Involving patients as research partners in research in rheumatology: a literature review in 2023

OBJECTIVE: The inclusion of patient research partners (PRPs) in research projects is increasingly recognised and recommended in rheumatology. The level of involvement of PRPs in translational research in rheumatology remains unknown, while in randomised clinical trials (RCTs), it has been reported to be 2% in 2020. Therefore, we aimed to assess the involvement of PRPs in recent translational studies and RCTs in rheumatology. METHODS: We conducted a scoping literature review of the 80 most recent articles (40 translational studies and 40 RCTs) from four target diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus and lower extremity osteoarthritis. We selected 20 papers from each disease, published up until 1 March 2023, in rheumatology and general scientific journals. In each paper, the extent of PRP involvement was assessed. Analyses were descriptive. RESULTS: Of 40 translational studies, none reported PRP involvement. Of 40 RCTs, eight studies (20%) reported PRP involvement. These trials were mainly from Europe (75%) and North America (25%). Most of them (75%) were non-industry funded. The type of PRP involvement was reported in six of eight studies: six studies reported PRP participation in the study design or design of the intervention and two of them in the interpretation of the results. All the trials reporting the number of PRPs (75%), involved at least two PRPs. CONCLUSION: Despite a worldwide movement advocating for increased patient involvement in research, PRPs in translational research and RCTs in rheumatology are significantly under-represented. This limited involvement of PRPs in research highlights a persistent gap between the existing recommendations and actual practice

Prevention and management of osteoporotic fractures by non-physician health professionals: a systematic literature review to inform EULAR points to consider

Objective To perform a systematic literature review (SLR) about the effect of non-pharmacological interventions delivered by non-physician health professionals to prevent and manage osteoporotic fractures. Methods Eight clinical questions based on two criteria guided the SLR: (1) adults >= 50 years at high risk of osteoporotic fracture and (2) interventions delivered by non-physician health professionals to prevent and manage osteoporotic fractures. Interventions focused on diagnostic procedures to identify risk of falling, therapeutic approaches and implementation strategies. Outcomes included fractures, falls, risk of falling and change in bone mineral density. Systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials were preferentially selected. Data were synthesised using a qualitative descriptive approach. Results Of 15 917 records, 43 articles were included. Studies were clinically and methodologically diverse. We identified sufficient evidence that structured exercise, incorporating progressive resistance training delivered to people who had undergone hip fracture surgery, and multicomponent exercise, delivered to people at risk of primary fracture, reduced risk of falling. The effectiveness of multidisciplinary fracture liaison services in reducing refracture rate was confirmed. There was insufficient evidence found to support the effectiveness of nutrients and falls prevention programmes in this patient population. Conclusion Despite study heterogeneity, our SLR showed beneficial effects of some interventions delivered by non-physician health professionals and the positive impact of multidisciplinary team working and patient educational approaches to prevent and manage osteoporotic fractures. These results informed a EULAR taskforce that developed points to consider for non-physician health professionals to prevent and manage osteoporotic fractures.This study was funded by the EULAR. Grant reference HPR 032.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

2019 EULAR points to consider for non-physician health professionals to prevent and manage fragility fractures in adults 50 years or older

Objective To establish European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) points to consider for non-physician health professionals to prevent and manage fragility fractures in adults 50 years or older. Methods Points to consider were developed in accordance with EULAR standard operating procedures for EULAR-endorsed recommendations, led by an international multidisciplinary task force, including patient research partners and different health professionals from 10 European countries. Level of evidence and strength of recommendation were determined for each point to consider, and the mean level of agreement among the task force members was calculated. Results Two overarching principles and seven points to consider were formulated based on scientific evidence and the expert opinion of the task force. The two overarching principles focus on shared decisions between patients and non-physician health professionals and involvement of different non-physician health professionals in prevention and management of fragility fractures. Four points to consider relate to prevention: identification of patients at risk of fracture, fall risk evaluation, multicomponent interventions to prevent primary fracture and discouragement of smoking and overuse of alcohol. The remaining three focus on management of fragility fractures: exercise and nutritional interventions, the organisation and coordination of multidisciplinary services for post-fracture models of care and adherence to anti-osteoporosis medicines. The mean level of agreement among the task force for the overarching principles and the points to consider ranged between 8.4 and 9.6. Conclusion These first EULAR points to consider for non-physician health professionals to prevent and manage fragility fractures in adults 50 years or older serve to guide healthcare practice and education.HPR 032info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Multidisciplinary collaboration among young specialists: results of an international survey by the emerging EULAR network and other young organisations

