Factors That Influence Clinician Prescribing of Corticosteroids for Acute Idiopathic and Multiple Sclerosis–Associated Optic Neuritis: A Qualitative Study

Abstract

Background: Treatment with corticosteroids is common for patients with idiopathic and multiple sclerosis–associated optic neuritis (I/MS-ON). Yet, the Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial and meta-analyses confirm that few patients benefit and that visual benefit is of questionable clinical significance, short-lived, and comes with potential harms. The purpose of this study was to uncover the breadth of factors that underlie clinicians' treatment decisions and determine how these factors may influence corticosteroid use for I/MS-ON. Methods: We performed semistructured, one-on-one, qualitative interviews with neurologists, neuro-ophthalmologists, and emergency department clinicians at 15 academic and private practices across the United States. The interview guide used the Theoretical Domain Framework and a vignette to explore numerous factors that might influence decision making for definite I/MS-ON. We analyzed transcripts using inductive thematic analysis to generate themes. Results: A total of 22 clinicians were interviewed before thematic saturation was reached: 8 neuro-ophthalmologists, 8 neurologists, and 6 emergency medicine (EM) clinicians (2 physician assistants, 4 physicians). All neuro-ophthalmologists and nearly all neurologists (7 of 8) were aware of risks/benefits of corticosteroid treatment for I/MS-ON. However, neuro-ophthalmologists varied in their corticosteroid treatment recommendation (n = 3 recommended treatment, n = 2 recommended observation, n = 3 recommended shared decision making), whereas all neurologists recommended corticosteroids, indicating that knowledge of corticosteroid risk/benefit alone does not drive decision making. EM clinicians were not aware of risk/benefits of corticosteroid treatment for I/MS-ON and relied on the treatment recommendations of neurologists. Clinicians recommending corticosteroids held personal beliefs that corticosteroids benefit those with worse vision loss, relieve pain, allow earlier return to work, or have easily mitigated side effects. They also perceived that prescribing steroid was the principal method of “doing something,” which fit a key provider role. Clinicians who did not recommend corticosteroids or were neutral perceived the risks as nontrivial, considered discussing treatment trade-offs as “doing something” and incorporated patient preferences. Conclusions: Knowledge of risk/benefits of corticosteroids are necessary but not sufficient for evidence-based I/MS-ON practice. Variation in how clinicians treat patients with acute I/MS-ON is influenced largely by psychosocial factors, such as beliefs about corticosteroid risk/benefit trade-offs and the role of the clinician to provide treatment. Interventions to support evidence-based decision making for I/MS-ON treatment will need to provide risk/benefit information to support clinicians with varying levels of expertise, incorporate patient preference, and normalize the option to observe.