EULAR recommendations for the involvement of patient research partners in rheumatology research: 2023 update.

BACKGROUND: Since the publication of the 2011 European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommendations for patient research partner (PRP) involvement in rheumatology research, the role of PRPs has evolved considerably. Therefore, an update of the 2011 recommendations was deemed necessary. METHODS: In accordance with the EULAR Standardised Operational Procedures, a task force comprising 13 researchers, 2 health professionals and 10 PRPs was convened. The process included an online task force meeting, a systematic literature review and an in-person second task force meeting to formulate overarching principles (OAPs) and recommendations. The level of agreement of task force members was assessed anonymously (0-10 scale). RESULTS: The task force developed five new OAPs, updated seven existing recommendations and formulated three new recommendations. The OAPs address the definition of a PRP, the contribution of PRPs, the role of informal caregivers, the added value of PRPs and the importance of trust and communication in collaborative research efforts. The recommendations address the research type and phases of PRP involvement, the recommended number of PRPs per project, the support necessary for PRPs, training of PRPs and acknowledgement of PRP contributions. New recommendations concern the benefits of support and guidance for researchers, the need for regular evaluation of the patient-researcher collaboration and the role of a designated coordinator to facilitate collaboration. Agreements within the task force were high and ranged between 9.16 and 9.96. CONCLUSION: The updated EULAR recommendations for PRP involvement are more substantially based on evidence. Together with added OAPs, they should serve as a guide for researchers and PRPs and will ultimately strengthen the involvement of PRPs in rheumatology research.

Patient research partner involvement in rheumatology research: a systematic literature review informing the 2023 updated EULAR recommendations for the involvement of patient research partners.

BACKGROUND: Patient research partners (PRPs) are people with a disease who collaborate in a research team as partners. The aim of this systematic literature review (SLR) was to assess barriers and facilitators to PRP involvement in rheumatology research. METHODS: The SLR was conducted in PubMed/Medline for articles on PRP involvement in rheumatology research, published between 2017 and 2023; websites were also searched in rheumatology and other specialties. Data were extracted regarding the definition of PRPs, their role and added value, as well as barriers and facilitators to PRP involvement. The quality of the articles was assessed. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and principles of thematic content analysis was applied to qualitative data. RESULTS: Of 1016 publications, 53 articles were included; the majority of these studies were qualitative studies (26%), opinion articles (21%), meeting reports (17%) and mixed-methods studies (11%). Roles of PRPs ranged from research partners to patient advocates, advisors and patient reviewers. PRPs were reported/advised to be involved early in the project (32% of articles) and in all research phases (30%), from the conception stage to the implementation of research findings. The main barriers were challenges in communication and support for both PRPs and researchers. Facilitators of PRP involvement included more than one PRP per project, training of PRPs and researchers, a supportive environment for PRPs (including adequate communication, acknowledgement and compensation of PRPs) and the presence of a PRP coordinator. CONCLUSION: This SLR identified barriers and facilitators to PRP involvement, and was key to updating the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for PRP-researcher collaboration based on scientific evidence.

Classification of rheumatoid arthritis: is it time to revise the criteria?

Classification criteria have been developed for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other rheumatic diseases in order to gather a homogeneous patient population for clinical studies and facilitate the timely implementation of therapeutic measures. Although classification criteria are not intended to be used for diagnosis, they are frequently used to support the diagnostic process in clinical practice, including clinical decision-making. The 2010 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) classification criteria for RA are capable of identifying the majority of symptomatic patients with RA already in the earliest stages of the disease who are not yet showing radiographic changes. These patients will also profit from the early implementation of therapy with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). However, the risk of misclassification is higher as compared with the former 1987 ACR criteria, which were considerably less sensitive to the recognition of patients with early RA. Of note, the presence of rheumatoid factors (RFs) and anticitrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) has been attributed equal weight in the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria and may contribute up to 50% of the score needed for being classified as RA. However, while ACPAs have been proven to be the most specific serological markers of RA, the specificity of RF is moderate, especially at lower titres. This may lead to the misclassification of RF-positive patients and, consequently, the unjustified implementation of DMARD therapy. Therefore, issues arise on how comprehensive the criteria should be and whether they should be updated and adapted to findings from the past two decades that might increase both their specificity and sensitivity.

