#1030 Addressing the unmet need of patient reported outcomes in ANCA associated vasculitis, in routine clinical practice
Authors: Floyd Lauren , Dhaygude Ajay , Mitra Sandip , Rowland Christine 
Published: May 2024

Abstract

Background and Aims
ANCA associated vasculitis (AAV) is associated with increased morbidity. Recent years has seen improvement in clinical outcomes yet little work has been done to better understand the patient's role within this condition.
Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly standard in clinical research outcomes, as well as an overall indicator for good quality patient care. With the exception of Robson et al AAV-PRO [1], little research has been done to develop validated disease specific tools for patients living with AAV. We aim to develop a disease specific tool that can be used in clinical practice to aid patients and clinicians in understanding and track changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) over time.

Method
AAV patients from a single centre were invited to take part in focus groups conducted using a semi-structured topic guide. Participants were asked to discuss topics relating to four broad areas; 1) the effects of AAV on everyday life and living, 2) the effects of treatment on everyday life and living, 3) the role of patients in health management and the patient experience 4) a review of existing generic and disease specific PROM tools (SF-36 and AAV-PRO). Audio transcript of each focus group was transcribed verbatim and data was analysed using a combination of inductive and deductive framework analysis [2].

Results
Twenty-eight patients with AAV were invited to participate, 19 attended one of three, 2.5 hour focus groups, 2 patients failed to attend, 4 declined and 3 were unavailable. The mean age of participants was 66.6 +9.4 years and there was a near equal male to female split (10:9). The median time from diagnosis as 7.4 years. Three participants had active or newly diagnosed AAV with BVAS scores of &gt;10. Five participants had previously required dialysis with 1 receiving a renal transplant. All participants received glucocorticoid and immunosuppressive therapy (cyclophosphamide and or Rituximab), 15 (78.9%) were still receiving immunotherapy.
Full analysis of the qualitative data is being undertaken. Preliminary findings outlined what was most important to participants when considering HRQoL. Areas acknowledged included; self-identity, social roles e.g. fulfilling caring responsibilities, fears of relapse and disease and treatment burden. Fifty-six deductive and inductive codes were identified which have been further categorised.
Participants felt existing tools lacked consideration of some key issues. Scoring systems were considered to be negativity worded e.g. mild, moderate, severe, with the term ‘none’ being the only positive option. Participants reported that existing tools overlooked positive factors which impact HRQoL, such as symptom validation, close clinician monitoring and improvement with treatment. Limitations were noted when trying to address transient or inconsistent symptoms and difficulty separating vasculitis from other health conditions when answering questions. Participants expressed a preference for using a PROM as part of their clinical care and felt that completing it prior to clinic would be most helpful and facilitate discussions with healthcare professionals. The use of an electronic-PROM was widely supported and would support clinicians and patients to monitor changes over time.

Conclusion
The AAV-PRO represents a significant advancement over generic tools such as the SF-36, however, existing PROMs are not without limitations and are primarily used in research practices. Our study revealed that patients desire active participation in HRQoL discussions and further work to incorporate this into the clinic setting is needed.
We are continuing to develop a PROM tool that can be used to assess patients HRQoL in relation to their AAV in the outpatient setting. We believe this will allow a deeper understanding of the disease burden and could support a comprehensive, patient-centred approach to decision-making, offering new insights and identifying the need for supportive care. On a broader scale, these insights can be utilized to compare treatments, shed light on inequalities and facilitate enhancements in services.