Developing consensus in Histopathology: the role of the Delphi method.

The Delphi method is a well-established research tool, used for consensus building across a number of fields. Despite its widespread use, and popularity in many medical specialities, there is a paucity of literature on the use of the Delphi method in Histopathology. This literature review seeks to critique the Delphi methodology and explore its potential applications to histopathology-based clinical and research questions. We review those published studies that have utilized the Delphi methodology in Histopathology settings and specifically outline the advantages and limitations of this technique, highlighting situations where its application can be most effective.

Histopathology reporting of temporal artery biopsy specimens for giant cell arteritis: results of a modified Delphi study.

The temporal artery biopsy (TAB) is regarded as the gold-standard test in the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis (GCA). There is a lack of agreement among experienced pathologists regarding the diagnostic features and classification of inflammation observed in TAB sections in the diagnosis of GCA. AIMS: The aim of this research study was to establish consensus on the key parameters which should be included in a standardised reporting proforma for TAB specimens. We specifically investigated factors pertaining to clinical information, specimen handling and microscopic pathological features. METHODS: A modified Delphi process, comprising three survey rounds and three virtual consensus group meetings, was undertaken by 13 UK-based pathology or ophthalmology consultants, with a 100% response rate across the three rounds. Initial statements were formulated after a literature review and participants were asked to rate their agreement using a nine-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined a priori as an agreement of ≥70% and individual feedback was provided after each round, together with data on the distribution of group responses. RESULTS: Overall, 67 statements reached consensus and 17 statements did not. The participants agreed on the core microscopic features to be included in a pathology report and felt that a proforma would facilitate consistent reporting practices. CONCLUSIONS: Our work revealed uncertainty surrounding the correlation between clinical parameters (eg, laboratory markers of inflammation and steroid therapy duration) and microscopic findings, and we propose areas for future research.

Prioritising referrals of individuals at-risk of RA: guidance based on results of a 10-year national primary care observational study.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms are among the commonest reasons for primary care assessments; however, few individuals will be diagnosed with an inflammatory arthritis (IA) within the following year. The purpose of this study was to investigate, in individuals with new MSK symptoms, the association between patient factors and risk of progression to IA, in order to optimise primary care referrals to rheumatology. METHODS: Individuals ≥16 years old with new non-specific MSK symptoms and no clinical synovitis were recruited by primary care across the UK from July 2007 until May 2019. Those testing positive for the anti-CCP2 assay (anti-CCP+) were invited to Leeds for follow-up. Subjects with a negative result (anti-CCP-) were sent a 1-year questionnaire, and general practitioners were contacted to confirm whether the individual had been diagnosed with an IA by a rheumatologist. Predictors for progression were assessed using multivariable regression analysis. RESULTS: Six thousand seven hundred eighty individuals were recruited: 3% were anti-CCP+, of whom 45% progressed to IA, predominantly rheumatoid arthritis. Anti-CCP+ participants with high antibody levels had an odds ratio (OR) for progression to IA of 9.42 [P < 0.001, 95% CI (3.13-28.30)], hand pain, OR 2.74 [P = 0.043, 95% CI (1.03-7.27)] and foot pain, OR 4.10 [P = 0.003, 95% CI (1.59-10.54)]. In low-level anti-CCP+ individuals, absence of pain in hands or feet had a negative predictive value of 96% for progression to IA. One-year follow-up data were available for 5640 anti-CCP- individuals, of whom 53 were diagnosed with IA (0.93%). Pain in hands, OR 2.51 [P = 0.018, 95% CI (1.17-5.39)] or knees, OR 3.03 [P = 0.003, 95% CI (1.47-6.25)] were associated with development of IA within 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest prospective primary care study of individuals at risk of IA, and the first one to prospectively investigate the outcome of MSK symptoms in a large anti-CCP- cohort. High anti-CCP levels and pain in hands/feet indicated an increased likelihood of progression to IA. In patients with low anti-CCP level and no pain in the hands/feet, progression is unlikely. In anti-CCP- patients, those with hand or knee pain were at increased risk of progression. This study demonstrates that routinely available tests and joint symptoms provide useful discrimination that may be used to prioritise referrals to rheumatology and avoid a delayed diagnosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT, NCT02012764 . Registered 25 January 2007.

Randomised controlled trials in systemic sclerosis: patient selection and endpoints for next generation trials.

The heterogeneity in the natural history of systemic sclerosis is a major issue in both clinical management and trial design and is dictated by the complex and multifactorial pathogenesis of the disease. Systemic sclerosis is an autoimmune disease and therefore many trials for the disease have targeted immune activation pathways; however, the phase 3 trials that have been positive have targeted pathways directly linked to tissue damage rather than systemic immune activation. On one hand, these results represent enormous progress that has led to the first approved drugs for this extremely challenging condition. On the other hand, they have revealed a possible selection bias in our current approach to trial design. In this Series paper, we describe randomised controlled trials from the past 4 years we believe to be most relevant to future strategies in systemic sclerosis. Based on advances in our understanding of the pathogenesis and natural history of disease, we will also identify important points to consider in the design of the next generation of systemic sclerosis trials.