Association Between Participant Retention and the Proportion of Included Elderly People in Rheumatology Trials: Results From a Series of Exploratory Meta‐Regression Analyses

Objective. The elderly, a population defined by an age of ≥65 years, are underrepresented in rheumatology trials, possibly due to investigators' concerns of increased premature discontinuations in higher age groups. The present study was undertaken to evaluate whether the proportion of included elderly individuals (PE) is independently associated with participant retention in rheumatology trials. Methods. Medline was searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA) of any intervention (years 2016 and 2017). PE was either extracted from the research manuscript or estimated from an assumed (truncated) normal distribution. We used mixed-effects meta-regression models including several covariates to assess whether there is an independent association between PE and participant retention. Using sensitivity analyses, we evaluated whether associations were connected to attrition due to lack of efficacy (LoE) or adverse events (AE). Results. In total, 243 RCTs comprising >48,000 participants were included. Pooled participant retention was 88%. PE was not associated with retention in the unadjusted (P = 0.97) or adjusted (all: P ≥0.14) models. Of all covariates, only study duration and type of intervention were associated with retention (both: P < 0.001). Post hoc analyses allowing for interaction revealed a small but statistically significant positive association between PE and retention in pharmacologic interventions and a negative association in physical/physiotherapeutic interventions (overall P for interaction = 0.05). No associations were found for PE and attrition due to LoE or AE. Conclusion. Participant retention in RA and OA trials is high and not associated with PE. These findings should motivate investigators to include more elderly participants in rheumatology trials

External Validation of a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)

BACKGROUND: Thousands of systematic reviews have been conducted in all areas of health care. However, the methodological quality of these reviews is variable and should routinely be appraised. AMSTAR is a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews. METHODOLOGY: AMSTAR was used to appraise 42 reviews focusing on therapies to treat gastro-esophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer disease, and other acid-related diseases. Two assessors applied the AMSTAR to each review. Two other assessors, plus a clinician and/or methodologist applied a global assessment to each review independently. CONCLUSIONS: The sample of 42 reviews covered a wide range of methodological quality. The overall scores on AMSTAR ranged from 0 to 10 (out of a maximum of 11) with a mean of 4.6 (95% CI: 3.7 to 5.6) and median 4.0 (range 2.0 to 6.0). The inter-observer agreement of the individual items ranged from moderate to almost perfect agreement. Nine items scored a kappa of >0.75 (95% CI: 0.55 to 0.96). The reliability of the total AMSTAR score was excellent: kappa 0.84 (95% CI: 0.67 to 1.00) and Pearson's R 0.96 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.98). The overall scores for the global assessment ranged from 2 to 7 (out of a maximum score of 7) with a mean of 4.43 (95% CI: 3.6 to 5.3) and median 4.0 (range 2.25 to 5.75). The agreement was lower with a kappa of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.40 to 0.88). Construct validity was shown by AMSTAR convergence with the results of the global assessment: Pearson's R 0.72 (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.84). For the AMSTAR total score, the limits of agreement were -0.19+/-1.38. This translates to a minimum detectable difference between reviews of 0.64 'AMSTAR points'. Further validation of AMSTAR is needed to assess its validity, reliability and perceived utility by appraisers and end users of reviews across a broader range of systematic reviews

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

Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach

Background: Minimally important changes (MIC) in scores help interpret results from health status instruments. Various distribution-based and anchor-based approaches have been proposed to assess MIC. Objectives: To describe and apply a visual method, called the anchor-based MIC distribution method, which integrates both approaches. Method: Using an anchor, patients are categorized as persons with an important improvement, an important deterioration, or without important change. For these three groups the distribution of the change scores on the health status instrument are depicted in a graph. We present two cut-off points for an MIC: the ROC cut-off point and the 95% limit cut-off point. Results: We illustrate our anchor-based MIC distribution method determining the MIC for the Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale in patients with low back pain, using two conceivable definitions of minimal important change on the anchor. The graph shows the distribution of the scores of the health status instrument for the relevant categories on the anchor, and also the consequences of choosing the ROC cut-off point or the 95% limit cut-off point. Discussion: The anchor-based MIC distribution method provides a general framework, applicable to all kind of anchors. This method forces researchers to choose and justify their choice of an appropriate anchor and to define minimal importance on that anchor. The MIC is not an invariable characteristic of a measurement instrument, but may depend, among other things, on the perspective from which minimal importance is considered and the baseline values on the measurement instrument under study. A balance needs to be struck between the practicality of a single MIC value and the validity of a range of MIC values. © 2006 Springer Science+Business Media B.V

Does updating improve the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews?

