.1%) | |
| Every 6 months | 17 (30.4%) | |
| Annually | 12 (21.4%) | |
| Unsure | 4 (7.14%) | |
| Missing | 34 | |
| Therapeutic persistence (on a condition-related medication) | 43 | |
| Monthly | 2 (4.65%) | |
| Quarterly | 17 (39.5%) | |
| Every 6 months | 12 (27.9%) | |
| Annually | 11 (25.6%) | |
| Unsure | 1 (2.33%) | |
| Missing | 47 | |
| Medication switching | 65 | |
| Monthly | 13 (20.0%) | |
| Quarterly | 18 (27.7%) | |
| Every 6 months | 11 (16.9%) | |
| Annually | 14 (21.5%) | |
| Other | 4 (6.15%) | |
| Unsure | 5 (7.69%) | |
| Missing | 25 | |
| Medication discontinuation | 71 | |
| Monthly | 19 (26.8%) | |
| Quarterly | 25 (35.2%) | |
| Every 6 months | 9 (12.7%) | |
| Annually | 11 (15.5%) | |
| Other | 4 (5.63%) | |
| Unsure | 3 (4.23%) | |
| Missing | 19 | |
| Common adverse events | 57 | |
| Monthly | 25 (43.9%) | |
| Quarterly | 14 (24.6%) | |
| Every 6 months | 6 (10.5%) | |
| Annually | 8 (14.0%) | |
| Other | 2 (3.51%) | |
| Unsure | 2 (3.51%) | |
| Missing | 33 | |
| Serious adverse events | 78 | |
| Monthly | 34 (43.6%) | |
| Quarterly | 18 (23.1%) | |
| Every 6 months | 10 (12.8%) | |
| Annually | 10 (12.8%) | |
| Other | 2 (2.56%) | |
| Unsure | 4 (5.13%) | |
| Missing | 12 | |
| Other frequency therapeutic persistence should be aggregated | 4 | |
| *Medication switching not therapeutic persistence, this should be as needed every time a medication is switched | 1 (25.0%) | |
| As it occurs | 1 (25.0%) | |
| As needed -when it happened | 1 (25.0%) | |
| In real time document as intervention | 1 (25.0%) | |
| Missing | 86 | |
| Other frequency medication discontinuation should be aggregated | 4 | |
| As it occurs | 1 (25.0%) | |
| As needed - when it happened | 1 (25.0%) | |
| Every time a medication is discontinued | 1 (25.0%) | |
| In real time document as intervention | 1 (25.0%) | |
| Missing | 86 | |
| Other frequency common adverse events should be aggregated | 2 | |
| As it occurs | 1 (50.0%) | |
| As needed -when it happened | 1 (50.0%) | |
| Missing | 88 | |
| Other frequency serious adverse events should be aggregated | 2 | |
| As it occurs | 1 (50.0%) | |
| As needed -when it happened | 1 (50.0%) | |
| Missing | 88 | |
| 1 n (%) | ||
What should be captured related to patient response to therapy? (select all that apply)
| Characteristic | N = 871 |
|---|---|
| Outcomes of patient response assessment | 71 (81.6%) |
| Documentation that patient response has been assessed | 61 (70.1%) |
| Actions taken by the pharmacy to address patient response | 61 (70.1%) |
| N/A- should not be measured by specialty pharmacies | 3 (3.45%) |
| 1 n (%) | |
How should response to therapy be assessed? (select all that apply)
| Characteristic | N = 871 |
|---|---|
| Disease activity measure (e.g., clinical assessment [RAPID3], patient-reported question) | 63 (72.4%) |
| Flare occurrence/frequency | 60 (69.0%) |
| Treat to target progression based on patient goals (e.g., stable, better, worse) | 51 (58.6%) |
| Functional status measure (e.g., PGA, visual analog scale, patient reported question) | 46 (52.9%) |
| Persistence to medication/stopping or changing treatment | 42 (48.3%) |
| Single patient question evaluating disease status (e.g., stable, better, worse) | 41 (47.1%) |
| N/A- should not be measured by specialty pharmacies | 4 (4.60%) |
| Unsure | 1 (1.15%) |
| Other | 1 (1.15%) |
| 1 n (%) | |
| Characteristic | N | N = 901 |
|---|---|---|
| Other method to evaluate response to therapy | 1 | |
| patient perspective if they are meeting or progressing toward their goals | 1 (100.0%) | |
| Missing | 89 | |
| 1 n (%) | ||
HOW SOON should response to therapy be measured by specialty pharmacies after treatment initiation (baseline)?
| Characteristic | N | N = 901 |
|---|---|---|
| HOW SOON should response to therapy be measured by specialty pharmacies after treatment initiation (baseline)? | 87 | |
| Within 1 month | 6 (6.90%) | |
| Within 3 months | 50 (57.5%) | |
| Within 6 months | 24 (27.6%) | |
| Within 1 year | 3 (3.45%) | |
| Other | 1 (1.15%) | |
| N/A- should not be measured by specialty pharmacies | 3 (3.45%) | |
| Missing | 3 | |
| Other, please describe | 1 | |
| This response would vary based on the frequency of administration | 1 (100.0%) | |
| Missing | 89 | |
| How often should response to therapy be measured by specialty pharmacies? | 87 | |
| Monthly | 6 (6.90%) | |
| Quarterly | 32 (36.8%) | |
| Every 6 months | 27 (31.0%) | |
| Annually | 16 (18.4%) | |
| Other | 3 (3.45%) | |
| N/A- should not be measured by specialty pharmacies | 3 (3.45%) | |
| Missing | 3 | |
| Other, please describe | 3 | |
| It depends - consistently stable patients - annual, patients with active symptoms - every 3 months until stable then annual | 1 (33.3%) | |
| This response would vary based on the frequency of administration | 1 (33.3%) | |
| Variable based on how a patient is doing | 1 (33.3%) | |
| Missing | 87 | |
| 1 n (%) | ||
What should be captured related to safety screening? (select all that apply)
| Characteristic |
HBV screening
|
TB screening
|
HCV screening
|
Drug-specific lab monitoring
|
Immunization screening
|
Infection risk assessment
|
Cardiovascular risk
|
Pregnancy
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N = 661 | N = 721 | N = 571 | N = 671 | N = 661 | N = 441 | N = 341 | N = 591 | |
| Documentation that safety screening has been assessed | 62 (93.9%) | 64 (88.9%) | 53 (93.0%) | 58 (86.6%) | 54 (81.8%) | 42 (95.5%) | 31 (91.2%) | 54 (91.5%) |
| Actions taken by the pharmacy to address safety screening findings | 43 (65.2%) | 51 (70.8%) | 37 (64.9%) | 50 (74.6%) | 46 (69.7%) | 37 (84.1%) | 24 (70.6%) | 39 (66.1%) |
| Outcomes of safety screening assessment | 41 (62.1%) | 47 (65.3%) | 37 (64.9%) | 45 (67.2%) | 42 (63.6%) | 30 (68.2%) | 23 (67.6%) | 36 (61.0%) |
| 1 n (%) | ||||||||
What elements of safety screening should be measured by specialty pharmacies? (select all that apply)
| Characteristic | N = 871 |
|---|---|
| Tuberculosis (TB) screening | 72 (82.8%) |
| Drug -specific lab monitoring (e.g., LFTs) | 67 (77.0%) |
| Hepatitis B virus (HBV) screening | 66 (75.9%) |
| Immunization screening | 66 (75.9%) |
| Pregnancy | 59 (67.8%) |
| Hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening | 57 (65.5%) |
| Infection risk assessment | 44 (50.6%) |
| Cardiovascular risk | 34 (39.1%) |
| N/A- should not be measured by specialty pharmacies | 5 (5.75%) |
| 1 n (%) | |
Assuming baseline safety screening is completed, what is the OPTIMAL INTERVAL at which safety screening should be completed/measured?