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.

EULAR points to consider for the definition of clinical and imaging features suspicious for progression from psoriasis to psoriatic arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The transition from psoriasis (PsO) to psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and the early diagnosis of PsA is of considerable scientific and clinical interest for the prevention and interception of PsA. OBJECTIVE: To formulate EULAR points to consider (PtC) for the development of data-driven guidance and consensus for clinical trials and clinical practice in the field of prevention or interception of PsA and for clinical management of people with PsO at risk for PsA development. METHODS: A multidisciplinary EULAR task force of 30 members from 13 European countries was established, and the EULAR standardised operating procedures for development for PtC were followed. Two systematic literature reviews were conducted to support the task force in formulating the PtC. Furthermore, the task force proposed nomenclature for the stages before PsA, through a nominal group process to be used in clinical trials. RESULTS: Nomenclature for the stages preceding PsA onset, 5 overarching principles and 10 PtC were formulated. Nomenclature was proposed for three stages towards PsA development, namely people with PsO at higher risk of PsA, subclinical PsA and clinical PsA. The latter stage was defined as PsO and associated synovitis and it could be used as an outcome measure for clinical trials evaluating the transition from PsO to PsA. The overarching principles address the nature of PsA at its onset and underline the importance of collaboration of rheumatologists and dermatologists for strategies for prevention/interception of PsA. The 10 PtC highlight arthralgia and imaging abnormalities as key elements of subclinical PsA that can be used as potential short-term predictors of PsA development and useful items to design clinical trials for PsA interception. Traditional risk factors for PsA development (ie, PsO severity, obesity and nail involvement) may represent more long-term disease predictors and be less robust for short-term trials concerning the transition from PsO to PsA. CONCLUSION: These PtC are helpful to define the clinical and imaging features of people with PsO suspicious to progress to PsA. This information will be helpful for identification of those who could benefit from a therapeutic intervention to attenuate, delay or prevent PsA development.

Tenderness and radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the predictive value of tenderness in the absence of swelling with consideration of other potential risk factors for subsequent radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: Clinical and sonographic (grey scale and power Doppler (PD)) examination of 22 joints of the hand were performed in patients with RA and PsA. The impact of tenderness on progression after 2 years was analysed in non-swollen joints for RA and PsA separately with multilevel mixed logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: We included 1207 joints in 55 patients with RA and 352 joints in 18 patients with PsA. In RA, tenderness was associated with radiographic progression after 2 years (model 2: OR 1.85 (95% CI 1.01 to 3.27), p=0.047), although the association of PD (OR 2.92 (95% CI 1.71 to 5.00), p<0.001) and erosions (OR 4.74 (95% CI 2.44 to 9.23), p<0.001) with subsequent structural damage was stronger. In PsA, we found a positive but not significant association between tenderness and radiographic progression (OR 1.72 (95% CI 0.71 to 4.17), p=0.23). In contrast, similarly to RA, erosions (OR 4.62 (95% CI 1.29 to 16.54), p=0.019) and PD (OR 3.30 (95% CI 1.13 to 9.53), p=0.029) had a marked effect on subsequent structural damage. CONCLUSION: Our findings imply that tenderness in non-swollen joints in RA is associated with subsequent damage. In both diseases, additional risk factors, such as sonographic signs for synovitis and baseline radiographic damage are associated with radiographic progression.

American College of Rheumatology/EULAR Remission Criteria for Rheumatoid Arthritis: 2022 Revision.

