Recommendations for the Involvement of Patient Research Partners (PRP) in OMERACT Working Groups:A Report from the OMERACT 2014 Working Group on PRP

Objective.Patient participation in research is increasing; however, practical guidelines to enhance this participation are lacking. Specifically within the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) organization, although patients have participated in OMERACT meetings since 2002, consensus about the procedures for involving patients in working groups has not been formalized. The objective is to develop a set of recommendations regarding patient research partner (PRP) involvement in research working groups.Methods.We conducted a systematic literature review on recommendations/guidelines of PRP involvement in research; elaborated a structured consensus process involving multiple participants to develop a set of recommendations; and sought endorsement of recommendations by OMERACT.Results.In the 18 articles included in the literature review, there was general agreement on the broad concepts for recommendations covering PRP involvement in research although they were heterogeneous in detail. Most considered PRP involvement in all phases of research with early engagement, training, and support important, but details on the content were scarce. This review informed a larger consensus-building process regarding PRP inclusion in OMERACT research. Three overarching principles and 8 recommendations were developed, discussed, and refined at OMERACT 2014. The guiding principles were endorsed during the OMERACT plenary session.Conclusion.These recommendations for PRP involvement in OMERACT research reinforce the importance of patient participation throughout the research process as integral members. Although the applicability of the recommendations in other research contexts should be assessed, the generalizability is expected to be high. Future research should evaluate their implementation and their effect on outcome development.</jats:sec

Safety of synthetic and biological DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2016 update of the EULAR recommendations for management of rheumatoid arthritis

To assess the safety of synthetic (s) and biological (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to inform the European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the management of RA. Systematic literature review (SLR) of observational studies comparing any DMARD with another intervention for the management of patients with RA. All safety outcomes were included. A comparator group was required for the study to be included. Risk of bias was assessed with the Hayden's tool. Twenty-six observational studies addressing diverse safety outcomes of therapy with bDMARDs met eligibility criteria (15 on serious infections, 4 on malignancies). Substantial heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Together with the evidence from the 2013 SLR, based on 15 studies, 7 at low risk of bias, patients on bDMARDs compared with patients on conventional sDMARDs had a higher risk of serious infections (adjusted HR (aHR) 1.1 to 1.8)-without differences across bDMARDs-a higher risk of tuberculosis (aHR 2.7 to 12.5), but no increased risk of infection by herpes zoster. Patients on bDMARDs did not have an increased risk of malignancies in general, lymphoma or non-melanoma skin cancer, but the risk of melanoma may be slightly increased (aHR 1.5). These findings confirm the known safety pattern of bDMARDs, including both tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor (TNFi) and non-TNFi, for the treatment of R

An OMERACT initiative toward consensus to identify and characterize candidate contextual factors: Report from the contextual factors working group

Copyright © 2017. All rights reserved. Objective: The importance of contextual factors (CF) for appropriate patient-specific care is widely acknowledged. However, evidence in clinical trials on how CF influence outcomes remains sparse. The 2014 Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Handbook introduced the role of CF in outcome assessment and defined them as "potential confounders and/or effect modifiers of outcomes in randomized controlled trials." Subsequently, the CF Methods Group (CFMG) was formed to develop guidance on how to address CF in clinical trials. Methods: First, the CFMG conducted an e-mail survey of OMERACT working groups (WG) to analyze how they had addressed CF in outcome measurement so far. The results facilitated an informed discussion at the OMERACT 2016 CFMG Special Interest Group (SIG) session, with the aim of gaining preliminary consensus regarding an operational definition of CF and to make a first selection of potentially relevant CF. Results: The survey revealed that the WG had mostly used the OMERACT Handbook and/or the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) definition. However, significant heterogeneity was found in the methods used to identify, refine, and categorize CF candidates. The SIG participants agreed on using the ICF as a framework along with the OMERACT Handbook definition. A list with 28 variables was collected including person-related factors and physical and social environments. Recommendations from the SIG guided the CFMG to formulate 3 preliminary projects on how to identify and analyze CF. Conclusion: New methods are urgently needed to assist researchers to identify and characterize CF that significantly influence the interpretation of results in clinical trials. The CFMG defined first steps to develop further guidance. The Journal of Rheumatolog