| Characteristic | N | N = 901 |
|---|---|---|
| HBV screening | 66 | |
| Prior to immune modulating medication initiation ONLY | 26 (39.4%) | |
| Every 6 months | 1 (1.52%) | |
| Annually | 13 (19.7%) | |
| Based on package insert | 23 (34.8%) | |
| Other | 1 (1.52%) | |
| Unsure | 2 (3.03%) | |
| Missing | 24 | |
| TB screening | 72 | |
| Prior to immune modulating medication initiation ONLY | 24 (33.3%) | |
| Every 6 months | 4 (5.56%) | |
| Annually | 14 (19.4%) | |
| Based on package insert | 25 (34.7%) | |
| Other | 3 (4.17%) | |
| Unsure | 2 (2.78%) | |
| Missing | 18 | |
| HCV screening | 57 | |
| Prior to immune modulating medication initiation ONLY | 23 (40.4%) | |
| Every 6 months | 1 (1.75%) | |
| Annually | 7 (12.3%) | |
| Based on package insert | 21 (36.8%) | |
| Other | 3 (5.26%) | |
| Unsure | 2 (3.51%) | |
| Missing | 33 | |
| Drug-specific lab monitoring (e.g., LFTs) | 67 | |
| Prior to immune modulating medication initiation ONLY | 2 (2.99%) | |
| Every 6 months | 13 (19.4%) | |
| Annually | 9 (13.4%) | |
| Based on package insert | 38 (56.7%) | |
| Other | 3 (4.48%) | |
| Unsure | 2 (2.99%) | |
| Missing | 23 | |
| Immunization screening | 66 | |
| Prior to immune modulating medication initiation ONLY | 12 (18.2%) | |
| Every 6 months | 5 (7.58%) | |
| Annually | 32 (48.5%) | |
| Based on package insert | 14 (21.2%) | |
| Other | 1 (1.52%) | |
| Unsure | 2 (3.03%) | |
| Missing | 24 | |
| Infection risk assessment | 44 | |
| Prior to immune modulating medication initiation ONLY | 4 (9.09%) | |
| Every 6 months | 8 (18.2%) | |
| Annually | 14 (31.8%) | |
| Based on package insert | 14 (31.8%) | |
| Other | 2 (4.55%) | |
| Unsure | 2 (4.55%) | |
| Missing | 46 | |
| Cardiovascular risk (if indicated) | 34 | |
| Prior to immune modulating medication initiation ONLY | 2 (5.88%) | |
| Every 6 months | 7 (20.6%) | |
| Annually | 13 (38.2%) | |
| Based on package insert | 10 (29.4%) | |
| Unsure | 2 (5.88%) | |
| Missing | 56 | |
| Pregnancy | 59 | |
| Prior to immune modulating medication initiation ONLY | 3 (5.08%) | |
| Every 6 months | 10 (16.9%) | |
| Annually | 15 (25.4%) | |
| Based on package insert | 19 (32.2%) | |
| Other | 6 (10.2%) | |
| Unsure | 6 (10.2%) | |
| Missing | 31 | |
| Other interval for when pregnancy should be measured | 6 | |
| As needed/appropriate | 1 (16.7%) | |
| at least once | 1 (16.7%) | |
| initially and then with every fill (if appropriate) | 1 (16.7%) | |
| monthly | 1 (16.7%) | |
| monthly - every fill | 1 (16.7%) | |
| patient dependent and drug dependent | 1 (16.7%) | |
| Missing | 84 | |
| 1 n (%) | ||
| Record ID | name | value |
|---|---|---|
| 10 | m6_tb_other | Prior to starting medication and annually |
| 10 | m6_mslm_other | Priori and as clinically indicated on package insert |
| 10 | m6_is_other | As needed/appropriate |
| 19 | m6_mslm_other | q 3 months |
| 36 | m6_ira_other | monthly |
| 43 | m6_ira_other | monthly - every fill |
| 46 | m6_hcv_other | Only needs repeated if patient has other risk factors |
| 52 | m6_tb_other | when MD wants or insurance requires it |
| 52 | m6_hcv_other | when MD wants or insurance requires it |
| 88 | m6_hbv_other | every 2 yrs or more frequent if increased risk |
| 88 | m6_tb_other | every 2 yrs or more frequent if increased risk |
| 88 | m6_hcv_other | every 2 yrs or more frequent if increased risk |
| 88 | m6_mslm_other | every 2 yrs or more frequent if increased risk |
What should be captured related to functional status? (select all that apply)
| Characteristic | N = 871 |
|---|---|
| Documentation that functional status has been assessed | 59 (67.8%) |
| Outcomes of functional status assessment | 55 (63.2%) |
| Actions taken by the pharmacy to address functional status | 43 (49.4%) |
| N/A- should not be measured by specialty pharmacies | 15 (17.2%) |
| 1 n (%) | |
What elements of functional status should be measured by specialty pharmacies? (select all that apply)
| Characteristic | N = 871 |
|---|---|
| Pain (e.g., visual analog scale, rheumatoid arthritis pain scale [RAPS]) | 44 (50.6%) |
| Morning joint stiffness (e.g., frequency and duration of morning stiffness, visual analog scale, PGA) | 40 (46.0%) |
| Disease burden (e.g., visual analog skill, quality of life question, CDAI) | 37 (42.5%) |
| Global functional status assessment (e.g., HAQ, CDAI, PGA) | 34 (39.1%) |
| Fatigue (e.g., visual analog scale, fatigue severity scale [FSS], SF-36) | 27 (31.0%) |
| N/A- should not be measured by specialty pharmacies | 16 (18.4%) |
| Unsure | 12 (13.8%) |
| Other | 1 (1.15%) |
| 1 n (%) | |
| Characteristic | N | N = 901 |
|---|---|---|
| Other please describe | 1 | |
| Functional status as part of the RAPID-3, patient symptoms | 1 (100.0%) | |
| Missing | 89 | |
| 1 n (%) | ||
What methods should specialty pharmacies use to assess functional status elements? (select all that apply)
| Characteristic |
Global functional status assessment
|
Morning joint stiffness
|
Disease burden
|
Fatigue
|
Pain
|
Other
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N = 341 | N = 401 | N = 371 | N = 271 | N = 441 | N = 11 | |
| Validated assessment using patient-reported outcomes | 23 (67.6%) | 20 (50.0%) | 20 (54.1%) | 13 (48.1%) | 27 (61.4%) | |
| Yes | 1 (100.0%) | |||||
| Validated assessment requiring clinician evaluation | 12 (35.3%) | 8 (20.0%) | 9 (24.3%) | 5 (18.5%) | 6 (13.6%) | |
| Unvalidated single patient-reported question evaluating their functional status utilizing a Likert scale or visual analog scale | 2 (5.88%) | 16 (40.0%) | 13 (35.1%) | 11 (40.7%) | 15 (34.1%) | |
| 1 n (%) | ||||||
NULL| Characteristic | N | N = 901 |
|---|---|---|
| Please list your preferred validated assessment(s) requiring clinician evaluation for global functional status assessment | 3 | |
| no preference, CDAI by default | 1 (33.3%) | |
| RAPID-3 | 1 (33.3%) | |
| uncertain of best most consistent tool to use. | 1 (33.3%) | |
| Missing | 87 | |
| Please list your preferred validated assessment(s) using patient-reported outcomes for global functional status assessment | 11 | |
| CDAI | 1 (9.09%) | |
| haq | 1 (9.09%) | |
| HAQ | 3 (27.3%) | |
| Ideally one tool that assess all in the list - eg RAPID3 | 1 (9.09%) | |
| No preference as long as same assessment consistently used | 1 (9.09%) | |
| PGA or HAQ | 1 (9.09%) | |
| PROMIS function or MD HAQ | 1 (9.09%) | |
| RAPID3 | 1 (9.09%) | |
| RAPID3 or CDAI | 1 (9.09%) | |
| Missing | 79 | |
| 1 n (%) | ||
| Characteristic | N | N = 901 |
|---|---|---|
| Please list your preferred validated assessment(s) requiring clinician evaluation for morning joint stiffness | 1 | |
| no preference | 1 (100.0%) | |
| Missing | 89 | |
| Please list your preferred validated assessment(s) using patient-reported outcomes for morning joint stiffness | 5 | |
| Ideally one tool that assess all in the list - eg RAPID3 | 1 (20.0%) | |
| N/A | 1 (20.0%) | |
| Patient reports current symptoms/RAPID3 | 1 (20.0%) | |
| PGA | 1 (20.0%) | |
| unsure | 1 (20.0%) | |
| Missing | 85 | |
| Please provide an unvalidated single patient-reported sample question, if you have an example, for morning joint stiffness | 10 | |
| Checklist question of reported symptoms | 1 (10.0%) | |
| Compared to 3/6 months ago, is this better, the same, or worse? | 1 (10.0%) | |
| Do you have morning joint stiffness? How long does it last (on average)? | 1 (10.0%) | |
| frequency and duration of morning stiffness | 1 (10.0%) | |
| how many minutes are you stiff in the morning? | 1 (10.0%) | |
| How often and long do you experience morning stiffness? | 1 (10.0%) | |
| How often do you have morning joint stiffness? How long does it last if you do?: | 1 (10.0%) | |
| no example to share | 1 (10.0%) | |
| Rate your joint stiffness on a scale from 1-10 (1 as the least and 10 as the most) | 1 (10.0%) | |
| Simple question, time or PtGA | 1 (10.0%) | |
| Missing | 80 | |
| 1 n (%) | ||
| Characteristic | N | N = 901 |
|---|---|---|
| Please list your preferred validated assessment(s) requiring clinician evaluation for disease burden | 3 | |
| CDAI | 1 (33.3%) | |
| CDAI or RAPID3 | 1 (33.3%) | |
| disease specific - DAS28CRP for RA for example BVAS for vasculitis etc | 1 (33.3%) | |
| Missing | 87 | |
| Please list your preferred validated assessment(s) using patient-reported outcomes for disease burden | 7 | |
| CDAI | 1 (14.3%) | |
| general question about improved quality of life | 1 (14.3%) | |
| Ideally one tool that assess all in the list - eg RAPID3 | 1 (14.3%) | |
| No preference as long as same assessment consistently used | 1 (14.3%) | |
| QOL | 1 (14.3%) | |
| quality of life question | 1 (14.3%) | |
| unsure | 1 (14.3%) | |
| Missing | 83 | |
| Please provide an unvalidated single patient-reported sample question, if you have an example, for disease burden | 5 | |
| Compared to 3/6 months ago, is this better, the same, or worse? | 1 (20.0%) | |
| How do you feel that the current medication has improved you rheumatoid arthritis from baseline? | 1 (20.0%) | |
| How has your disease affected your daily activities? Has this improved, worsened or remained the same?Use RAPID 3 to assess daily tasks | 1 (20.0%) | |
| no example to share | 1 (20.0%) | |
| PtGA | 1 (20.0%) | |
| Missing | 85 | |
| 1 n (%) | ||
| Characteristic | N | N = 901 |
|---|---|---|
| Please list your preferred validated assessment(s) using patient-reported outcomes for fatigue | 4 | |
| FACIT | 1 (25.0%) | |
| Ideally one tool that assess all in the list - eg RAPID3 | 1 (25.0%) | |
| Patient reports current symptoms/RAPID3 | 1 (25.0%) | |
| VAS | 1 (25.0%) | |
| Missing | 86 | |
| Please provide an unvalidated single patient-reported sample question, if you have an example, for fatigue | 6 | |
| Checklist of patient reported symptoms | 1 (16.7%) | |
| Compared to 3/6 months ago, is this better, the same, or worse? | 1 (16.7%) | |
| Do you suffer from fatigue? Has this improved, worsened or remained stable? | 1 (16.7%) | |
| Has your fatigue improved, stable, or worsened? | 1 (16.7%) | |
| VAS | 1 (16.7%) | |
| visual analog scale | 1 (16.7%) | |
| Missing | 84 | |
| 1 n (%) | ||
| Characteristic | N | N = 901 |
|---|---|---|
| Please list your preferred validated assessment(s) using patient-reported outcomes for pain | 10 | |
| Ideally one tool that assess all in the list - eg RAPID3 | 1 (10.0%) | |
| No preference as long as same assessment consistently used | 1 (10.0%) | |
| Pain associated with RAPID3 | 1 (10.0%) | |
| Pain scale | 1 (10.0%) | |
| Patient reports current symptoms/RAPID3 | 1 (10.0%) | |
| RAPS | 1 (10.0%) | |
| the 0-10 question for pain | 1 (10.0%) | |
| VAS | 3 (30.0%) | |
| Missing | 80 | |
| Please provide an unvalidated single patient-reported sample question, if you have an example, for pain | 8 | |
| Compared to 3/6 months ago, is this better, the same, or worse? | 1 (12.5%) | |
| How would you rate your pain on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the worst pain? | 1 (12.5%) | |
| On a scale from 0 to 10, 10 being the worst pain that you've ever felt in your life, how much pain on you experiencing due to rheumatoid arthritis? | 1 (12.5%) | |
| Pain scale 0-10 | 1 (12.5%) | |
| Rate your pain on a scale from 1-10 (1 as the least and 10 as the most) | 1 (12.5%) | |
| Rate your pain on a scale of 1-10. | 1 (12.5%) | |
| Scale of 1-10 | 1 (12.5%) | |
| visual analog scale | 1 (12.5%) | |
| Missing | 82 | |
| 1 n (%) | ||
| Characteristic | N | N = 901 |
|---|---|---|
| Please list your preferred validated assessment(s) using patient-reported outcomes for other method | 1 | |
| functional status associated with RAPID3 | 1 (100.0%) | |
| Missing | 89 | |
| 1 n (%) | ||
HOW SOON should patient functional status be measured by specialty pharmacies after treatment initiation (baseline)?
