Identification of H19 polymorphism for an assessment of biallelic expression

Abstract only availableAnimals produced from assisted reproductive technologies suffer from developmental abnormalities and early fetal death at a higher frequency than that observed in those produced by natural breeding. These symptoms are reminiscent of imprinting disruptions, suggesting the possibility of an alteration in the expression of imprinted genes such as biallelic expression or silencing. H19 is one of the imprinted genes first identified in mice and humans, but its imprinting status has not been determined in pigs. The objective of this study was to identify an H19 polymorphism and estimate its frequency in the commercial pig population. In this study a polymorphism in the H19 gene was identified. The PCR products contained a pooled genome with over 900 specimens to support this finding. From the positive PCR products, the DNA was cloned and transformed with a TOPO TA Cloning kit (Invitrogen). Positive colonies were identified and digested with an AciI enzyme, which cut the DNA in specific fragments that were identifiable in a gel. Analysis of the gel showed evidence that a polymorphism exists on the H19 gene.F.B. Miller Undergraduate Research Program in Animal Science

Estimation of minimum clinically important difference for pain in fibromyalgia

Objective To estimate the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for several pain measures obtained from the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) for patients with fibromyalgia. Methods Data were pooled across 12‐week treatment periods from 4 randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled studies designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of duloxetine for the treatment of fibromyalgia. Each study enrolled subjects with American College of Rheumatology–defined fibromyalgia who presented with moderate to severe pain. The MCIDs for the BPI average pain item score and the BPI severity score (the mean of the BPI pain scale values: right now, average, least, and worst) were estimated by anchoring against the Patient's Global Impressions of Improvement scale. Results The anchor‐based MCIDs for the BPI average pain item and severity scores were 2.1 and 2.2 points, respectively. These MCIDs correspond to 32.3% and 34.2% reductions from baseline in scores. Conclusion In these analyses, the MCIDs for several pain measures obtained from the BPI were similar (∼2 points) and corresponded to a 30–35% improvement from baseline to end point. These findings may be beneficial for use in designing clinical trials in which the BPI is used to evaluate improvements in pain severity.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/87063/1/20449_ftp.pd

OMERACT Filter 2.1: Elaboration of the Conceptual Framework for Outcome Measurement in Health Intervention Studies

Objective: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.0 framework was developed in 2014 to aid core outcome set development by describing the full universe of “measurable aspects of health conditions” from which core domains can be selected. This paper provides elaborations and updated concepts (OMERACT Filter 2.1). Methods: At OMERACT 2018, we discussed challenges in the framework application caused by unclear or ambiguous wording and terms and incompletely developed concepts. Results: The updated OMERACT Filter 2.1 framework makes benefits and harms explicit, clarifies concepts, and improves naming of various terms. Conclusion: We expect that the Filter 2.1 framework will improve the process of core set development

Reliability and sensitivity to change of the bristol rheumatoid arthritis fatigue scales

Objective. To examine the reliability (stability) and sensitivity of the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue scales (BRAFs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) developed to capture the fatigue experience. The Multi-Dimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ) has a global score and four subscales (Physical Fatigue, Living with Fatigue, Cognitive Fatigue and Emotional Fatigue), while three numerical rating scales (BRAF-NRS) measure fatigue Severity, Effect and Coping. Methods. RA patients completed the BRAFs plus comparator PROMs. Reliability (study 1): 50 patients completed questionnaires twice. A same-day test-retest interval (minimum 60 min) ensured both time points related to the same 7 days, minimizing the capture of fatigue fluctuations. Reliability (study 2): 50 patients completed the same procedure with a re-worded BRAF-NRS Coping. Sensitivity to change (study 3): 42 patients being given clinically a single high dose of i.m. glucocorticoids completed questionnaires at weeks 0 and 2.Results. The BRAF-MDQ, its subscales and the BRAF-NRS showed very strong reliability (r = 0.82-0.95). BRAF-NRS Coping had lower moderate reliability in both wording formats (r = 0.62, 0.60). The BRAF-MDQ, its subscales and the BRAF-NRS Severity and Effect were sensitive to change, with effect sizes (ESs) of 0.33-0.56. As hypothesized, the BRF-NRS Coping was not responsive to the pharmaceutical intervention (ES 0.05). Preliminary exploration suggests a minimum clinically important difference of 17.5% for improvement and 6.1% for fatigue worsening. Conclusion. The BRAF scales show good reliability and sensitivity to change. The lack of BRAF-NRS Coping responsiveness to medication supports the theory that coping with fatigue is a concept distinct from severity and effect that is worth measuring separately. © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved

