Skip to content
2000
Volume 2, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0250-6882
  • E-ISSN: 0250-6882

Abstract

Management of rheumatoid arthritis is complicated due to different disease presentations and the multiplicity of drugs. Although most patients are informed about the risks of treatment, there remain possible side-effects, which patients are not informed about to avoid the 'information dump.’ Rheumatologists have to balance what they believe is essential to tell patients what reasonable patients believe they need to know to make an informed consent.

To determine differences in information that the physicians give, regarding the possible side effects of treatment options for rheumatoid arthritis, and what the patients actually want to know.

To conduct this pilot study, a questionnaire was devised to assess what patients and prescribing rheumatologists, from the Gulf Cooperative Council, consider important for being informed about, including the possible adverse events with biologic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis.

A total of 20 patients and 13 physicians completed the questionnaire. Physicians routinely discussed the increased risk of infections (100%), skin rashes at injection sites (92%),falling white blood cell counts, and alterations in liver enzymes (84%). Patients were less interested in learning about infections (72%) and more interested in learning about rare complications, such as an increased risk of heart failure and cancer (81%), which doctors were less likely to discuss.

There is a discordance between what doctors inform patients about and what patients want to know regarding the risks of biologic therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. This information gap can have a significant legal implications in routine practice if a patient develops a rare side effect of which they have not been informed. We propose a solution of both verbal and signed informed consent to bridge the gap.

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Bentham Science Publisher. This is an open access article published under CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/nemj/10.2174/0250688201999200421153704
2020-04-21
2025-03-13
The full text of this item is not currently available.

References

  1. MckeownE.J. The ethical challenges in rheumatology.Curr. Rev. Musculoskelet. Med.20158210711210.1007/s12178‑015‑9263‑125749485
    [Google Scholar]
  2. TownsendA. AdamP. CoxS.M. LiL.C. Everyday ethics and help-seeking in early rheumatoid arthritis.Chronic Illn.20106317118210.1177/174239530935196320610465
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Marques FilhoJ. Informed consent in rheumatology care practice.Rev. Bras. Reumatol.201151217918310.1590/S0482‑5004201100020000721584423
    [Google Scholar]
  4. GradyC. CummingsS.R. RowbothamM.C. McConnellM.V. AshleyE.A. KangG. Informed Consent.N. Engl. J. Med.2017376985686710.1056/NEJMra160377328249147
    [Google Scholar]
  5. WrightS.J. What a rheumatologist should know about the law: I. Battery, breach of contract and negligence.Br. J. Rheumatol.198726214715210.1093/rheumatology/26.2.1473828667
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Fernandez LynchH. JoffeS. FeldmanE.A. Informed consent and the role of the treating physician.N. Engl. J. Med.2018378252433243810.1056/NEJMhle180007129924950
    [Google Scholar]
  7. KohJ. GohE. YuK.S. ChoB. YangJ.H. Discrepancy between participants’ understanding and desire to know in informed consent: are they informed about what they really want to know?J. Med. Ethics201238210210610.1136/jme.2010.04097221708828
    [Google Scholar]
  8. RomainP.L. Ethics: Investigators’ interests: what should trial participants be told?Nat. Rev. Rheumatol.201062707110.1038/nrrheum.2009.26420125171
    [Google Scholar]
  9. AppelbaumP.S. AnatchkovaM. AlbertK. DunnL.B. LidzC.W. Therapeutic misconception in research subjects: development and validation of a measure.Clin. Trials20129674876110.1177/174077451245645522942217
    [Google Scholar]
  10. MuthC.C. Conflict of Interest in Medicine.JAMA201731717181210.1001/jama.2017.404428464142
    [Google Scholar]
  11. DuclosC.W. EichlerM. TaylorL. QuintelaJ. MainD.S. PaceW. StatonE.W. Patient perspectives of patient-provider communication after adverse events.Int. J. Qual. Health Care200517647948610.1093/intqhc/mzi06516037100
    [Google Scholar]
  12. HicksonG.B. ClaytonE.W. GithensP.B. SloanF.A. Factors that prompted families to file medical malpractice claims following perinatal injuries.JAMA1992267101359136310.1001/jama.1992.034801000650321740858
    [Google Scholar]
  13. AletahaD. NeogiT. SilmanA.J. FunovitsJ. FelsonD.T. BinghamC.O.III BirnbaumN.S. BurmesterG.R. BykerkV.P. CohenM.D. CombeB. CostenbaderK.H. DougadosM. EmeryP. FerraccioliG. HazesJ.M. HobbsK. HuizingaT.W. KavanaughA. KayJ. KvienT.K. LaingT. MeaseP. MénardH.A. MorelandL.W. NadenR.L. PincusT. SmolenJ.S. Stanislawska-BiernatE. SymmonsD. TakP.P. UpchurchK.S. VencovskýJ. WolfeF. HawkerG. 2010 Rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology /European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative.Arthritis Rheum.20106292569258110.1002/art.2758420872595
    [Google Scholar]
  14. GreenblumJ. HubbardR. The common rule’s ‘reasonable person’ standard for informed consent.Bioethics201933227427710.1111/bioe.1254430474124
    [Google Scholar]
  15. CollocaL. Nocebo effects can make you feel pain.Science201735863594410.1126/science.aap848828983038
    [Google Scholar]
  16. LevinsonW. RoterD.L. MulloolyJ.P. DullV.T. FrankelR.M. Physician-patient communication. The relationship with malpractice claims among primary care physicians and surgeons.JAMA1997277755355910.1001/jama.1997.035403100510349032162
    [Google Scholar]
  17. DodgeA.M. FitzerS.F. When good doctors get sued: A guide for defendant physicians involved in malpractice lawsuits.Book Partners, Inc.2006
    [Google Scholar]
  18. SkolnikN.S. SmithD.R. DiamondJ. Professional satisfaction and dissatisfaction of family physicians.J. Fam. Pract.19933732572638409877
    [Google Scholar]
  19. SalvaraniC. HunderG.G. Giant cell arteritis with low erythrocyte sedimentation rate: frequency of occurence in a population-based study.Arthritis Rheum.200145214014510.1002/1529‑0131(200104)45:2<140::AID‑ANR166>3.0.CO;2‑211324777
    [Google Scholar]
  20. StuddertD.M. MelloM.M. BrennanT.A. Medical malpractice.N. Engl. J. Med.2004350328329210.1056/NEJMhpr03547014724310
    [Google Scholar]
  21. PopeJ.E. TingeyD.P. ArnoldJ.M. HongP. OuimetJ.M. KrizovaA. Are subjects satisfied with the informed consent process? A survey of research participants.J. Rheumatol.200330481582412672205
    [Google Scholar]
  22. WohlfahrtA. CamposA. IversenM.D. GagneJ.J. MassarottiE. SolomonD.H. FeldmanC.H. Use of rheumatology-specific patient navigators to understand and reduce barriers to medication adherence: Analysis of qualitative findings.PLoS One2018137e020088610.1371/journal.pone.020088630024938
    [Google Scholar]
  23. SafdarN. AbboL.M. KnoblochM.J. SeoS.K. Research methods in healthcare epidemiology: Survey and qualitative research.Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.201637111272127710.1017/ice.2016.17127514583
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/nemj/10.2174/0250688201999200421153704
Loading
/content/journals/nemj/10.2174/0250688201999200421153704
Loading

Data & Media loading...


  • Article Type:
    Research Article
Keyword(s): Biologics; Disclosure; Informed consent; Medicolegal; Rheumatoid arthritis; Side effects
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test