| Characteristic | N | N = 901 |
|---|---|---|
| Global functional status assessment | 34 | |
| Within 1 month | 2 (5.88%) | |
| Within 3 months | 20 (58.8%) | |
| Within 4 months | 3 (8.82%) | |
| Within 6 months | 7 (20.6%) | |
| Within 1 year | 1 (2.94%) | |
| Unsure | 1 (2.94%) | |
| Missing | 56 | |
| Morning joint stiffness | 40 | |
| Within 1 month | 3 (7.50%) | |
| Within 3 months | 27 (67.5%) | |
| Within 4 months | 3 (7.50%) | |
| Within 6 months | 5 (12.5%) | |
| Within 1 year | 1 (2.50%) | |
| Unsure | 1 (2.50%) | |
| Missing | 50 | |
| Disease burden | 37 | |
| Within 1 month | 3 (8.11%) | |
| Within 3 months | 21 (56.8%) | |
| Within 4 months | 3 (8.11%) | |
| Within 6 months | 7 (18.9%) | |
| Within 1 year | 2 (5.41%) | |
| Unsure | 1 (2.70%) | |
| Missing | 53 | |
| Fatigue | 27 | |
| Within 1 month | 2 (7.41%) | |
| Within 3 months | 20 (74.1%) | |
| Within 6 months | 2 (7.41%) | |
| Within 1 year | 2 (7.41%) | |
| Unsure | 1 (3.70%) | |
| Missing | 63 | |
| Pain | 44 | |
| Within 1 month | 6 (13.6%) | |
| Within 3 months | 26 (59.1%) | |
| Within 4 months | 4 (9.09%) | |
| Within 6 months | 5 (11.4%) | |
| Within 1 year | 2 (4.55%) | |
| Unsure | 1 (2.27%) | |
| Missing | 46 | |
| Other | 1 | |
| Within 6 months | 1 (100.0%) | |
| Missing | 89 | |
| 1 n (%) | ||
What is the optimal interval at which patient functional status be measured by specialty pharmacies?
| Characteristic | N | N = 901 |
|---|---|---|
| Global functional status assessment | 34 | |
| Monthly | 1 (2.94%) | |
| Quarterly | 12 (35.3%) | |
| Every 6 months | 13 (38.2%) | |
| Annually | 7 (20.6%) | |
| Unsure | 1 (2.94%) | |
| Missing | 56 | |
| Morning joint stiffness | 40 | |
| Monthly | 3 (7.50%) | |
| Quarterly | 13 (32.5%) | |
| Every 6 months | 15 (37.5%) | |
| Annually | 7 (17.5%) | |
| Other | 1 (2.50%) | |
| Unsure | 1 (2.50%) | |
| Missing | 50 | |
| Disease burden | 37 | |
| Monthly | 1 (2.70%) | |
| Quarterly | 13 (35.1%) | |
| Every 6 months | 15 (40.5%) | |
| Annually | 6 (16.2%) | |
| Other | 1 (2.70%) | |
| Unsure | 1 (2.70%) | |
| Missing | 53 | |
| Fatigue | 27 | |
| Monthly | 2 (7.41%) | |
| Quarterly | 10 (37.0%) | |
| Every 6 months | 9 (33.3%) | |
| Annually | 5 (18.5%) | |
| Unsure | 1 (3.70%) | |
| Missing | 63 | |
| Pain | 44 | |
| Monthly | 3 (6.82%) | |
| Quarterly | 16 (36.4%) | |
| Every 6 months | 13 (29.5%) | |
| Annually | 10 (22.7%) | |
| Other | 1 (2.27%) | |
| Unsure | 1 (2.27%) | |
| Missing | 46 | |
| Other | 1 | |
| Annually | 1 (100.0%) | |
| Missing | 89 | |
| 1 n (%) | ||
| Record ID | name | value |
|---|---|---|
| 10 | mw_mjs_o | Initial, 6 weeks, 90 days, annually |
| 10 | mw_ds_o | Initial, 6 weeks, 90 days, annually |
| 10 | mw_p_o | Initial, 6 weeks, 90 days, annually |
What should be captured related to disease activity? (select all that apply)
| Characteristic | N = 871 |
|---|---|
| Outcomes of disease activity assessment | 65 (74.7%) |
| Documentation that disease activity has been assessed | 63 (72.4%) |
| Actions taken by the pharmacy to address disease activity | 52 (59.8%) |
| N/A- should not be measured by specialty pharmacies | 10 (11.5%) |
| 1 n (%) | |
What methods should specialty pharmacies use to assess disease activity? (Select all that apply)
| Characteristic | N = 871 |
|---|---|
| Validated assessment using patient-reported outcomes (e.g., RAPID3, RAPID5, PAS-II, RADAI, RADAI-5) | 59 (67.8%) |
| Flare occurrence/frequency | 47 (54.0%) |
| Laboratory Indicators (e.g., ESR, CRP) | 36 (41.4%) |
| Unvalidated single patient-reported question evaluating their disease activity utilizing a Likert scale or visual analog scale (e.g., Rate disease activity since last assessment: stable, worsened, improved?) | 33 (37.9%) |
| Validated assessment requiring clinician evaluation (e.g., CDAI, DAS, DAS28-ESR/CRP, SDAI, MBDA) | 31 (35.6%) |
| N/A- disease activity should not be assessed by specialty pharmacies | 10 (11.5%) |
| Unsure | 6 (6.90%) |
| 1 n (%) | |
| Characteristic | N | N = 901 |
|---|---|---|
| Please list your preferred validated assessment(s) requiring clinician evaluation | 9 | |
| CDAI | 5 (55.6%) | |
| CDAI, DAS, DAS28-ESR/CRP, SDAI, MBDA | 1 (11.1%) | |
| CDAI, RAPID-3 | 1 (11.1%) | |
| no preference | 1 (11.1%) | |
| No preference if same assessment used consistently | 1 (11.1%) | |
| Missing | 81 | |
| Please list your preferred validated assessment(s) using patient-reported outcomes | 26 | |
| RAPID3, RAPID5, PAS-II, RADAI, RADAI-5 | 1 (3.85%) | |
| FACIT-Fatigue | 1 (3.85%) | |
| no preference | 1 (3.85%) | |
| No preference if same assessment used consistently | 1 (3.85%) | |
| RAPID-3 | 1 (3.85%) | |
| rapid3 | 1 (3.85%) | |
| Rapid3 | 1 (3.85%) | |
| RAPID3 | 16 (61.5%) | |
| RAPID3 but open to others | 1 (3.85%) | |
| RAPID3, PSAID12, PAS-II | 1 (3.85%) | |
| uncertain. RAPID3. not currently using | 1 (3.85%) | |
| Missing | 64 | |
| Please provide an unvalidated single patient-reported sample question, if you have an example | 10 | |
| "Better, worse, or the same?" | 1 (10.0%) | |
| Do you feel like your disease is better, worse, or the same since starting this medication? | 1 (10.0%) | |
| Have you had any flare ups and how many have you had if so in the past few months? How much percentage from baseline improvement do you feel that you have since starting the medication on a scale from 0 to 100% | 1 (10.0%) | |
| How has your medication helped manage your condition? | 1 (10.0%) | |
| How would you say your disease activity has been over the last 6 months, worse, better or no change | 1 (10.0%) | |
| no example to share | 1 (10.0%) | |
| Percentage improvement over baseline. | 1 (10.0%) | |
| Rate disease activity since last assessment: stable, worsened, improved | 1 (10.0%) | |
| Since last checking in how has your joint pain changed? | 1 (10.0%) | |
| stable, worsened, improved | 1 (10.0%) | |
| Missing | 80 | |
| Please list your preferred laboratory indicators for evaluating disease activity | 8 | |
| CRP | 1 (12.5%) | |
| CRP, ESR | 1 (12.5%) | |
| ESR, CRP | 4 (50.0%) | |
| ESR, CRP or others as indicated on package insert | 1 (12.5%) | |
| ESR, CRP, VECTRA | 1 (12.5%) | |
| Missing | 82 | |
| Please list how you recommend measuring flare occurrence/frequency | 16 | |
| ask about steroid usage | 1 (6.25%) | |
| Ask how many times a prednisone/other steroid taper has been needed since last follow up visit | 1 (6.25%) | |
| ask patient | 1 (6.25%) | |
| At every follow up. | 1 (6.25%) | |
| How many flares since last assessment? or How many flares per month? | 1 (6.25%) | |
| How often did you need prednisone over the past 6 months? How many flares in your disease activity did you have over the last 6 months? | 1 (6.25%) | |
| monthly refill calls | 1 (6.25%) | |
| patient report | 1 (6.25%) | |
| Patient reported | 1 (6.25%) | |
| patient reported and/or need for corticosteroids | 1 (6.25%) | |
| Patient Reported, Rescue/Flare dispenses | 1 (6.25%) | |
| Quarterly | 1 (6.25%) | |
| self reported since last check up | 1 (6.25%) | |
| single patient reported question asking about flares since last assessment | 1 (6.25%) | |
| Within the cadences of reassessments, inquire have you had any flare ups and how many have you had since the previous touch base point to assess. | 1 (6.25%) | |
| worsening of CDAI and physical functioning leading to treatment changes | 1 (6.25%) | |
| Missing | 74 | |
| 1 n (%) | ||
HOW SOON should patient disease activity be measured by specialty pharmacies after treatment initiation (baseline)?
