Measurement Properties of Visual Analogue Scale, Numeric Rating Scale, and Pain Severity Subscale of the Brief Pain Inventory in Patients With Low Back Pain:A Systematic Review

Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and Pain Severity subscale of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI-PS)] are the most frequently used instruments to measure pain intensity in low back pain (LBP). However, their measurement properties in this population have not been systematically reviewed. The goal of this study was to provide such systematic evidence synthesis. Six electronic sources (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SportDiscus, Google Scholar) were searched (July 2017). Studies assessing any measurement property in patients with non-specific LBP were included. Two reviewers independently screened articles and assessed risk of bias using the COSMIN checklist. For each measurement property: evidence quality was rated as high, moderate, low, or very low (GRADE approach); results were classified as sufficient, insufficient or inconsistent. Ten studies assessed the VAS, 13 the NRS, four the BPI-PS. The three instruments displayed low or very low quality evidence for content validity. High quality evidence was only available for NRS insufficient measurement error. Moderate evidence was available for: NRS inconsistent responsiveness, BPI-PS sufficient structural validity and internal consistency, and BPI-PS inconsistent construct validity. All VAS measurement properties were underpinned by no, low or very low quality evidence, likewise the other measurement properties of NRS and BPI-PS

Everolimus Exposure as a Predictor of Toxicity in Renal Cell Cancer Patients in the Adjuvant Setting: Results of a Pharmacokinetic Analysis for SWOG S0931 (EVEREST), a Phase III Study (NCT01120249).

BackgroundS0931 is assessing recurrence-free survival in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients randomized to receive everolimus (EVE) versus placebo for one year following nephrectomy. Due to a higher than expected dropout rate, we assessed EVE trough levels in the adjuvant setting to evaluate the relationship between EVE exposure and probability of toxicity.MethodsPatients received 10 mg daily EVE for nine 6-week cycles. Pre-dose whole blood samples were collected pre-cycle 2 and pre-cycle 3 and analyzed for EVE. Patients with pre-cycle 2 and/or pre-cycle 3 EVE results were used in the analysis. Patients were segregated into quartiles (Q) based on EVE levels and logistic regression was used to model the most common adverse event outcomes using EVE trough as a predictor. Hazard and odds ratios were adjusted for age, BMI and performance status.ResultsA total of 467 patients were included in this analysis. Quartiles normalized to an EVE dose of 10 mg/day were < 9.0, 9.0-12.9, 12.9-22.8, and > 22.8 ng/mL, respectively. EVE trough levels increased with increasing age (p < 0.001). Furthermore, EVE trough levels were higher in men than women (19.4 versus 15.4 ng/mL, p = 0.01). Risk of grade 2 + triglycerides was increased in Q2 and Q3 vs Q1 (OR = 2.08; p = 0.02 and OR = 2.63; p = 0.002). Risk of grade 2 + rash was increased in Q2 and Q4 vs Q1 (OR = 2.99; p = 0.01 and OR = 2.90; p = 0.02). There was also an increased risk of any grade 3 + tox in Q2 vs Q1 (OR = 1.71; p = 0.05).ConclusionsWe identified significant gender and age-related differences in EVE trough levels in patients receiving adjuvant treatment for RCC. Furthermore, our analysis identified significant associations between EVE exposure and probability of toxicity

Assessing the effect of interventions for axial spondyloarthritis according to the endorsed ASAS/OMERACT core outcome set: a meta-research study of trials included in Cochrane reviews.

The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) has defined core sets for (i) symptom-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (SM-ARD), (ii) clinical record keeping, and (iii) disease-controlling anti-rheumatic therapy (DC-ART). These include the following domains for all three core sets: physical function, pain, spinal mobility, spinal stiffness, and patient\u27s global assessment (PGA). The core set for clinical record keeping further includes the domains peripheral joints/entheses and acute phase reactants, and the core set for DC-ART further includes the domains fatigue and spine radiographs/hip radiographs. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) endorsed the core sets in 1998.Using empirical evidence from axSpA trials, we investigated the efficacy (i.e., net benefit) according to the ASAS/OMERACT core outcome set for axSpA across all interventions tested in trials included in subsequent Cochrane reviews. For all continuous scales, we combined data using the standardized mean difference (SMD) to meta-analyze outcomes involving the same domains. Also, through meta-regression analysis, we examined the effect of the separate SMD measures (independent variables) on the primary endpoint (log [OR], dependent variable) across all trials.Based on 11 eligible Cochrane reviews, from these, 85 articles were screened; we included 43 trials with 63 randomized comparisons. Mean (SD) number of ASAS/OMERACT core outcome domains measured for SM-ARD/physical therapy trials was 4.2 (1.7). Six trials assessed all proposed domains. Mean (SD) for number of core outcome domains for DC-ART trials was 5.8 (1.7). No trials assessed all nine domains. Eight trials (16%) were judged to have inadequate (i.e., high risk of) selective outcome reporting bias. The most responsible core domains for achieving success in meeting the primary objective per trial were pain, OR (95% CI) 5.19 (2.28, 11.77), and PGA, OR (95% CI) 1.87 (1.14, 3.07). In conclusion, selective outcome reporting (and missing data ) should be reduced by encouraging the use of the endorsed ASAS/OMERACT outcome domains in clinical trials. Overall outcome reporting was good for SM-ARD/physical therapy trials and poor for DC-ART trials. Our findings suggest that both PGA and pain provide a valuable holistic construct for the assessment of improvement beyond more objective measures of spinal inflammation

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

Developing an outcome measures in rheumatology (OMERACT) core set of outcome measures for foot and ankle disorders in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (COMFORT): Core domain set study protocol