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs:2013 update

Contains fulltext : 137860.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)In this article, the 2010 European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs and bDMARDs, respectively) have been updated. The 2013 update has been developed by an international task force, which based its decisions mostly on evidence from three systematic literature reviews (one each on sDMARDs, including glucocorticoids, bDMARDs and safety aspects of DMARD therapy); treatment strategies were also covered by the searches. The evidence presented was discussed and summarised by the experts in the course of a consensus finding and voting process. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were derived and levels of agreement (strengths of recommendations) were determined. Fourteen recommendations were developed (instead of 15 in 2010). Some of the 2010 recommendations were deleted, and others were amended or split. The recommendations cover general aspects, such as attainment of remission or low disease activity using a treat-to-target approach, and the need for shared decision-making between rheumatologists and patients. The more specific items relate to starting DMARD therapy using a conventional sDMARD (csDMARD) strategy in combination with glucocorticoids, followed by the addition of a bDMARD or another csDMARD strategy (after stratification by presence or absence of adverse risk factors) if the treatment target is not reached within 6 months (or improvement not seen at 3 months). Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, biosimilars), abatacept, tocilizumab and, under certain circumstances, rituximab are essentially considered to have similar efficacy and safety. If the first bDMARD strategy fails, any other bDMARD may be used. The recommendations also address tofacitinib as a targeted sDMARD (tsDMARD), which is recommended, where licensed, after use of at least one bDMARD. Biosimilars are also addressed. These recommendations are intended to inform rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies and other stakeholders about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA with sDMARDs, glucocorticoids and bDMARDs. They are based on evidence and expert opinion and intended to improve outcome in patients with RA

OMERACT Development of a Core Domain Set of Outcomes for Shared Decision-making Interventions

Objective. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Shared Decision Making (SDM) Working Group aims to determine the core outcome domain set for measuring the effectiveness of SDM interventions in rheumatology trials. Methods. A white paper was developed to clarify the draft core domain set. It was then used to prepare for interviews to investigate reasons for lack of consensus on it and to suggest further improvements. Results. OMERACT scientists/clinicians (n = 13) and patients (n = 10) suggested limiting the core domain set to outcome domains, removing process domains, and clarifying remaining domains. Conclusion. A revised core domain set will undergo further consensus-building

Core outcome measurement set for shared decision making in rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions: A scoping review to identify candidate instruments

OBJECTIVES Shared decision making (SDM) is a central tenet in rheumatic and musculoskeletal care. The lack of standardization regarding SDM instruments and outcomes in clinical trials threatens the comparative effectiveness of interventions. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) SDM Working Group is developing a Core Outcome Set for trials of SDM interventions in rheumatology and musculoskeletal health. The working group reached consensus on a Core Outcome Domain Set in 2020. The next step is to develop a Core Outcome Measurement Set through the OMERACT Filter 2.2. METHODS We conducted a scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) to identify candidate instruments for Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation the OMERACT Filter 2.2 We systematically reviewed five databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Web of Science). An information specialist designed search strategies to identify all measurement instruments used in SDM studies in adults or children living with rheumatic or musculoskeletal diseases or their important others. Paired reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text articles. We extracted characteristics of all candidate instruments (e.g., measured construct, measurement properties). We classified candidate instruments and summarized evidence gaps with an adapted version of the Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) table. RESULTS We found 14,464 citations, read 239 full text articles, and included 99 eligible studies. We identified 220 potential candidate instruments. The five most used measurement instruments were the Decisional Conflict Scale (traditional and low literacy versions) (n=38), the Hip/Knee-Decision Quality Instrument (n=20), the Decision Regret Scale (n=9), the Preparation for Decision Making Scale (n=8), and the CollaboRATE (n=8). Only 44 candidate instruments (20%) had any measurement properties reported by the included studies. Of these instruments, only 57% matched with at least one of the 7-criteria adapted SOMP table. CONCLUSION We identified 220 candidate instruments used in the SDM literature among people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Our classification of instruments showed evidence gaps and inconsistent reporting of measurement properties. The next steps for the OMERACT SDM Working Group are to match candidate instruments with Core Domains, assess feasibility and review validation studies of measurement instruments in rheumatic diseases or other conditions. Development and validation of new instruments may be required for some Core Domains