| Characteristic | N | N = 901 |
|---|---|---|
| Validated assessment requiring clinician evaluation (e.g., CDAI, DAS, DAS28-ESR/CRP, SDAI, MBDA) | 31 | |
| Within 1 month | 1 (3.23%) | |
| Within 3 months | 18 (58.1%) | |
| Within 4 months | 3 (9.68%) | |
| Within 6 months | 6 (19.4%) | |
| Within 1 year | 2 (6.45%) | |
| Unsure | 1 (3.23%) | |
| Missing | 59 | |
| Validated assessment using patient-reported outcomes (e.g., RAPID3, RAPID5, PAS-II, RADAI, RADAI-5) | 59 | |
| 1 | 5 (8.47%) | |
| 2 | 34 (57.6%) | |
| 3 | 5 (8.47%) | |
| 4 | 9 (15.3%) | |
| 5 | 5 (8.47%) | |
| 6 | 1 (1.69%) | |
| Missing | 31 | |
| Unvalidated single patient-reported question evaluating their disease activity utilizing a Likert scale or visual analog scale(e.g., Rate disease activity since last assessment: stable, worsened, improved?) | 33 | |
| Within 1 month | 3 (9.09%) | |
| Within 3 months | 19 (57.6%) | |
| Within 4 months | 2 (6.06%) | |
| Within 6 months | 6 (18.2%) | |
| Within 1 year | 2 (6.06%) | |
| Other | 1 (3.03%) | |
| Missing | 57 | |
| Laboratory Indicators (e.g., ESR, CRP) | 36 | |
| Within 1 month | 2 (5.56%) | |
| Within 3 months | 20 (55.6%) | |
| Within 4 months | 2 (5.56%) | |
| Within 6 months | 7 (19.4%) | |
| Within 1 year | 2 (5.56%) | |
| Unsure | 3 (8.33%) | |
| Missing | 54 | |
| Flare occurrence/frequency | 47 | |
| 1 | 5 (10.6%) | |
| 2 | 27 (57.4%) | |
| 3 | 4 (8.51%) | |
| 4 | 6 (12.8%) | |
| 5 | 3 (6.38%) | |
| 6 | 1 (2.13%) | |
| 7 | 1 (2.13%) | |
| Missing | 43 | |
| 1 n (%) | ||
| Characteristic | N | N = 901 |
|---|---|---|
| Other time period unvalidated single patient-reported question evaluating their disease activity utilizing a Likert scale or visual analog scale should be measured after treatment initiation | 1 | |
| Each reassessment cadence (6 weeks, 90 days, annually | 1 (100.0%) | |
| Missing | 89 | |
| Other time period flare occurrence/frequency should be measured after treatment initiation | 1 | |
| Each reassessment cadence (6 weeks, 90 days, annually | 1 (100.0%) | |
| Missing | 89 | |
| 1 n (%) | ||
What is the optimal interval at which patient disease activity should be measured by specialty pharmacies?
| Characteristic | N | N = 901 |
|---|---|---|
| Validated assessment requiring clinician evaluation (e.g., CDAI, DAS, DAS28-ESR/CRP, SDAI, MBDA) | 31 | |
| Quarterly | 11 (35.5%) | |
| Every 6 months | 9 (29.0%) | |
| Annually | 10 (32.3%) | |
| Other | 1 (3.23%) | |
| Missing | 59 | |
| Validated assessment using patient-reported outcomes (e.g., RAPID3, RAPID5, PAS-II, RADAI, RADAI-5) | 59 | |
| Monthly | 2 (3.39%) | |
| Quarterly | 23 (39.0%) | |
| Every 6 months | 16 (27.1%) | |
| Annually | 15 (25.4%) | |
| Other | 3 (5.08%) | |
| Missing | 31 | |
| Unvalidated single patient-reported question evaluating their disease activity utilizing a Likert scale or visual analog scale(e.g., Rate disease activity since last assessment: stable, worsened, improved? ) | 33 | |
| Monthly | 5 (15.2%) | |
| Quarterly | 8 (24.2%) | |
| Every 6 months | 7 (21.2%) | |
| Annually | 12 (36.4%) | |
| Other | 1 (3.03%) | |
| Missing | 57 | |
| Laboratory Indicators (e.g., ESR, CRP) | 36 | |
| Quarterly | 9 (25.0%) | |
| Every 6 months | 13 (36.1%) | |
| Annually | 10 (27.8%) | |
| Other | 2 (5.56%) | |
| Unsure | 2 (5.56%) | |
| Missing | 54 | |
| Flare occurrence/frequency | 47 | |
| Monthly | 8 (17.0%) | |
| Quarterly | 17 (36.2%) | |
| Every 6 months | 10 (21.3%) | |
| Annually | 11 (23.4%) | |
| Other | 1 (2.13%) | |
| Missing | 43 | |
| 1 n (%) | ||
| Characteristic | N | N = 901 |
|---|---|---|
| Other time period validated assessment requiring clinician evaluations should be measured | 1 | |
| at time of clinic visit | 1 (100.0%) | |
| Missing | 89 | |
| Other time period validated assessment requiring patient-reported outcomes should be measured | 3 | |
| as needed/required by insurance | 1 (33.3%) | |
| at time of clinic visit | 1 (33.3%) | |
| Based on previous disease activity measure. If patient is not doing well, Q3 M, if doing well, Q6 months | 1 (33.3%) | |
| Missing | 87 | |
| Other time period laboratory indicators should be measured | 2 | |
| As indicated on package insert | 1 (50.0%) | |
| Based on previous disease activity measure. If patient is not doing well, Q3 M, if doing well, Q6 months | 1 (50.0%) | |
| Missing | 88 | |
| Other time period flare occurrence/frequency should be measured | 1 | |
| Each reassessment cadence (6 weeks, 90 days, annually | 1 (100.0%) | |
| Missing | 89 | |
| 1 n (%) | ||
What should be captured related to patient quality of life on treatment? (select all that apply)
| Characteristic | N = 871 |
|---|---|
| Documentation that quality of life has been assessed | 62 (71.3%) |
| Outcomes of quality of life assessment | 51 (58.6%) |
| Actions taken by the pharmacy to address quality of life concerns | 39 (44.8%) |
| N/A- should not be measured by specialty pharmacies | 18 (20.7%) |
| 1 n (%) | |
How should quality of life be assessed? (select all that apply)
| Characteristic | N = 871 |
|---|---|
| Single patient question evaluating quality of life (e.g., stable, better, worse) | 45 (51.7%) |
| Patient satisfaction with treatment | 40 (46.0%) |
| Productivity impact (missed school, work, planned activities) | 35 (40.2%) |
| Perceived benefit of treatment | 34 (39.1%) |
| Validated quality of life assessment (e.g.,HAQ, RAQoL) | 33 (37.9%) |
| Work assessment for those employed (e.g., days missed work, average hours missed) | 27 (31.0%) |
| N/A- should not be measured by specialty pharmacies | 17 (19.5%) |
| Unsure | 3 (3.45%) |
| 1 n (%) | |
What is the optimal interval at which quality of life should be measured?
| Characteristic | N | N = 901 |
|---|---|---|
| Please provide your preferred single patient question evaluating quality of life. | 10 | |
| Better, Stable, Worse | 1 (10.0%) | |
| Do you feel like your QOL is better, worse, or the same since starting this medication? | 1 (10.0%) | |
| How has your quality of life been since starting the medication? | 1 (10.0%) | |
| how has your quality of life changed since starting this medicine? | 1 (10.0%) | |
| How well do you think the medication is working for you? | 1 (10.0%) | |
| How would you rate your overall quality of life since start of treatment: Stable, Improved, Worsened | 1 (10.0%) | |
| How would you say your disease currently affects your daily activities, improved, worse, or about the same? | 1 (10.0%) | |
| no specific preferred question | 1 (10.0%) | |
| on a scale of 1 -10 how would you rate your qol | 1 (10.0%) | |
| Please rate QOL 1-10, but has to be used with disease activity or functional eval to make sure it is assessing the RA. | 1 (10.0%) | |
| Missing | 80 | |
| 1 n (%) | ||
| Characteristic | N | N = 901 |
|---|---|---|
| Single patient question evaluating quality of life (e.g., stable, better, worse) | 45 | |
| Monthly | 9 (20.0%) | |
| Quarterly | 8 (17.8%) | |
| Every 6 months | 14 (31.1%) | |
| Annually | 12 (26.7%) | |
| Other | 2 (4.44%) | |
| Missing | 45 | |
| Validated quality of life assessment (e.g.,HAQ, RAQoL) | 33 | |
| Monthly | 3 (9.09%) | |
| Quarterly | 10 (30.3%) | |
| Every 6 months | 9 (27.3%) | |
| Annually | 7 (21.2%) | |
| Other | 2 (6.06%) | |
| Unsure | 2 (6.06%) | |
| Missing | 57 | |
| Perceived benefit of treatment | 34 | |
| Prior to/at the time of immune modulating medication initiation ONLY | 1 (2.94%) | |
| Monthly | 6 (17.6%) | |
| Quarterly | 7 (20.6%) | |
| Every 6 months | 7 (20.6%) | |
| Annually | 11 (32.4%) | |
| Other | 2 (5.88%) | |
| Missing | 56 | |
| Patient satisfaction with treatment | 40 | |
| Prior to/at the time of immune modulating medication initiation ONLY | 1 (2.50%) | |
| Monthly | 6 (15.0%) | |
| Quarterly | 8 (20.0%) | |
| Every 6 months | 10 (25.0%) | |
| Annually | 13 (32.5%) | |
| Other | 2 (5.00%) | |
| Missing | 50 | |
| Productivity impact (missed school, work, planned activities) | 35 | |
| Prior to/at the time of immune modulating medication initiation ONLY | 1 (2.86%) | |
| Monthly | 6 (17.1%) | |
| Quarterly | 11 (31.4%) | |
| Every 6 months | 9 (25.7%) | |
| Annually | 5 (14.3%) | |
| Other | 3 (8.57%) | |
| Missing | 55 | |
| Work assessment for those employed (e.g., days missed work, average hours missed) | 27 | |
| Prior to/at the time of immune modulating medication initiation ONLY | 1 (3.70%) | |
| Monthly | 6 (22.2%) | |
| Quarterly | 8 (29.6%) | |
| Every 6 months | 5 (18.5%) | |
| Annually | 5 (18.5%) | |
| Other | 2 (7.41%) | |
| Missing | 63 | |
| 1 n (%) | ||
| Characteristic | N | N = 901 |
|---|---|---|
| Please describe the other optimal interval at which a single patient question evaluating quality of life should be measured. | 2 | |
| baseline, within 3 months then annually | 1 (50.0%) | |
| Each reassessment cadence (6 weeks, 90 days, annually | 1 (50.0%) | |
| Missing | 88 | |
| Please describe the other optimal interval at which a validated quality of life assessment should be measured. | 2 | |
| Based on previous disease activity measure. If patient is not doing well, Q3 M, if doing well, Q6 months | 1 (50.0%) | |
| baseline, within 3 months then annually | 1 (50.0%) | |
| Missing | 88 | |
| Please describe the other optimal interval at which perceived benefit of treatment should be measured. | 2 | |
| baseline, within 3 months then annually | 1 (50.0%) | |
| Each reassessment cadence (6 weeks, 90 days, annually | 1 (50.0%) | |
| Missing | 88 | |
| Please describe the other optimal interval at which patient satisfaction with treatment should be measured. | 2 | |
| baseline, within 3 months then annually | 1 (50.0%) | |
| Each reassessment cadence (6 weeks, 90 days, annually | 1 (50.0%) | |
| Missing | 88 | |
| Please describe the other optimal interval at which productivity impact should be measured. | 3 | |
| Based on previous disease activity measure. If patient is not doing well, Q3 M, if doing well, Q6 months | 1 (33.3%) | |
| baseline, within 3 months then annually | 1 (33.3%) | |
| Each reassessment cadence (6 weeks, 90 days, annually | 1 (33.3%) | |
| Missing | 87 | |
| Please describe the other optimal interval at which a work assessment for those employed should be measured. | 2 | |
| baseline, within 3 months then annually | 1 (50.0%) | |
| Each reassessment cadence (6 weeks, 90 days, annually | 1 (50.0%) | |
| Missing | 88 | |
| 1 n (%) | ||
3 Round 3 - Feasibility
3.1 Expert type
| Characteristic | N | N = 511 |
|---|---|---|
| Expert panel type | 51 | |
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA | 10 (19.6%) | |
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement | 13 (25.5%) | |
| Pharmacy analyst | 4 (7.84%) | |
| Specialty pharmacy leader | 24 (47.1%) | |
| 1 n (%) | ||
The following measures were scored by specialty pharmacy stakeholders based on feasibility of collecting and feasibility of reporting using the following scale: 0, not at all feasible, 1, somewhat feasible, 2, moderately feasible, 3, very feasible.