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) must be of high quality. The purpose of our research was to compare the methodological and reporting quality of original versus updated Cochrane SRs to determine whether updating had improved these two quality dimensions. METHODS: We identifed updated Cochrane SRs published in issue 4, 2002 of the Cochrane Library. We assessed the updated and original versions of the SRs using two instruments: the 10 item enhanced Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ), and an 18-item reporting quality checklist and flow chart based upon the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) statement. At least two reviewers extracted data and assessed quality. We calculated the percentage (with a 95% confidence interval) of 'yes' answers to each question. We calculated mean differences in percentage, 95% confidence intervals and p-values for each of the individual items and the overall methodological quality score of the updated and pre-updated versions using OQAQ. RESULTS: We assessed 53 SRs. There was no significant improvement in the global quality score of the OQAQ (mean difference 0.11 (-0.28; 0.70 p = 0.52)). Updated reviews showed a significant improvement of 18.9 (7.2; 30.6 p < .01) on the OQAQ item assessing whether the conclusions drawn by the author(s) were supported by the data and/or analysis presented in the SR. The QUOROM statement showed that the quality of reporting of Cochrane reviews improved in some areas with updating. Improvements were seen on the items relating to data sources reported in the abstract, with a significant difference of 17.0 (9.8; 28.7 p = 0.01), review methods, reported in the abstract 35 (24.1; 49.1 p = 0.00), searching methods 18.9 (9.7; 31.6 p = 0.01), and data abstraction 18.9 (11.7; 30.9 p = 0.00). CONCLUSION: The overall quality of Cochrane SRs is fair-to-good. Although reporting quality improved on certain individual items there was no overall improvement seen with updating and methodological quality remained unchanged. Further improvement of quality of reporting is possible. There is room for improvement of methodological quality as well. Authors updating reviews should address identified methodological or reporting weaknesses. We recommend to give full attention to both quality domains when updating SRs

The OMERACT-OARSI Core Domain Set for Measurement in Clinical Trials of Hip and/or Knee Osteoarthritis

Objective: To update the 1997 OMERACT-OARSI (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International) core domain set for clinical trials in hip and/or knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: An initial review of the COMET database of core outcome sets (COS) was undertaken to identify all domains reported in previous COS including individuals with hip and/or knee OA. These were presented during 5 patient and health professionals/researcher meetings in 3 continents (Europe, Australasia, North America). A 3-round international Delphi survey was then undertaken among patients, healthcare professionals, researchers, and industry representatives to gain consensus on key domains to be included in a core domain set for hip and/or knee OA. Findings were presented and discussed in small groups at OMERACT 2018, where consensus was obtained in the final plenary. Results: Four previous COS were identified. Using these, and the patient and health professionals/researcher meetings, 50 potential domains formed the Delphi survey. There were 426 individuals from 25 different countries who contributed to the Delphi exercise. OMERACT 2018 delegates (n = 129) voted on candidate domains. Six domains gained agreement as mandatory to be measured and reported in all hip and/or knee OA clinical trials: pain, physical function, quality of life, and patient’s global assessment of the target joint, in addition to the mandated core domain of adverse events including mortality. Joint structure was agreed as mandatory in specific circumstances, i.e., depending on the intervention. Conclusion: The updated core domain set for hip and/or knee OA has been agreed upon. Work will commence to determine which outcome measurement instrument should be recommended to cover each core domain

Successful Stepwise Development of Patient Research Partnership: 14 years’ experience of actions and consequences in Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT)

There is increasing interest in making patient participation an integral component of medical research. However, practical guidance on optimizing this engagement in healthcare is scarce. Since 2002, patient involvement has been one of the key features of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) international consensus effort. Based on a review of cumulative data from qualitative studies and internal surveys among OMERACT participants, we explored the potential benefits and challenges of involving patient research partners in conferences and working group activities. We supplemented our review with personal experiences and reflections regarding patient participation in the OMERACT process. We found that between 2002 and 2016, 67 patients have attended OMERACT conferences, of whom 28 had sustained involvement; many other patients contributed to OMERACT working groups. Their participation provided face validity to the OMERACT process and expanded the research agenda. Essential facilitators have been the financial commitment to guarantee sustainable involvement of patients at these conferences, procedures for recruitment, selection and support, and dedicated time allocated in the program for patient issues. Current challenges include the representativeness of the patient panel, risk of pseudo-professionalization, and disparity in patients’ and researchers’ perception of involvement. In conclusion, OMERACT has embedded long-term patient involvement in the consensus-building process on the measurement of core health outcomes. This integrative process continues to evolve iteratively. We believe that the practical points raised here can improve participatory research implementation

Antibody development and disease severity of COVID-19 in non-immunised patients with rheumatic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: data from a prospective cohort study

Contains fulltext : 251778.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Research on the disease severity of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) has been inconclusive, and long-term prospective data on the development of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in these patients are lacking. METHODS: Adult patients with rheumatic IMIDs from the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam were invited to participate. All patients were asked to recruit their own sex-matched and age-matched control subject. Clinical data were collected via online questionnaires (at baseline, and after 1-4 and 5-9 months of follow-up). Serum samples were collected twice and analysed for the presence of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. Subsequently, IgG titres were quantified in samples with a positive test result. FINDINGS: In total, 3080 consecutive patients and 1102 controls with comparable age and sex distribution were included for analyses. Patients were more frequently hospitalised compared with controls when infected with SARS-CoV-2; 7% vs 0.7% (adjusted OR: 7.33, 95% CI: 0.96 to 55.77). Only treatment with B-cell targeting therapy was independently associated with an increased risk of COVID-19-related hospitalisation (adjusted OR: 14.62, 95% CI: 2.31 to 92.39). IgG antibody titres were higher in hospitalised compared with non-hospitalised patients, and slowly declined with time in similar patterns for patients in all treatment subgroups and controls. INTERPRETATION: We observed that patients with rheumatic IMIDs, especially those treated with B-cell targeting therapy, were more likely to be hospitalised when infected with SARS-CoV-2. Treatment with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biological DMARDs other than B-cell targeting agents is unlikely to have negative effects on the development of long-lasting humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2