Background: Foot and ankle involvement is common in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). High-quality evidence is lacking to determine the effectiveness of treatments for these disorders. Heterogeneity in the outcomes used across clinical trials and observational studies hinders the ability to compare findings, and some outcomes are not always meaningful to patients and end-users. The Core set of Outcome Measures for FOot and ankle disorders in RheumaTic and musculoskeletal diseases (COMFORT) study aims to develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in all trials of interventions for foot and ankle disorders in RMDs. This protocol addresses core outcome domains (what to measure) only. Future work will focus on core outcome measurement instruments (how to measure). Methods: COMFORT: Core Domain Set is a mixed-methods study involving the following: (i) identification of important outcome domains through literature reviews, qualitative interviews and focus groups with patients and (ii) prioritisation of domains through an online, modified Delphi consensus study and subsequent consensus meeting with representation from all stakeholder groups. Findings will be disseminated widely to enhance uptake. Conclusions: This protocol details the development process and methodology to identify and prioritise domains for a COS in the novel area of foot and ankle disorders in RMDs. Future use of this standardised set of outcome domains, developed with all key stakeholders, will help address issues with outcome variability. This will facilitate comparing and combining study findings, thus improving the evidence base for treatments of these conditions. Future work will identify suitable outcome measurement instruments for each of the core domains. Trial registration: This study is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database, as of June 2022: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2081

Exploring the complexities of pain phenotypes: OMERACT 2023 chronic pain working group workshop

Objective: To educate and discuss pain mechanisms (nociceptive, neuropathic, nociplastic) illuminating its possible impact when measuring different outcomes, which may modify, confound and potentially bias the outcome measures applied across various aspects of Rheumatic Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs) clinical trials. Methods: In the plenary presentations, PM lectured on different pain mechanisms and impact on disease activity assessment. Data from two data sets of RMDs patients, which assessed the prevalence and impact of nociplastic pain were presented and reviewed. Audience breakout group sessions and polling were conducted. Results: Mixed pain etiologies may differentially influence disease activity assessment and therapeutic decision-making. Polling demonstrated a consensus on the need to assess different types of pain as a phenotype, as it constitutes an important contextual factor (a variable that is not an outcome of the trial, but needs to be recognized [and measured] to understand the study results), and to standardize across RMDs. Conclusion: There is need for a standardized pain measure that can differentiate underlying pain mechanisms

Deep resequencing reveals excess rare recent variants consistent with explosive population growth

Accurately determining the distribution of rare variants is an important goal of human genetics, but resequencing of a sample large enough for this purpose has been unfeasible until now. Here, we applied Sanger sequencing of genomic PCR amplicons to resequence the diabetes-associated genes KCNJ11 and HHEX in 13,715 people (10,422 European Americans and 3,293 African Americans) and validated amplicons potentially harbouring rare variants using 454 pyrosequencing. We observed far more variation (expected variant-site count ∼578) than would have been predicted on the basis of earlier surveys, which could only capture the distribution of common variants. By comparison with earlier estimates based on common variants, our model shows a clear genetic signal of accelerating population growth, suggesting that humanity harbours a myriad of rare, deleterious variants, and that disease risk and the burden of disease in contemporary populations may be heavily influenced by the distribution of rare variants

Endorsement of the 66/68 joint count for the measurement of musculoskeletal disease activity:OMERACT 2018 Psoriatic Arthritis workshop report

Objective The Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) Core Domain Set for randomized controlled trials and longitudinal observational studies has recently been updated. The joint counts are central to the measurement of the peripheral arthritis component of the musculoskeletal (MSK) disease activity domain. We report the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 2018 meetingandrsquo;s approaches to seek endorsement of the 66/68 swollen and tender joint count (SJC66/TJC68) for inclusion in the PsA Core Outcome Measurement Set (COS). Methods Using the OMERACT Filter 2.1 Instrument Selection Process, the SJC66/TJC68 was assessed for (1) domain match, (2) feasibility, (3) numerical sense (construct validity), and (4) discrimination (test retest reliability, longitudinal construct validity, sensitivity in clinical trials, and thresholds of meaning). A protocol was designed to assess the measurement properties of the SJC66/TJC68 joint count. The results were summarized in a Summary of Measurement Properties table developed by OMERACT. OMERACT members discussed and voted on whether the strength of the evidence supported that the SJC66/TJC68 had passed the OMERACT Filter as an outcome measurement instrument for the PsA COS. Results OMERACT delegates endorsed the use of the SJC66/TJC68 for the measurement of the peripheral arthritis component of the MSK disease activity domain. Among patient research partners, 100% voted for a andldquo;greenandrdquo; endorsement, whereas among the group of other stakeholders, 88% voted for a andldquo;greenandrdquo; endorsement. Conclusion The SJC66/TJC68 is the first fully endorsed outcome measurement instrument using the OMERACT Filter 2.1 and the first instrument fully endorsed within the PsA COS.</p

Cognitive ability across the life course and cortisol levels in older age

Elevated cortisol levels have been hypothesised to contribute to cognitive ageing, but study findings are inconsistent. In the present study, we examined the association between salivary cortisol in older age and cognitive ability across the life course. We used data from 370 members of the 36-Day Sample of the Scottish Mental Survey 1947, who underwent cognitive testing at age 11, and were then followed up at around age 78, completing further cognitive tests and providing diurnal salivary cortisol samples. We hypothesised that higher cortisol levels would be associated with lower cognitive ability in older age and greater cognitive decline from childhood to older age, but also lower childhood cognitive ability. Few of the tested associations were significant, and of those that were, most suggested a positive relationship between cortisol and cognitive ability. Only one cognitive measure showed any sign of cortisol-related impairment. However, after correcting for multiple comparisons, no results remained significant. These findings suggest that cortisol may not play an important role in cognitive ageing across the life course