Specialty pharmacy stakeholders also reported what measure-related metrics they currently collect/report as well as perceived facilitators and barriers to implementing the measure.
3.2 Adherence
| Characteristic |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | ||
| Patient-reported missed doses | 10 (100.0%) | 11 (84.6%) | 3 (75.0%) | 20 (83.3%) | 44 (86.3%) |
| PDC | 3 (30.0%) | 10 (76.9%) | 4 (100.0%) | 22 (91.7%) | 39 (76.5%) |
| MPR | 2 (20.0%) | 7 (53.8%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (16.7%) | 13 (25.5%) |
| Unsure | 2 (20.0%) | 1 (7.69%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (5.88%) |
| [Zero selected] | |||||
| No | 10 (100.0%) | 13 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 24 (100.0%) | 51 (100.0%) |
| 1 n (%) | |||||
| Characteristic | N |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | |||
| Any adherence measure | 51 | |||||
| Somewhat feasible | 2 (20.0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (8.33%) | 6 (11.8%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 4 (40.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 1 (25.0%) | 7 (29.2%) | 17 (33.3%) | |
| Very feasible | 4 (40.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 3 (75.0%) | 15 (62.5%) | 28 (54.9%) | |
| Patient-reported missed doses | 51 | |||||
| Somewhat feasible | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.17%) | 1 (1.96%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 5 (50.0%) | 3 (23.1%) | 1 (25.0%) | 10 (41.7%) | 19 (37.3%) | |
| Very feasible | 5 (50.0%) | 10 (76.9%) | 3 (75.0%) | 13 (54.2%) | 31 (60.8%) | |
| Proportion of days covered (PDC) | 51 | |||||
| Not at all feasible | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.17%) | 1 (1.96%) | |
| Somewhat feasible | 4 (40.0%) | 3 (23.1%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.17%) | 8 (15.7%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 3 (30.0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (25.0%) | 5 (20.8%) | 9 (17.6%) | |
| Very feasible | 3 (30.0%) | 10 (76.9%) | 3 (75.0%) | 17 (70.8%) | 33 (64.7%) | |
| 1 n (%) | ||||||
| Characteristic | N |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | |||
| Any adherence measure | 51 | |||||
| Somewhat feasible | 1 (10.0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.17%) | 4 (7.84%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 4 (40.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 1 (25.0%) | 8 (33.3%) | 18 (35.3%) | |
| Very feasible | 5 (50.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 3 (75.0%) | 15 (62.5%) | 29 (56.9%) | |
| Patient-reported missed doses | 51 | |||||
| Somewhat feasible | 0 (0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (16.7%) | 6 (11.8%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 4 (40.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 1 (25.0%) | 7 (29.2%) | 16 (31.4%) | |
| Very feasible | 6 (60.0%) | 7 (53.8%) | 3 (75.0%) | 13 (54.2%) | 29 (56.9%) | |
| Proportion of days covered (PDC) | 51 | |||||
| Not at all feasible | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.17%) | 1 (1.96%) | |
| Somewhat feasible | 4 (40.0%) | 1 (7.69%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.17%) | 6 (11.8%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 4 (40.0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 2 (50.0%) | 6 (25.0%) | 14 (27.5%) | |
| Very feasible | 2 (20.0%) | 10 (76.9%) | 2 (50.0%) | 16 (66.7%) | 30 (58.8%) | |
| 1 n (%) | ||||||
| Characteristic |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | ||
| Need/Motivation (buy-in from stakeholders [providers, pharmacists], perceived importance/usability) | 3 (30.0%) | 3 (23.1%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (16.7%) | 10 (19.6%) |
| Capability (workload or workflow, time constraints, technology limitations) | 5 (50.0%) | 9 (69.2%) | 2 (50.0%) | 14 (58.3%) | 30 (58.8%) |
| Opportunity (data availability, concern for low patient engagement) | 5 (50.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 2 (50.0%) | 9 (37.5%) | 22 (43.1%) |
| No anticipated barriers | 2 (20.0%) | 1 (7.69%) | 1 (25.0%) | 8 (33.3%) | 12 (23.5%) |
| [Zero selected] | |||||
| No | 10 (100.0%) | 13 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 24 (100.0%) | 51 (100.0%) |
| 1 n (%) | |||||
| Characteristic |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | ||
| Need/Motivation (buy-in from stakeholders [pharmacists, providers], perceived importance/usability) | 3 (30.0%) | 8 (61.5%) | 2 (50.0%) | 11 (45.8%) | 24 (47.1%) |
| Capability (workload or workflow integration, technology capabilities) | 4 (40.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 1 (25.0%) | 8 (33.3%) | 18 (35.3%) |
| Opportunity (data availability, anticipated high patient engagement) | 4 (40.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 2 (50.0%) | 12 (50.0%) | 24 (47.1%) |
| No anticipated facilitators | 2 (20.0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (25.0%) | 4 (16.7%) | 7 (13.7%) |
| [Zero selected] | |||||
| No | 10 (100.0%) | 13 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 24 (100.0%) | 51 (100.0%) |
| 1 n (%) | |||||
3.3 Medication outcomes
| Characteristic |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | ||
| Serious adverse events | 8 (80.0%) | 9 (69.2%) | 4 (100.0%) | 23 (95.8%) | 44 (86.3%) |
| Medication discontinuations | 8 (80.0%) | 9 (69.2%) | 3 (75.0%) | 17 (70.8%) | 37 (72.5%) |
| Medication switching | 8 (80.0%) | 7 (53.8%) | 3 (75.0%) | 14 (58.3%) | 32 (62.7%) |
| Common adverse events | 8 (80.0%) | 7 (53.8%) | 2 (50.0%) | 15 (62.5%) | 32 (62.7%) |
| Specific medication persistence | 5 (50.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 1 (25.0%) | 8 (33.3%) | 20 (39.2%) |
| Therapeutic persistence | 2 (20.0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 1 (25.0%) | 7 (29.2%) | 12 (23.5%) |
| None of the above | 0 (0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (3.92%) |
| Unsure | 2 (20.0%) | 1 (7.69%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.17%) | 4 (7.84%) |
| [Zero selected] | |||||
| No | 10 (100.0%) | 13 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 24 (100.0%) | 51 (100.0%) |
| 1 n (%) | |||||
| Characteristic | N |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | |||
| Serious adverse events | 51 | |||||
| Somewhat feasible | 3 (30.0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (8.33%) | 7 (13.7%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 2 (20.0%) | 7 (53.8%) | 2 (50.0%) | 9 (37.5%) | 20 (39.2%) | |
| Very feasible | 5 (50.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 2 (50.0%) | 13 (54.2%) | 24 (47.1%) | |
| Medication discontinuation | 51 | |||||
| Somewhat feasible | 1 (10.0%) | 1 (7.69%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (8.33%) | 4 (7.84%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 3 (30.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 0 (0%) | 10 (41.7%) | 17 (33.3%) | |
| Very feasible | 6 (60.0%) | 8 (61.5%) | 4 (100.0%) | 12 (50.0%) | 30 (58.8%) | |
| Medication switching | 51 | |||||
| Somewhat feasible | 2 (20.0%) | 3 (23.1%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (16.7%) | 9 (17.6%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 1 (10.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 1 (25.0%) | 12 (50.0%) | 20 (39.2%) | |
| Very feasible | 7 (70.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 3 (75.0%) | 8 (33.3%) | 22 (43.1%) | |
| Common adverse events | 51 | |||||
| Not at all feasible | 0 (0%) | 1 (7.69%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.96%) | |
| Somewhat feasible | 1 (10.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 0 (0%) | 8 (33.3%) | 14 (27.5%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 3 (30.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 2 (50.0%) | 10 (41.7%) | 19 (37.3%) | |
| Very feasible | 6 (60.0%) | 3 (23.1%) | 2 (50.0%) | 6 (25.0%) | 17 (33.3%) | |
| Specific medication persistence | 51 | |||||
| Not at all feasible | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.17%) | 1 (1.96%) | |
| Somewhat feasible | 3 (30.0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 0 (0%) | 9 (37.5%) | 14 (27.5%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 3 (30.0%) | 7 (53.8%) | 2 (50.0%) | 9 (37.5%) | 21 (41.2%) | |
| Very feasible | 4 (40.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 2 (50.0%) | 5 (20.8%) | 15 (29.4%) | |
| 1 n (%) | ||||||
| Characteristic | N |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | |||
| Serious adverse events | 51 | |||||
| Somewhat feasible | 2 (20.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 0 (0%) | 5 (20.8%) | 11 (21.6%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 5 (50.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 0 (0%) | 7 (29.2%) | 16 (31.4%) | |
| Very feasible | 3 (30.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 4 (100.0%) | 12 (50.0%) | 24 (47.1%) | |
| Medication discontinuation | 51 | |||||
| Somewhat feasible | 1 (10.0%) | 3 (23.1%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (16.7%) | 8 (15.7%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 4 (40.0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 1 (25.0%) | 11 (45.8%) | 18 (35.3%) | |
| Very feasible | 5 (50.0%) | 8 (61.5%) | 3 (75.0%) | 9 (37.5%) | 25 (49.0%) | |
| Medication switching | 51 | |||||
| Somewhat feasible | 1 (10.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 0 (0%) | 7 (29.2%) | 13 (25.5%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 5 (50.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 0 (0%) | 10 (41.7%) | 19 (37.3%) | |
