Choosing outcome assessment tools in haemophilia care and research: a multidisciplinary perspective

Introduction: The implementation of early long-term, regular clotting factor concentrate (CFC) replacement therapy (‘prophylaxis’) has made it possible to offer boys with haemophilia a near normal life. Many different regimens have reported favourable results, but the optimum treatment regimens have not been established and the cost of prophylaxis is very high. Both for optimizing treatment and reimbursement issues, there is a need to provide objective evidence of both short- and long-term results and benefits of prophylactic regimens. Aims: This report presents a critical review of outcome measures for use in the assessment of musculoskeletal health in persons with haemophilia according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). This framework considers structural and functional changes, activities and participation in a context of both personal and environmental factors. Methods: Results were generated by a combination of a critical review of available literature plus expert opinion derived from a two day consensus conference between 48 health care experts from different disciplines involved in haemophilia assessment and care. Outcome tools used in haemophilia were reviewed for reliability and validity in different patient groups and for resources required. Results and conclusion: Recommendations for choice of outcome tools were made according to the ICF domains, economic setting, and reason for use (clinical or research). The next step will be to identify a ‘core’ set of outcome measures for use in clinical care or studies evaluating treatment

2016 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Criteria for Minimal, Moderate, and Major Clinical Response in Adult Dermatomyositis and Polymyositis: An International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group/Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation Collaborative Initiative

Objective: To develop response criteria for adult dermatomyositis (DM) and polymyositis (PM). Methods: Expert surveys, logistic regression, and conjoint analysis were used to develop 287 definitions using core set measures. Myositis experts rated greater improvement among multiple pairwise scenarios in conjoint analysis surveys, where different levels of improvement in 2 core set measures were presented. The PAPRIKA (Potentially All Pairwise Rankings of All Possible Alternatives) method determined the relative weights of core set measures and conjoint analysis definitions. The performance characteristics of the definitions were evaluated on patient profiles using expert consensus (gold standard) and were validated using data from a clinical trial. The nominal group technique was used to reach consensus. Results: Consensus was reached for a conjoint analysis\u2013based continuous model using absolute percent change in core set measures (physician, patient, and extramuscular global activity, muscle strength, Health Assessment Questionnaire, and muscle enzyme levels). A total improvement score (range 0\u2013100), determined by summing scores for each core set measure, was based on improvement in and relative weight of each core set measure. Thresholds for minimal, moderate, and major improvement were 6520, 6540, and 6560 points in the total improvement score. The same criteria were chosen for juvenile DM, with different improvement thresholds. Sensitivity and specificity in DM/PM patient cohorts were 85% and 92%, 90% and 96%, and 92% and 98% for minimal, moderate, and major improvement, respectively. Definitions were validated in the clinical trial analysis for differentiating the physician rating of improvement (P < 0.001). Conclusion: The response criteria for adult DM/PM consisted of the conjoint analysis model based on absolute percent change in 6 core set measures, with thresholds for minimal, moderate, and major improvement