Identifying flares in rheumatoid arthritis: Reliability and construct validation of the OMERACT RA Flare Core Domain Set

Objective: To evaluate the reliability of concurrent flare identification using 3 methods (patient, rheumatologist and Disease Activity Score (DAS)28 criteria), and construct validity of candidate items representing the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) RA Flare Core Domain Set. Methods: Candidate flare questions and legacy measures were administered at consecutive visits to Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH) patients between November 2011 and November 2014. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) core set indicators were recorded. Concordance to identify flares was assessed using the agreement coefficient. Construct validity of flare questions was examined: convergent (Spearman's r); discriminant (mean differences between flaring/non-flaring patients); and consequential (proportions with prior treatment reductions and intended therapeutic change postflare). Results: The 849 patients were 75% female, 81% white, 42% were in remission/low disease activity (R/LDA), and 16-32% were flaring at the second visit. Agreement of flare status was low-strong (κ's 0.17-0.88) and inversely related to RA disease activity level. Flare domains correlated highly (r's≥0.70) with each other, patient global (r's≥0.66) and corresponding measures (r's 0.49-0.92); and moderately highly with MD and patient-reported joint counts (r's 0.29-0.62). When MD/patients agreed the patient was flaring, mean flare domain between-group differences were 2.1-3.0; 36% had treatment reductions prior to flare, with escalation planned in 61%. Conclusions: Flares are common in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and are often preceded by treatment reductions. Patient/MD/DAS agreement of flare status is highest in patients worsening from R/LDA. OMERACT RA flare questions can discriminate between patients with/without flare and have strong evidence of construct and consequential validity. Ongoing work will identify optimal scoring and cut points to identify RA flares

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

Efficacy of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a systematic literature review informing the 2016 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis

To update the evidence for the efficacy of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to inform European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Task Force treatment recommendations. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for phase III or IV (or phase II, if these studies were lacking) randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 2013 and February 2016. Abstracts from the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR conferences were obtained. The RCTs confirmed greater efficacy with a bDMARD+conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) versus a csDMARDs alone (level 1A evidence). Using a treat-to-target strategy approach, commencing and escalating csDMARD therapy and adding a bDMARD in cases of non-response, is an effective approach (1B). If a bDMARD had failed, improvements in clinical response were seen on switching to another bDMARD (1A), but no clear advantage was seen for switching to an agent with another mode of action. Maintenance of clinical response in patients in remission or low disease activity was best when continuing rather than stopping a bDMARD, but bDMARD dose reduction or 'spacing' was possible, with a substantial proportion of patients achieving bDMARD-free remission (2B). RCTs have also demonstrated efficacy of several new bDMARDs and biosimilar DMARDs (1B). This systematic literature review consistently confirmed the previously reported efficacy of bDMARDs in RA and provided additional information on bDMARD switching and dose reductio

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

‘I couldn’t carry on taking a drug like that’::a qualitative study of patient perspectives on side effects from rheumatology drugs

Objectives: There is growing interest in collecting outcome information directly from patients in clinical trials. This study evaluates what patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) consider important to know about symptomatic side effects they may experience from a new prescription drug.Methods: Patients with inflammatory arthritis, who had one or more prescribed drugs for their disease for at least 12 months, participated in focus groups and individual interviews. Discussions were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.Results: We conducted seven focus groups with 34 participants across three continents. We found four overarching and two underpinning themes. The ‘impact on life’ was connected to participants’ ‘daily life’, ‘family life’, ‘work life’ and ‘social life’. In ‘psychological and physical aspects’ participants described ‘limitation to physical function’, ‘emotional dysregulation’ and ‘an overall mental state’. Extra tests, hospital visits and payment for medication were considered a ‘time, energy and financial burden’ of side effects. Participants explained important measurement issues to be ‘severity’, ‘frequency’ and ‘duration’. Underpinning these issues, participants evaluated the ‘benefit–harm balance’ which includes ‘the cumulative burden’ of having several side effects and the persistence of side effects over time.Conclusions: In treatment for RMDs, there seems to be an urgent need for feasible measures of patient-reported bother (impact on life and cumulative burden) from side effects and the benefit–harm balance. These findings contribute new evidence in support of a target domain—an outcome that represents the patient voice evaluating the symptomatic treatment-related side effects for people with RMDs enrolled in clinical trials

‘I couldn’t carry on taking a drug like that’::a qualitative study of patient perspectives on side effects from rheumatology drugs

Objectives: There is growing interest in collecting outcome information directly from patients in clinical trials. This study evaluates what patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) consider important to know about symptomatic side effects they may experience from a new prescription drug.Methods: Patients with inflammatory arthritis, who had one or more prescribed drugs for their disease for at least 12 months, participated in focus groups and individual interviews. Discussions were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.Results: We conducted seven focus groups with 34 participants across three continents. We found four overarching and two underpinning themes. The ‘impact on life’ was connected to participants’ ‘daily life’, ‘family life’, ‘work life’ and ‘social life’. In ‘psychological and physical aspects’ participants described ‘limitation to physical function’, ‘emotional dysregulation’ and ‘an overall mental state’. Extra tests, hospital visits and payment for medication were considered a ‘time, energy and financial burden’ of side effects. Participants explained important measurement issues to be ‘severity’, ‘frequency’ and ‘duration’. Underpinning these issues, participants evaluated the ‘benefit–harm balance’ which includes ‘the cumulative burden’ of having several side effects and the persistence of side effects over time.Conclusions: In treatment for RMDs, there seems to be an urgent need for feasible measures of patient-reported bother (impact on life and cumulative burden) from side effects and the benefit–harm balance. These findings contribute new evidence in support of a target domain—an outcome that represents the patient voice evaluating the symptomatic treatment-related side effects for people with RMDs enrolled in clinical trials