| Very feasible | 4 (40.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 4 (100.0%) | 7 (29.2%) | 19 (37.3%) | |
| Common adverse events | 51 | |||||
| Not at all feasible | 0 (0%) | 1 (7.69%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.96%) | |
| Somewhat feasible | 1 (10.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 0 (0%) | 11 (45.8%) | 18 (35.3%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 5 (50.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 1 (25.0%) | 8 (33.3%) | 18 (35.3%) | |
| Very feasible | 4 (40.0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 3 (75.0%) | 5 (20.8%) | 14 (27.5%) | |
| Specific medication persistence | 51 | |||||
| Not at all feasible | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.17%) | 1 (1.96%) | |
| Somewhat feasible | 3 (30.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 0 (0%) | 9 (37.5%) | 17 (33.3%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 6 (60.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 1 (25.0%) | 11 (45.8%) | 24 (47.1%) | |
| Very feasible | 1 (10.0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 3 (75.0%) | 3 (12.5%) | 9 (17.6%) | |
| 1 n (%) | ||||||
| Characteristic |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | ||
| Need/Motivation (buy-in from stakeholders, perceived importance/usability) | 2 (20.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 0 (0%) | 8 (33.3%) | 14 (27.5%) |
| Capability (workload or workflow, time constraints, technology limitations) | 9 (90.0%) | 10 (76.9%) | 2 (50.0%) | 15 (62.5%) | 36 (70.6%) |
| Opportunity (data availability) | 5 (50.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 3 (75.0%) | 13 (54.2%) | 27 (52.9%) |
| [Zero selected] | |||||
| No | 10 (100.0%) | 13 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 24 (100.0%) | 51 (100.0%) |
| 1 n (%) | |||||
| Characteristic |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | ||
| Need/Motivation (buy-in from stakeholders, perceived importance/usability) | 3 (30.0%) | 7 (53.8%) | 2 (50.0%) | 15 (62.5%) | 27 (52.9%) |
| Capability (workload or workflow integration, technology capabilities) | 4 (40.0%) | 7 (53.8%) | 2 (50.0%) | 11 (45.8%) | 24 (47.1%) |
| Opportunity (data availability) | 4 (40.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 1 (25.0%) | 10 (41.7%) | 19 (37.3%) |
| [Zero selected] | |||||
| No | 10 (100.0%) | 13 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 24 (100.0%) | 51 (100.0%) |
| 1 n (%) | |||||
3.4 Response to therapy
| Characteristic |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | ||
| Disease activity measures | 5 (50.0%) | 7 (53.8%) | 4 (100.0%) | 14 (58.3%) | 30 (58.8%) |
| Flare occurrence/frequency | 8 (80.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 2 (50.0%) | 14 (58.3%) | 29 (56.9%) |
| treat to target progression based on patieng goals | 4 (40.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 1 (25.0%) | 13 (54.2%) | 22 (43.1%) |
| functional status measure | 2 (20.0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 2 (50.0%) | 6 (25.0%) | 12 (23.5%) |
| Persistence to medication/stopping or changing treatment | 5 (50.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 1 (25.0%) | 11 (45.8%) | 23 (45.1%) |
| Single patient question evaluating disease status | 6 (60.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 2 (50.0%) | 16 (66.7%) | 29 (56.9%) |
| None of the above | 0 (0%) | 1 (7.69%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.96%) |
| Unsure | 1 (10.0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.17%) | 4 (7.84%) |
| [Zero selected] | |||||
| No | 10 (100.0%) | 13 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 24 (100.0%) | 51 (100.0%) |
| 1 n (%) | |||||
| Characteristic | N |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | |||
| Any response to therapy measure | 51 | |||||
| Somewhat feasible | 0 (0%) | 3 (23.1%) | 0 (0%) | 6 (25.0%) | 9 (17.6%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 7 (70.0%) | 7 (53.8%) | 3 (75.0%) | 9 (37.5%) | 26 (51.0%) | |
| Very feasible | 3 (30.0%) | 3 (23.1%) | 1 (25.0%) | 9 (37.5%) | 16 (31.4%) | |
| Disease activity measure | 51 | |||||
| Not at all feasible | 1 (10.0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.17%) | 2 (3.92%) | |
| Somewhat feasible | 2 (20.0%) | 8 (61.5%) | 0 (0%) | 6 (25.0%) | 16 (31.4%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 6 (60.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 3 (75.0%) | 10 (41.7%) | 24 (47.1%) | |
| Very feasible | 1 (10.0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (25.0%) | 7 (29.2%) | 9 (17.6%) | |
| Flare occurrence/frequency | 51 | |||||
| Somewhat feasible | 0 (0%) | 7 (53.8%) | 0 (0%) | 6 (25.0%) | 13 (25.5%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 7 (70.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 3 (75.0%) | 11 (45.8%) | 26 (51.0%) | |
| Very feasible | 3 (30.0%) | 1 (7.69%) | 1 (25.0%) | 7 (29.2%) | 12 (23.5%) | |
| Treat to target progression based on patient goals | 51 | |||||
| Not at all feasible | 0 (0%) | 1 (7.69%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.17%) | 2 (3.92%) | |
| Somewhat feasible | 5 (50.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 2 (50.0%) | 6 (25.0%) | 17 (33.3%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 4 (40.0%) | 7 (53.8%) | 1 (25.0%) | 10 (41.7%) | 22 (43.1%) | |
| Very feasible | 1 (10.0%) | 1 (7.69%) | 1 (25.0%) | 7 (29.2%) | 10 (19.6%) | |
| Functional status measure | 51 | |||||
| Not at all feasible | 1 (10.0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.96%) | |
| Somewhat feasible | 4 (40.0%) | 8 (61.5%) | 1 (25.0%) | 9 (37.5%) | 22 (43.1%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 4 (40.0%) | 3 (23.1%) | 1 (25.0%) | 9 (37.5%) | 17 (33.3%) | |
| Very feasible | 1 (10.0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 2 (50.0%) | 6 (25.0%) | 11 (21.6%) | |
| 1 n (%) | ||||||
| Characteristic | N |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | |||
| Any response to therapy measure | 51 | |||||
| Somewhat feasible | 0 (0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 0 (0%) | 6 (25.0%) | 10 (19.6%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 8 (80.0%) | 7 (53.8%) | 2 (50.0%) | 8 (33.3%) | 25 (49.0%) | |
| Very feasible | 2 (20.0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 2 (50.0%) | 10 (41.7%) | 16 (31.4%) | |
| Disease activity measure | 51 | |||||
| Somewhat feasible | 2 (20.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 0 (0%) | 9 (37.5%) | 17 (33.3%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 7 (70.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 2 (50.0%) | 7 (29.2%) | 21 (41.2%) | |
| Very feasible | 1 (10.0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 2 (50.0%) | 8 (33.3%) | 13 (25.5%) | |
| Flare occurrence/frequency | 51 | |||||
| Somewhat feasible | 0 (0%) | 8 (61.5%) | 0 (0%) | 8 (33.3%) | 16 (31.4%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 8 (80.0%) | 3 (23.1%) | 2 (50.0%) | 9 (37.5%) | 22 (43.1%) | |
| Very feasible | 2 (20.0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 2 (50.0%) | 7 (29.2%) | 13 (25.5%) | |
| Treat to target progression based on patient goals | 51 | |||||
| Not at all feasible | 0 (0%) | 1 (7.69%) | 1 (25.0%) | 1 (4.17%) | 3 (5.88%) | |
| Somewhat feasible | 2 (20.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 1 (25.0%) | 7 (29.2%) | 15 (29.4%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 7 (70.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 0 (0%) | 11 (45.8%) | 23 (45.1%) | |
| Very feasible | 1 (10.0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 2 (50.0%) | 5 (20.8%) | 10 (19.6%) | |
| Functional status measure | 51 | |||||
| Somewhat feasible | 3 (30.0%) | 8 (61.5%) | 1 (25.0%) | 10 (41.7%) | 22 (43.1%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 6 (60.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 1 (25.0%) | 8 (33.3%) | 19 (37.3%) | |
| Very feasible | 1 (10.0%) | 1 (7.69%) | 2 (50.0%) | 6 (25.0%) | 10 (19.6%) | |
| 1 n (%) | ||||||
| Characteristic |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | ||
| Need/Motivation (buy-in from stakeholders [providers, pharmacists], perceived importance/usability) | 2 (20.0%) | 7 (53.8%) | 2 (50.0%) | 10 (41.7%) | 21 (41.2%) |
| Capability (workload or workflow, time constraints, technology limitations) | 8 (80.0%) | 10 (76.9%) | 2 (50.0%) | 18 (75.0%) | 38 (74.5%) |
| Opportunity (data availability, concern for low patient engagement) | 7 (70.0%) | 9 (69.2%) | 3 (75.0%) | 14 (58.3%) | 33 (64.7%) |
| No anticipated barriers | 1 (10.0%) | 1 (7.69%) | 1 (25.0%) | 2 (8.33%) | 5 (9.80%) |
| [Zero selected] | |||||
| No | 10 (100.0%) | 13 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 24 (100.0%) | 51 (100.0%) |
| 1 n (%) | |||||
| Characteristic |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | ||
| Need/Motivation (buy-in from stakeholders [pharmacists, providers], perceived importance/usability) | 5 (50.0%) | 7 (53.8%) | 1 (25.0%) | 10 (41.7%) | 23 (45.1%) |
| Capability (workload or workflow integration, technology capabilities) | 1 (10.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 0 (0%) | 5 (20.8%) | 12 (23.5%) |
| Opportunity (data availability, anticipated high patient engagement) | 3 (30.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 1 (25.0%) | 11 (45.8%) | 20 (39.2%) |
| No anticipated facilitators | 1 (10.0%) | 3 (23.1%) | 2 (50.0%) | 5 (20.8%) | 11 (21.6%) |
| [Zero selected] | |||||
| No | 10 (100.0%) | 13 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 24 (100.0%) | 51 (100.0%) |
| 1 n (%) | |||||
3.5 Safety
| Characteristic |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | ||