OBJECTIVE: In 2011, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and EULAR endorsed provisional criteria for remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), both Boolean- and index-based. Based on recent studies indicating that a higher threshold for the patient global assessment (PtGA) may improve agreement between the 2 sets of criteria, our goals were to externally validate a revision of the Boolean remission criteria using a higher PtGA threshold and to validate the provisionally endorsed index-based criteria. METHODS: We used data from 4 randomized trials comparing biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs to methotrexate or placebo. We tested the higher proposed PtGA threshold of 2 cm (Boolean2.0) (range 0-10 cm) compared to the original threshold of 1 cm (Boolean1.0). We analyzed agreement between the Boolean- and index-based criteria (Simplified Disease Activity Index [SDAI] and Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI]) for remission and examined how well each remission definition predicted later good physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ] score ≤0.5) and radiographic nonprogression. RESULTS: Data from 2,048 trial participants, 1,101 with early RA and 947 with established RA, were included. The proportion of patients with disease in remission at 6 months after treatment initiation increased when using Boolean2.0 compared to Boolean1.0, from 14.8% to 20.6% in early RA and 4.2% to 6.0% in established RA. Agreement between Boolean2.0 and the SDAI or CDAI remission criteria was better than for Boolean1.0, particularly in early disease. Boolean2.0, SDAI, and CDAI remission criteria had similar positive likelihood ratios (LRs) to predict radiographic nonprogression and a HAQ score of ≤0.5 (positive LR 3.8-4.3). The omission of PtGA (BooleanX) worsened the prediction of good functional outcomes. CONCLUSION: Using the Boolean 2.0 criteria classifies more patients as achieving remission and increases the agreement with index-based remission criteria without jeopardizing predictive value for radiographic or functional outcomes. This revised Boolean definition and the previously provisionally endorsed index-based criteria were endorsed by ACR and EULAR.

American College of Rheumatology/EULAR remission criteria for rheumatoid arthritis: 2022 revision.

OBJECTIVE: In 2011, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and EULAR endorsed provisional criteria for remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), both Boolean-based and index-based. Based on recent studies indicating that a higher threshold for the patient global assessment (PtGA) may improve agreement between the two sets of criteria, our goals were to externally validate a revision of the Boolean remission criteria using a higher PtGA threshold and to validate the provisionally endorsed index-based criteria. METHODS: We used data from four randomised trials comparing biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs to methotrexate or placebo. We tested the higher proposed PtGA threshold of 2 cm (Boolean2.0) (range 0-10 cm) compared with the original threshold of 1 cm (Boolean1.0). We analysed agreement between the Boolean-based and index-based criteria (Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)) for remission and examined how well each remission definition predicted later good physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score≤0.5) and radiographic non-progression. RESULTS: Data from 2048 trial participants, 1101 with early RA and 947 with established RA, were included. The proportion of patients with disease in remission at 6 months after treatment initiation increased when using Boolean2.0 compared with Boolean1.0, from 14.8% to 20.6% in early RA and 4.2% to 6.0% in established RA. Agreement between Boolean2.0 and the SDAI or CDAI remission criteria was better than for Boolean1.0, particularly in early disease. Boolean2.0, SDAI, and CDAI remission criteria had similar positive likelihood ratios (LRs) to predict radiographic nonprogression and a HAQ score of ≤0.5 (positive LR 3.8-4.3). The omission of PtGA (BooleanX) worsened the prediction of good functional outcomes. CONCLUSION: Using the Boolean 2.0 criteria classifies, more patients as achieving remission and increases the agreement with index-based remission criteria without jeopardising predictive value for radiographic or functional outcomes. This revised Boolean definition and the previously provisionally endorsed index-based criteria were endorsed by ACR and EULAR.

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.

Big data analyses and individual health profiling in the arena of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

Health care processes are under constant development and will need to embrace advances in technology and health science aiming to provide optimal care. Considering the perspective of increasing treatment options for people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, but in many cases not reaching all treatment targets that matter to patients, care systems bare potential to improve on a holistic level. This review provides an overview of systems and technologies under evaluation over the past years that show potential to impact diagnosis and treatment of rheumatic diseases in about 10 years from now. We summarize initiatives and studies from the field of electronic health records, biobanking, remote monitoring, and artificial intelligence. The combination and implementation of these opportunities in daily clinical care will be key for a new era in care of our patients. This aims to inform rheumatologists and healthcare providers concerned with chronic inflammatory musculoskeletal conditions about current important and promising developments in science that might substantially impact the management processes of rheumatic diseases in the 2030s.

