Back to Authors

Machua, Wambui

Mayo Clinic

Patient Advisory Panel Members

Citations 2

A Qualitative Analysis of Patient Perspectives and Preferences in Lupus Management to Guide Lupus Guidelines Development
Garg, Shivani , Hartel, Izzy, Sammaritano, Lisa R. , Askanase, Anca , Bermas, Bonnie L. , Dall’Era, Maria , Duarte‐García, Alí , Rovin, Brad H. , Turner, Amy S. , Williams, Bené, Ung, Brian , Bhavsar, Hiya, Gore‐Massy, Monique , Pulido, Nahirannette, Guerrero, N Hernandez, Smith, Natalie, Machua, Wambui, Hiraki, Linda T. , Rovin, Brad H , Turner, Amy S , Hiraki, Linda T , Duarte-García, Alí , Garg, Shivani , Sammaritano, Lisa R , Askanase, Anca , Bermas, Bonnie , Werth, Victoria P. , Mustafa, Reem A , Williams, Bené, Pulido, Nahirannette, Guerrero, Natacha, Son, Mary Beth F.

Arthritis Care & Research | November 3, 2025 | Volume: 78 | Issue: 7 | Pages: 925-935

10.1002/acr.25693 Get It

Objective A patient‐centered approach for chronic disease management, including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), aligns treatment with patients’ values and preferences, leading to improved outcomes. This paper summarizes how patient experiences, perspectives, and priorities informed the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Lupus Nephritis (LN) and 2025 SLE screening, treatment guidelines. Methods We completed a cross‐sectional qualitative study using content analysis of two Patient Panel meetings for the ACR LN and SLE guidelines. Key themes were presented by Patient Panel representatives during Voting Panel Meetings along with evidence for each recommendation, to ensure comprehensive discussions and align treatment recommendations with patients’ priorities and values. Results Nineteen people (90% women) with diagnoses of SLE and/or LN participated in the Patient Panels and 17 consented to use their feedback for analysis. Thematic analysis of their discussions revealed nine patient‐reported key themes in three domains: (1) treatment and monitoring of LN and SLE: medication side effects, daily function, treatment goals, and monitoring and screening; (2) clinical communication: strategies to optimize communication and provider and structural impediments to effective communication; and (3) improving transparency and information sharing: clinical trial participation, and medical costs and insurance coverage. These themes were actively incorporated into discussions during the Voting Panels for the ACR LN and SLE guidelines. Conclusion This work supported the integration of patient experiences in the clinical practice guideline development process and aligned recommendations with real‐world patient experiences and priorities, thereby enhancing the clinical applicability of the ACR LN and SLE guidelines. image
Development of the American College of Rheumatology Patient‐Reported Outcome Quality Measures for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
Katz, Patricia , Barber, Claire , Duarte‐García, Alí , Garg, Shivani , Machua, Wambui, Rodgers, Wendy, Santiago‐Casas, Yesenia, Suter, Lisa G., Bartels, Christie M. , Yazdany, Jinoos , Katz, Patricia , Barber, Claire E H , Suter, Lisa , Duarte-García, Alí , Yazdany, Jinoos , Bartels, Christie M , Garg, Shivani

Arthritis Care & Research | January 15, 2024 | Volume: 76 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 777-787

10.1002/acr.25301 Get It

Objective As part of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–funded American College of Rheumatology (ACR) initiative, we sought to develop quality measures related to Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) use for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) clinical care. Methods An expert workgroup composed of physician, patient, and researcher representatives convened to identify patient‐reported outcome (PRO) domains of greatest importance to people with SLE. A patient advisory panel separately ranked domains. PROMs assessing priority domains were identified through structured literature review, and detailed psychometric reviews were conducted for each PROM. In a Delphi process, the expert workgroup rated PROMs on content validity, psychometric quality, feasibility of implementation, and importance for guiding patient self‐management. The patient advisory panel reviewed PROMs in parallel and contributed to the final recommendations. Results Among relevant PRO domains, the workgroup and patient partners ranked depression, physical function, pain, cognition, and fatigue as high‐priority domains. The workgroup recommended at least once yearly measurement for (1) assessment of depression using the Patient Health Questionnaire or Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression scales; (2) assessment of physical function using PROMIS physical function scales or the Multi‐Dimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire; and (3) optional assessments of fatigue and cognition. Pain scales evaluated were not found to be sufficiently superior to what is already assessed in most SLE clinic visits. Conclusion Expert workgroup members and patient partners recommend that clinicians assess depression and physical function at least once yearly in all people with SLE. Additional PROMs addressing cognition and fatigue can also be assessed. Next steps are to incorporate PROM‐based quality measures into the ACR The Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness registry.