| TB screening | 10 (100.0%) | 12 (92.3%) | 2 (50.0%) | 21 (87.5%) | 45 (88.2%) |
| Drug-specific lab monitoring | 8 (80.0%) | 10 (76.9%) | 1 (25.0%) | 16 (66.7%) | 35 (68.6%) |
| HBV screening | 10 (100.0%) | 12 (92.3%) | 2 (50.0%) | 17 (70.8%) | 41 (80.4%) |
| Immunization screening | 6 (60.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 1 (25.0%) | 12 (50.0%) | 25 (49.0%) |
| Pregnancy | 7 (70.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 1 (25.0%) | 14 (58.3%) | 28 (54.9%) |
| HCV screening | 7 (70.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 1 (25.0%) | 11 (45.8%) | 24 (47.1%) |
| Infection risk assessment | 6 (60.0%) | 8 (61.5%) | 1 (25.0%) | 11 (45.8%) | 26 (51.0%) |
| Cardiovascular risk | 3 (30.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 1 (25.0%) | 8 (33.3%) | 16 (31.4%) |
| None of the above | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.17%) | 1 (1.96%) |
| Unsure | 0 (0%) | 1 (7.69%) | 2 (50.0%) | 2 (8.33%) | 5 (9.80%) |
| [Zero selected] | |||||
| No | 10 (100.0%) | 13 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 24 (100.0%) | 51 (100.0%) |
| 1 n (%) | |||||
| Characteristic | N |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | |||
| TB screening | 51 | |||||
| Somewhat feasible | 0 (0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 1 (25.0%) | 2 (8.33%) | 5 (9.80%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 2 (20.0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 10 (41.7%) | 12 (23.5%) | |
| Very feasible | 8 (80.0%) | 11 (84.6%) | 3 (75.0%) | 12 (50.0%) | 34 (66.7%) | |
| Drug-specific lab monitoring | 51 | |||||
| Somewhat feasible | 0 (0%) | 3 (23.1%) | 1 (25.0%) | 6 (25.0%) | 10 (19.6%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 5 (50.0%) | 3 (23.1%) | 1 (25.0%) | 9 (37.5%) | 18 (35.3%) | |
| Very feasible | 5 (50.0%) | 7 (53.8%) | 2 (50.0%) | 9 (37.5%) | 23 (45.1%) | |
| HBV screening | 51 | |||||
| Somewhat feasible | 0 (0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 1 (25.0%) | 3 (12.5%) | 6 (11.8%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 2 (20.0%) | 1 (7.69%) | 0 (0%) | 11 (45.8%) | 14 (27.5%) | |
| Very feasible | 8 (80.0%) | 10 (76.9%) | 3 (75.0%) | 10 (41.7%) | 31 (60.8%) | |
| Immunization screening | 51 | |||||
| Not at all feasible | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (8.33%) | 2 (3.92%) | |
| Somewhat feasible | 1 (10.0%) | 1 (7.69%) | 1 (25.0%) | 6 (25.0%) | 9 (17.6%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 5 (50.0%) | 7 (53.8%) | 1 (25.0%) | 7 (29.2%) | 20 (39.2%) | |
| Very feasible | 4 (40.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 2 (50.0%) | 9 (37.5%) | 20 (39.2%) | |
| 1 n (%) | ||||||
| Characteristic | N |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | |||
| TB screening | 51 | |||||
| Not at all feasible | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (8.33%) | 2 (3.92%) | |
| Somewhat feasible | 0 (0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 1 (25.0%) | 4 (16.7%) | 7 (13.7%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 3 (30.0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 0 (0%) | 8 (33.3%) | 13 (25.5%) | |
| Very feasible | 7 (70.0%) | 9 (69.2%) | 3 (75.0%) | 10 (41.7%) | 29 (56.9%) | |
| Drug-specific lab monitoring | 51 | |||||
| Not at all feasible | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (8.33%) | 2 (3.92%) | |
| Somewhat feasible | 1 (10.0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 1 (25.0%) | 11 (45.8%) | 15 (29.4%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 5 (50.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 1 (25.0%) | 7 (29.2%) | 18 (35.3%) | |
| Very feasible | 4 (40.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 2 (50.0%) | 4 (16.7%) | 16 (31.4%) | |
| HBV screening | 51 | |||||
| Not at all feasible | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (12.5%) | 3 (5.88%) | |
| Somewhat feasible | 1 (10.0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 1 (25.0%) | 4 (16.7%) | 8 (15.7%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 3 (30.0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 0 (0%) | 11 (45.8%) | 16 (31.4%) | |
| Very feasible | 6 (60.0%) | 9 (69.2%) | 3 (75.0%) | 6 (25.0%) | 24 (47.1%) | |
| Immunization screening | 51 | |||||
| Not at all feasible | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (12.5%) | 3 (5.88%) | |
| Somewhat feasible | 2 (20.0%) | 1 (7.69%) | 1 (25.0%) | 11 (45.8%) | 15 (29.4%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 5 (50.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 1 (25.0%) | 4 (16.7%) | 16 (31.4%) | |
| Very feasible | 3 (30.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 2 (50.0%) | 6 (25.0%) | 17 (33.3%) | |
| 1 n (%) | ||||||
| Characteristic |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | ||
| Need/Motivation (buy-in from stakeholders [providers, pharmacists], perceived importance/usability) | 2 (20.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 0 (0%) | 8 (33.3%) | 15 (29.4%) |
| Capability (workload or workflow, time constraints, technology limitations) | 7 (70.0%) | 9 (69.2%) | 2 (50.0%) | 19 (79.2%) | 37 (72.5%) |
| Opportunity (data availability, concern for low patient engagement) | 5 (50.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 1 (25.0%) | 14 (58.3%) | 26 (51.0%) |
| No anticipated barriers | 1 (10.0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 2 (50.0%) | 3 (12.5%) | 8 (15.7%) |
| [Zero selected] | |||||
| No | 10 (100.0%) | 13 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 24 (100.0%) | 51 (100.0%) |
| 1 n (%) | |||||
| Characteristic |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | ||
| Need/Motivation (buy-in from stakeholders [pharmacists, providers], perceived importance/usability) | 3 (30.0%) | 7 (53.8%) | 2 (50.0%) | 10 (41.7%) | 22 (43.1%) |
| Capability (workload or workflow integration, technology capabilities) | 2 (20.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 2 (50.0%) | 5 (20.8%) | 15 (29.4%) |
| Opportunity (data availability, anticipated high patient engagement) | 4 (40.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 2 (50.0%) | 7 (29.2%) | 18 (35.3%) |
| No anticipated facilitators | 1 (10.0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 1 (25.0%) | 7 (29.2%) | 11 (21.6%) |
| [Zero selected] | |||||
| No | 10 (100.0%) | 13 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 24 (100.0%) | 51 (100.0%) |
| 1 n (%) | |||||
3.6 Functional status
| Characteristic |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | ||
| Pain | 6 (60.0%) | 7 (53.8%) | 1 (25.0%) | 14 (58.3%) | 28 (54.9%) |
| Morning joint stiffness | 5 (50.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 0 (0%) | 8 (33.3%) | 19 (37.3%) |
| Disease burden | 4 (40.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 0 (0%) | 7 (29.2%) | 16 (31.4%) |
| Global functional status | 3 (30.0%) | 3 (23.1%) | 1 (25.0%) | 6 (25.0%) | 13 (25.5%) |
| Fatigue | 3 (30.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 0 (0%) | 6 (25.0%) | 13 (25.5%) |
| None of the above | 2 (20.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 0 (0%) | 6 (25.0%) | 13 (25.5%) |
| Unsure | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (75.0%) | 2 (8.33%) | 5 (9.80%) |
| [Zero selected] | |||||
| No | 10 (100.0%) | 13 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 24 (100.0%) | 51 (100.0%) |
| 1 n (%) | |||||
| Characteristic | N |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | |||
| Any functional status measure | 51 | |||||
| Somewhat feasible | 3 (30.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 1 (25.0%) | 7 (29.2%) | 15 (29.4%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 4 (40.0%) | 3 (23.1%) | 0 (0%) | 10 (41.7%) | 17 (33.3%) | |
| Very feasible | 3 (30.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 3 (75.0%) | 7 (29.2%) | 19 (37.3%) | |
| Pain | 51 | |||||
| Not at all feasible | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (25.0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.96%) | |
| Somewhat feasible | 2 (20.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 0 (0%) | 7 (29.2%) | 14 (27.5%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 4 (40.0%) | 1 (7.69%) | 0 (0%) | 9 (37.5%) | 14 (27.5%) | |
| Very feasible | 4 (40.0%) | 7 (53.8%) | 3 (75.0%) | 8 (33.3%) | 22 (43.1%) | |
| Morning joint stiffness | 51 | |||||
| Not at all feasible | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (25.0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.96%) | |
| Somewhat feasible | 3 (30.0%) | 7 (53.8%) | 0 (0%) | 8 (33.3%) | 18 (35.3%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 3 (30.0%) | 1 (7.69%) | 1 (25.0%) | 9 (37.5%) | 14 (27.5%) | |
| Very feasible | 4 (40.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 2 (50.0%) | 7 (29.2%) | 18 (35.3%) | |
| 1 n (%) | ||||||
| Characteristic | N |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | |||
| Any functional status measure | 51 | |||||
| Somewhat feasible | 2 (20.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 1 (25.0%) | 9 (37.5%) | 17 (33.3%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 5 (50.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 0 (0%) | 10 (41.7%) | 19 (37.3%) | |
| Very feasible | 3 (30.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 3 (75.0%) | 5 (20.8%) | 15 (29.4%) | |
| Pain | 51 | |||||
| Somewhat feasible | 1 (10.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 1 (25.0%) | 7 (29.2%) | 14 (27.5%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 5 (50.0%) | 3 (23.1%) | 0 (0%) | 9 (37.5%) | 17 (33.3%) | |
| Very feasible | 4 (40.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 3 (75.0%) | 8 (33.3%) | 20 (39.2%) | |