Prospective Studies on the Risk of Rheumatoid Arthritis: The European Risk RA Registry.

Background: The accumulation of risk for the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is regarded as a continuum that may start with interacting environmental and genetic factors, proceed with the initiation of autoimmunity, and result in the formation of autoantibodies such as anti-citrullinated peptide antibodies (ACPA). In parallel, at-risk individuals may be asymptomatic or experience joint pain (arthralgia) that is itself non-specific or clinically suspicious for evolving RA, even in the absence of overt arthritis. Optimal strategies for the management of people at-risk of RA, both for symptom control and to delay or prevent progression to classifiable disease, remain poorly understood. Methods: To help address this, groups of stakeholders from academia, clinical rheumatology, industry and patient research partners have collaborated to advance understanding, define and study different phases of the at-risk state. In this current report we describe different European initiatives in the field and the successful effort to build a European Registry of at-risk people to facilitate observational and interventional research. Results: We outline similarities and differences between cohorts of at-risk individuals at institutions spanning several countries, and how to best combine them within the new database. Over the past 2 years, besides building the technical infrastructure, we have agreed on a core set of variables that all partners should strive to collect for harmonization purposes. Conclusion: We emphasize to address this process from different angles and touch on the biologic, epidemiologic, analytic, and regulatory aspects of collaborative studies within a meta-database of people at-risk of RA.

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.

Torque Teno Virus quantification for monitoring of immunomodulation with biologic compounds in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: RA patients who fail to respond to MTX can receive biologic dMARDs (bDMARDs). The Torque Teno Virus (TTV) is a potential novel candidate for monitoring of immunosuppression. We explore TTV in these patients and its association with clinical response to bDMARDs. METHODS: The BioBio Study is a multicentre randomized open-label trial, including RA patients with insufficient response to MTX. Patients were randomized to either TNFi (infliximab, INF), anti-IL-6 (tocilizumab, TCZ), CTLA4-Ig (abatacept, ABA) or anti-CD20 (rituximab, RTX) in addition to MTX. PCR was used to quantify TTV in the peripheral blood. RESULTS: TTV was measured in 95 patients (INF, n = 23; TCZ, n = 22; ABA, n = 27; RTX; n = 23). TTV increased by a median of 4.5 × 104 copies/ml [c/ml; interquartile range (IQR) 0-7.5 × 105] after 3 months. TTV levels at month 3 were associated with the Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) (P = 0.03) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) response (P = 0.026) at month 6. A TTV cut-off level of 1.2 × 106 c/ml at month 3 had a positive likelihood ratio of 2.7 for prediction of an 85% reduction in SDAI at month 6. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that TTV levels increase upon TNF, CD20 and costimulation blockade and are associated with the clinical response to bDMARDs in RA patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; https://clinicaltrials.gov; NCT01638715.

The lockdown and its consequences-Perspectives and needs of people at increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19 : Results from a qualitative longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of knowledge on how people at increased risk of severe illness from Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) experienced the infection control measures. This study aimed to explore their perspectives and needs during the coronavirus outbreak. METHODS: A qualitative longitudinal interview study was conducted in Austria during lockdown due to COVID-19 containment and afterwards. People older than 65 years of age and/or affected by a chronic medical condition participated in individual telephone interviews at two time points. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data and saturation was defined as no new emerging concepts in at least 10 subsequent interviews. RESULTS: Thematic saturation was reached when 33 individuals (75.8% female, mean age ± standard deviation [SD] 73.7±10.9 years) were included. A total of 44 lower level concepts were extracted and summarized into 6 higher level concepts. They included (i) a general positive attitude toward COVID-19 measures, (ii) challenges of being isolated from the community, (iii) deterioration of health status, (iv) difficulties with measures due to their health condition, (v) lack of physical contact and (vi) lack of information versus overload. Participants suggested environmental adaptations for strengthening resilience in people at increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Strategies and interventions are needed to support people at risk under pandemic conditions. Their perceptions and needs should be addressed to reduce the potential deterioration of health conditions and ensure well-being even during prolonged periods of crisis.