Core Domain Set Selection According to OMERACT Filter 2.1: The OMERACT Methodology

Objective: To describe the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 methodology for core domain set selection. Methods: The “OMERACT Way for Core Domain Set selection” framework consists of 3 stages: first, generating candidate domains through literature reviews and qualitative work, then a process of consensus to obtain agreement from those involved, and finally formal voting on the OMERACT Onion. The OMERACT Onion describes the placement of domains in layers/circles: mandatory in all trials/mandatory in specific circumstances (inner circle); important but optional (middle circle); or research agenda (outer circle). Five OMERACT working groups presented their core domain sets for endorsement by the OMERACT community. Tools including a workbook and whiteboard video were created to assist the process. The methods workshop at OMERACT 2018 introduced participants to this framework. Results: The 5 OMERACT working groups achieved consensus on their proposed core domain sets. After the Methodology Workshop training exercise at OMERACT 2018, over 90% of participants voted that they were confident that they understood the process of core domain set selection. Conclusion: The methods described in this paper were successfully used by the 5 working groups voting on domains at the OMERACT 2018 meeting, demonstrating the feasibility of the process. In addition, participants at OMERACT 2018 expressed increased confidence and understanding of the core domain set selection process after the training exercise. This methodology will continue to evolve, and we will use innovative technology such as whiteboard videos as a key part of our dissemination and implementation strategy for new methods

Instrument Selection Using the OMERACT Filter 2.1: The OMERACT Methodology.

Objective: Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 revised the process used for core outcome measurement set selection to add rigour and transparency in decision making. This paper describes OMERACT’s methodology for instrument selection. Methods: We presented instrument selection processes, tools, and reporting templates at OMERACT 2018, introducing the concept of “3 pillars, 4 questions, 7 measurement properties, 1 answer”. Truth, Discrimination and Feasibility are the three original OMERACT pillars. Based on these, we developed four signaling questions. We introduced the Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) table which summarizes the seven measurement properties: Truth (domain match, construct validity), Discrimination (test-retest reliability, longitudinal construct validity (responsiveness), clinical trial discrimination, thresholds of meaning), and Feasibility. These properties address a set of standards which, when met, answer the one question: Is there enough evidence to support the use of this instrument in clinical research of the benefits and harms of treatments in the population and study setting described? The OMERACT Filter 2.1 was piloted on two instruments by the Psoriatic Arthritis Working Group Results: The methodology was reviewed in a full plenary session and facilitated breakout groups. Tools to facilitate retention of the process (i.e., “The OMERACT Way”) were provided. The two instruments were presented and the recommendation of the working group was endorsed in the first OMERACT Filter 2.1 Instrument Selection votes. Conclusion: Instrument Selection using OMERACT Filter 2.1 is feasible and is now being implemented

Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients

BACKGROUND: The choice of an evaluative instrument has been hampered by the lack of head-to-head comparisons of responsiveness and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in subpopulations of low back pain (LBP). The objective of this study was to concurrently compare responsiveness and MCID for commonly used pain scales and functional instruments in four subpopulations of LBP patients. METHODS: The Danish versions of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the 23-item Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMQ), the physical function and bodily pain subscales of the SF36, the Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPRS) and a numerical rating scale for pain (0–10) were completed by 191 patients from the primary and secondary sectors of the Danish health care system. Clinical change was estimated using a 7-point transition question and a numeric rating scale for importance. Responsiveness was operationalised using standardardised response mean (SRM), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), and cut-point analysis. Subpopulation analyses were carried out on primary and secondary sector patients with LBP only or leg pain +/- LBP. RESULTS: RMQ was the most responsive instrument in primary and secondary sector patients with LBP only (SRM = 0.5–1.4; ROC = 0.75–0.94) whereas ODI and RMQ showed almost similar responsiveness in primary and secondary sector patients with leg pain (ODI: SRM = 0.4–0.9; ROC = 0.76–0.89; RMQ: SRM = 0.3–0.9; ROC = 0.72–0.88). In improved patients, the RMQ was more responsive in primary and secondary sector patients and LBP only patients (SRM = 1.3–1.7) while the RMQ and ODI were equally responsive in leg pain patients (SRM = 1.3 and 1.2 respectively). All pain measures demonstrated almost equal responsiveness. The MCID increased with increasing baseline score in primary sector and LBP only patients but was only marginally affected by patient entry point and pain location. The MCID of the percentage change score remained constant for the ODI (51%) and RMQ (38%) specifically and differed in the subpopulations. CONCLUSION: RMQ is suitable for measuring change in LBP only patients and both ODI and RMQ are suitable for leg pain patients irrespectively of patient entry point. The MCID is baseline score dependent but only in certain subpopulations. Relative change measured using the ODI and RMQ was not affected by baseline score when patients quantified an important improvement

Improving Benefit-harm Assessment of Therapies from the Patient Perspective: OMERACT Premeeting Toward Consensus on Core Sets for Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective: Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) convened a premeeting in 2018 to bring together patients, regulators, researchers, clinicians, and consumers to build upon previous OMERACT drug safety work, with patients fully engaged throughout all phases. Methods: Day 1 included a brief introduction to the history of OMERACT and methodology, and an overview of current efforts within and outside OMERACT to identify patient-reported medication safety concerns. On Day 2, two working groups presented results; after each, breakout groups were assembled to discuss findings. Results: Five themes pertaining to drug safety measurement emerged. Conclusion: Current approaches have failed to include data from the patient’s perspective. A better understanding of how individuals with rheumatic diseases view potential benefits and harms of therapies is essential

Minimum detectable and minimal clinically important changes for pain in patients with nonspecific neck pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The minimal detectable change (MDC) and the minimal clinically important changes (MCIC) have been explored for nonspecific low back pain patients and are similar across different cultural settings. No data on MDC and MCIC for pain severity are available for neck pain patients. The objectives of this study were to estimate MDC and MCIC for pain severity in subacute and chronic neck pain (NP) patients, to assess if MDC and MCIC values are influenced by baseline values and to explore if they are different in the subset of patients reporting referred pain, and in subacute versus chronic patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Subacute and chronic patients treated in routine clinical practice of the Spanish National Health Service for neck pain, with or without pain referred to the arm, and a pain severity ≥ 3 points on a pain intensity number rating scale (PI-NRS), were included in this study. Patients' own "global perceived effect" over a 3 month period was used as the external criterion. The minimal detectable change (MDC) was estimated by means of the standard error of measurement in patients who self-assess as unchanged. MCIC were estimated by the mean value of change score in patients who self-assess as improved (mean change score, MCS), and by the optimal cutoff point in receiver operating characteristics curves (ROC). The effect on MDC and MCIC of initial scores, duration of pain, and existence of referred pain were assessed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>658 patients were included, 487 of them with referred pain. MDC was 4.0 PI-NRS points for neck pain in the entire sample, 4.2 for neck pain in patients who also had referred pain, and 6.2 for referred pain. MCS was 4.1 and ROC was 1.5 for referred and for neck pain, both in the entire sample and in patients who also complained of referred pain. ROC was lower (0.5 PI-NRS points) for subacute than for chronic patients (1.5 points). MCS was higher for patients with more intense baseline pain, ranging from 2.4 to 4.9 PI-NRS for neck pain and from 2.4 to 5.3 for referred pain.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In general, improvements ≤ 1.5 PI-NRS points could be seen as irrelevant. Above that value, the cutoff point for clinical relevance depends on the methods used to estimate MCIC and on the patient's baseline severity of pain. MDC and MCIC values in neck pain patients are similar to those for low back pain and other painful conditions.</p