| Morning joint stiffness | 51 | |||||
| Not at all feasible | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (25.0%) | 1 (4.17%) | 2 (3.92%) | |
| Somewhat feasible | 1 (10.0%) | 7 (53.8%) | 0 (0%) | 9 (37.5%) | 17 (33.3%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 5 (50.0%) | 3 (23.1%) | 1 (25.0%) | 8 (33.3%) | 17 (33.3%) | |
| Very feasible | 4 (40.0%) | 3 (23.1%) | 2 (50.0%) | 6 (25.0%) | 15 (29.4%) | |
| 1 n (%) | ||||||
| Characteristic |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | ||
| Need/Motivation (buy-in from stakeholders [providers, pharmacists], perceived importance/usability) | 0 (0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 1 (25.0%) | 11 (45.8%) | 18 (35.3%) |
| Capability (workload or workflow, time constraints, technology limitations) | 8 (80.0%) | 10 (76.9%) | 3 (75.0%) | 15 (62.5%) | 36 (70.6%) |
| Opportunity (data availability, concern for low patient engagement) | 4 (40.0%) | 10 (76.9%) | 2 (50.0%) | 16 (66.7%) | 32 (62.7%) |
| No anticipated barriers | 2 (20.0%) | 1 (7.69%) | 1 (25.0%) | 3 (12.5%) | 7 (13.7%) |
| [Zero selected] | |||||
| No | 10 (100.0%) | 13 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 24 (100.0%) | 51 (100.0%) |
| 1 n (%) | |||||
| Characteristic |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | ||
| Need/Motivation (buy-in from stakeholders [pharmacists, providers], perceived importance/usability) | 4 (40.0%) | 8 (61.5%) | 1 (25.0%) | 9 (37.5%) | 22 (43.1%) |
| Capability (workload or workflow integration, technology capabilities) | 1 (10.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 1 (25.0%) | 7 (29.2%) | 13 (25.5%) |
| Opportunity (data availability, anticipated high patient engagement) | 3 (30.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 1 (25.0%) | 9 (37.5%) | 17 (33.3%) |
| No anticipated facilitators | 2 (20.0%) | 3 (23.1%) | 2 (50.0%) | 6 (25.0%) | 13 (25.5%) |
| [Zero selected] | |||||
| No | 10 (100.0%) | 13 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 24 (100.0%) | 51 (100.0%) |
| 1 n (%) | |||||
3.7 Disease activity
| Characteristic |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | ||
| Validated assessment using patient-reported outcomes | 1 (10.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 4 (100.0%) | 13 (54.2%) | 24 (47.1%) |
| Flare occurrence/frequency | 8 (80.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 2 (50.0%) | 13 (54.2%) | 27 (52.9%) |
| Laboratory indicators | 2 (20.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 3 (75.0%) | 4 (16.7%) | 14 (27.5%) |
| Unvaluated single patient-reported question evaluating their disease activity | 5 (50.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 3 (75.0%) | 7 (29.2%) | 19 (37.3%) |
| Validated assessment requiring clinician evaluation | 1 (10.0%) | 1 (7.69%) | 1 (25.0%) | 3 (12.5%) | 6 (11.8%) |
| None of the above | 0 (0%) | 1 (7.69%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (16.7%) | 5 (9.80%) |
| Unsure | 1 (10.0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (8.33%) | 5 (9.80%) |
| [Zero selected] | |||||
| No | 10 (100.0%) | 13 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 24 (100.0%) | 51 (100.0%) |
| 1 n (%) | |||||
| Characteristic | N |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | |||
| Any disease activity measure | 51 | |||||
| Not at all feasible | 0 (0%) | 1 (7.69%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.17%) | 2 (3.92%) | |
| Somewhat feasible | 2 (20.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 0 (0%) | 6 (25.0%) | 12 (23.5%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 5 (50.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 2 (50.0%) | 10 (41.7%) | 21 (41.2%) | |
| Very feasible | 3 (30.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 2 (50.0%) | 7 (29.2%) | 16 (31.4%) | |
| Validated assessment using patient-reported outcomes (e.g., RAPID3) | 51 | |||||
| Not at all feasible | 1 (10.0%) | 1 (7.69%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (12.5%) | 5 (9.80%) | |
| Somewhat feasible | 4 (40.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 0 (0%) | 8 (33.3%) | 17 (33.3%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 3 (30.0%) | 3 (23.1%) | 1 (25.0%) | 6 (25.0%) | 13 (25.5%) | |
| Very feasible | 2 (20.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 3 (75.0%) | 7 (29.2%) | 16 (31.4%) | |
| Flare occurrence/frequency | 51 | |||||
| Somewhat feasible | 1 (10.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 1 (25.0%) | 6 (25.0%) | 13 (25.5%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 4 (40.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 1 (25.0%) | 10 (41.7%) | 20 (39.2%) | |
| Very feasible | 5 (50.0%) | 3 (23.1%) | 2 (50.0%) | 8 (33.3%) | 18 (35.3%) | |
| 1 n (%) | ||||||
| Characteristic | N |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | |||
| Any disease activity measure | 51 | |||||
| Not at all feasible | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.17%) | 1 (1.96%) | |
| Somewhat feasible | 3 (30.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 0 (0%) | 5 (20.8%) | 14 (27.5%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 4 (40.0%) | 3 (23.1%) | 0 (0%) | 13 (54.2%) | 20 (39.2%) | |
| Very feasible | 3 (30.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 4 (100.0%) | 5 (20.8%) | 16 (31.4%) | |
| Validated assessment using patient-reported outcomes (e.g., RAPID3) | 51 | |||||
| Not at all feasible | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (8.33%) | 2 (3.92%) | |
| Somewhat feasible | 2 (20.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 0 (0%) | 9 (37.5%) | 17 (33.3%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 6 (60.0%) | 3 (23.1%) | 2 (50.0%) | 7 (29.2%) | 18 (35.3%) | |
| Very feasible | 2 (20.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 2 (50.0%) | 6 (25.0%) | 14 (27.5%) | |
| Flare occurrence/frequency | 51 | |||||
| Somewhat feasible | 1 (10.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 1 (25.0%) | 8 (33.3%) | 16 (31.4%) | |
| Moderately feasible | 5 (50.0%) | 4 (30.8%) | 0 (0%) | 12 (50.0%) | 21 (41.2%) | |
| Very feasible | 4 (40.0%) | 3 (23.1%) | 3 (75.0%) | 4 (16.7%) | 14 (27.5%) | |
| 1 n (%) | ||||||
| Characteristic |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | ||
| Need/Motivation (buy-in from stakeholders [providers, pharmacists], perceived importance/usability) | 2 (20.0%) | 7 (53.8%) | 0 (0%) | 13 (54.2%) | 22 (43.1%) |
| Capability (workload or workflow, time constraints, technology limitations) | 6 (60.0%) | 11 (84.6%) | 1 (25.0%) | 15 (62.5%) | 33 (64.7%) |
| Opportunity (data availability, concern for low patient engagement) | 5 (50.0%) | 8 (61.5%) | 2 (50.0%) | 13 (54.2%) | 28 (54.9%) |
| No anticipated barriers | 0 (0%) | 1 (7.69%) | 1 (25.0%) | 2 (8.33%) | 4 (7.84%) |
| [Zero selected] | |||||
| No | 10 (100.0%) | 13 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 24 (100.0%) | 51 (100.0%) |
| 1 n (%) | |||||
| Characteristic |
Expert panel type
|
Overall, N = 511 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) dedicated to RA, N = 101 | Specialty pharmacy provider (PharmD/RN) with some RA involvement, N = 131 | Pharmacy analyst, N = 41 | Specialty pharmacy leader, N = 241 | ||
| Need/Motivation (buy-in from stakeholders [pharmacists, providers], perceived importance/usability) | 6 (60.0%) | 8 (61.5%) | 2 (50.0%) | 10 (41.7%) | 26 (51.0%) |
| Capability (workload or workflow integration, technology capabilities) | 1 (10.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 1 (25.0%) | 6 (25.0%) | 14 (27.5%) |
| Opportunity (data availability, anticipated high patient engagement) | 4 (40.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 2 (50.0%) | 9 (37.5%) | 20 (39.2%) |
| No anticipated facilitators | 0 (0%) | 3 (23.1%) | 0 (0%) | 5 (20.8%) | 8 (15.7%) |
| [Zero selected] | |||||
| No | 10 (100.0%) | 13 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 24 (100.0%) | 51 (100.0%) |
| 1 n (%) | |||||
4 Final voting
4.1 Survey results
| Characteristic | N | N = 181 |
|---|---|---|
| Adherence (any measure) | 18 | |
| Core | 18 (100.0%) | |
| Reach | 0 (0%) | |
| Neither | 0 (0%) | |
| Discontinuations | 18 | |
| Core | 14 (77.8%) | |
| Reach | 4 (22.2%) | |
| Neither | 0 (0%) | |
| Medication switches | 18 | |
| Core | 11 (61.1%) | |
| Reach | 7 (38.9%) | |
| Neither | 0 (0%) | |
| Medication persistence | 18 | |
| Core | 4 (22.2%) | |
| Reach | 14 (77.8%) | |
| Neither | 0 (0%) | |
| 1 n (%) | ||
| Characteristic | N | N = 181 |
|---|---|---|
| Common AEs | 18 | |
| Core | 8 (44.4%) | |
| Reach | 7 (38.9%) | |
| Neither | 3 (16.7%) | |
| Serious adverse events (AEs) | 18 | |
| Core | 17 (94.4%) | |
| Reach | 1 (5.56%) | |
| Neither | 0 (0%) | |
| 1 n (%) | ||
| Characteristic | N | N = 181 |
|---|---|---|
| TB screening | 18 | |
| Core | 13 (72.2%) | |
| Reach | 4 (22.2%) | |
| Neither | 1 (5.56%) | |
| HBV screening | 18 | |
| Core | 13 (72.2%) | |
| Reach | 4 (22.2%) | |
| Neither | 1 (5.56%) | |
| Drug-specific lab screening | 18 | |
| Core | 8 (44.4%) | |
| Reach | 7 (38.9%) | |
| Neither | 3 (16.7%) | |
| Immunization screening | 18 | |
| Core | 8 (44.4%) | |
| Reach | 7 (38.9%) | |
| Neither | 3 (16.7%) | |
| 1 n (%) | ||
| Characteristic | N | N = 181 |
|---|---|---|
| Patient response to therapy (any measure) | 18 | |
| Core | 16 (88.9%) | |
| Reach | 2 (11.1%) | |
| Neither | 0 (0%) | |
| Patient functional status (any measure) | 18 | |
| Core | 5 (27.8%) | |
| Reach | 12 (66.7%) | |
| Neither | 1 (5.56%) | |
| Patient disease activity (any measure) | 18 | |
| Core | 4 (22.2%) | |
| Reach | 14 (77.8%) | |
| Neither | 0 (0%) | |
| 1 n (%) | ||