Background: Multidisciplinary collaboration is defined as a collective work involving multiple disciplines and is common in clinical care and research. Our aim was to describe current clinical and research collaboration among young specialists and to identify unmet needs in this area. Methods: An online survey was disseminated by email and social media to members of the EMerging EUlar NETwork, the Young Nephrologists’ Platform, the Paediatric Rheumatology European Society Emerging Rheumatologists and Researchers and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Junior Members. Results: Of 303 respondents from 36 countries, 61% were female, 21% were aged below 30 years and 67% were aged 31–40 years. Young rheumatologists were the most represented (39%), followed by young nephrologists (24%), young paediatricians (20%), young allergologists (11%) then young internists (3%) and 3% other specialities. Collaborations were reported frequently by phone and email, also by various combined clinics while common local multidisciplinary meetings were uncommon. 96% would like to develop clinical research collaborations and 69% basic research collaborations. The majority of young specialists would be interested in online (84%) and/or 1–2 days (85%) common courses including case discussion (81%) and training workshops (85%), as well as webinars recorded with several specialists on a specific disease (96%). Conclusions: This collaborative initiative highlighted wishes from young specialists for developing (1) regular local multidisciplinary meetings to discuss complex patients, (2) clinical research collaboration with combined grants and (3) multidisciplinary online projects such as common courses, webinars and apps

Do you tweet?: trailing the connection between Altmetric and research impact!

Competing interests: PS and CO are both Social Media Advisors of ARD and RMD Open. CO is editorial board member of ARD and associate editor of RMD Open. PS reports grant support by Abbvie outside of the submitted work. CO received grant support from Novartis and advisory fees from Gilead Sciences, both outside of the submitted work

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Can Lupus Patients Take the Driver’s Seat in Their Disease Monitoring?

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic autoimmune disorder that has detrimental effects on patient’s health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Owing to its immense heterogeneity of symptoms and its complexity regarding comorbidity burden, management of SLE necessitates interdisciplinary care, with the goal being the best possible HRQoL and long-term outcomes. Current definitions of remission, low disease activity, and response to treatment do not incorporate self-reported patient evaluation, while it has been argued that the physician’s global assessment should capture the patient’s perspective. However, even the judgment of a very well-trained physician might not replace a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), not only owing to the multidimensionality of self-perceived health experience but also since this notion would constitute a direct contradiction to the definition of PROMs. The proper use of PROMs is not only an important conceptual issue but also an opportunity to build bridges in the partnership between patients and physicians. These points of consideration adhere to the overall framework that there will seldom be one single best marker that helps interpret the activity, severity, and impact of SLE at the same time. For optimal outcomes, we not only stress the importance of the use of PROMs but also emphasize the urgency of adoption of the conception of forming alliances with patients and facilitating patient participation in surveillance and management processes. Nevertheless, this should not be misinterpreted as a transfer of responsibility from healthcare professionals to patients but rather a step towards shared decision-making

Impact of autoimmune serology test results on RA classification and diagnosis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is the most common systemic autoimmune disease and also the most severe arthritic disorder. The measurement of rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) in serum supports the diagnosis of RA, which gained increasing significance over the last 65 years. However, a high variability between RF and ACPA methods has been described, impacting the diagnostic performance of the current ACR/EULAR RA classification criteria. The great number of commercially available assays, often lacking traceability to an international standard, is a major factor attributing to this in-between assay variability. The adoption of an international standard for ACPA, as is since long available for rheumatoid factor, is therefore highly desirable. Further harmonization in clinical interpretation of RF/ACPA assays could be obtained by harmonization of the cut-offs, for both the low and high antibody levels, based on predefined specificity in disease controls. Reporting test result specific likelihood ratios (LR) adds value in the interpretation of autoantibody tests. However, a good understanding of the control population used to define antibody test result interval-associated LRs is crucial in defining the diagnostic performance characteristics of antibody serology. Finally, specificity in RA classification can be improved by refining serological weight scoring taking into account the nature of the antibody, the antibody level and double RF + ACPA positivity

Unmet need for patient involvement in rheumatology registries and observational studies – a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVE: The contribution of patient research partners (PRPs) is well established in EULAR recommendation development. However, in observational and registry studies, PRP involvement is not well-defined and remains limited. METHODS: Based on a round table discussion during the EULAR Registries and Observational Drug Studies (RODS) meeting in 2019, a mixed methods study was undertaken, including a survey to RODS participants and EULAR PRPs and focus groups with volunteers from the survey. An inductive thematic analysis approach was applied to qualitative data and descriptive statistics to survey data. RESULTS: We retrieved 45 survey responses and ran 3 focus groups with a total of 17 participants. The notion of PRP involvement in research was positively perceived by PRPs and the wider academic rheumatology community. There is universal agreement that PRP involvement in registry research is low and inclusion in different parts of the research cycle is limited. Potential benefits of PRP involvement include: input on the research objectives based on patients’ needs, advice and support regarding recruitment and retention strategies, obtaining patient views on analysis and interpretation, and assistance in disseminating results. Researchers and PRPs highlighted that education, inclusion of PRPs with diverse backgrounds and a welcoming environment as important facilitators for PRP involvement. On the other hand, preconceptions of researchers and insufficient budget allocation have been identified as barriers. CONCLUSION: There is an unmet need to involve PRPs in registries and observational studies and to better define their required input during all research stages. This study provides suggestions for successful PRP integration