Towards consensus in defining and handling contextual factors within rheumatology trials: an initial qualitative study from an OMERACT working group.

OBJECTIVES: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Initiative established the Contextual Factors Working Group to guide the understanding, identification and handling of contextual factors for clinical trials. In clinical research, different uses of the term 'contextual factors' exist. This study explores the perspectives of researchers (including clinicians) and patients in defining 'contextual factor' and its related terminology, identifying such factors and accounting for them in trials across rheumatology. METHODS: We conducted individual semistructured interviews with researchers (including clinicians) who have experience within the field of contextual factors in clinical trials or other potentially relevant areas, and small focus group interviews with patients with rheumatic conditions. We transcribed the interviews and applied qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 12 researchers and 7 patients. Researcher's and patient's descriptions of contextual factors were categorised into two broad themes, each comprising two contextual factors types. The 'treatment effect' theme focused on factors explaining variations in treatment effects (A) among patients and (B) among studies. The 'outcome measurement' theme focused on factors that explain (C) variations in the measurement result itself (apart from actual changes/differences in the outcome) and (D) variations in the outcome itself (beside treatment of interest). Methods for identifying and handling contextual factors differed among these themes and types. CONCLUSIONS: Two main themes for contextual factors with four types of contextual factors were identified based on input from researchers and patients. This will guide operationalisation of contextual factors. Further research should refine our findings and establish consensus among relevant stakeholders.

Population characteristics as important contextual factors in rheumatological trials: an exploratory meta-epidemiological study from an OMERACT Working Group.

OBJECTIVES: To explore whether trial population characteristics modify treatment responses across various interventions, comparators and rheumatic conditions. METHODS: In this meta-epidemiological study, we included trials from systematic reviews available from the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group published up to 23 April 2019 in Cochrane Library with meta-analyses of five or more randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published from year 2000. From trial reports, we extracted data on 20 population characteristics. For characteristics with sufficient data (ie, available for ≥2/3 of the trials), we performed multilevel meta-epidemiological analyses. RESULTS: We identified 19 eligible systematic reviews contributing 187 RCTs (212 comparisons). Only age and sex were explicitly reported in ≥2/3 of the trials. Using information about the country of the trials led to sufficient data for five further characteristics, that is, 7 out of 20 (35%) protocolised characteristics were analysed. The meta-regressions showed effect modification by economic status, place of residence, and, nearly, from healthcare system (explaining 4.8%, 0.9% and 1.5% of the between-trial variation, respectively). No effect modification was demonstrated from age, sex, patient education/health literacy or predominant religion. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the scarce reporting of most population characteristics, hampering investigation of their impact with meta-research. Our sparse results suggest that place of residence (ie, continent of the trial), economic status (based on World Bank classifications) and healthcare system (based on WHO index for health system performance) may be important in explaining the variation in treatment response across trials. There is an urgent need for consistent reporting of important population characteristics in trials. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019127642.

Obesity Impacts Swelling of Ankle and Foot Joints in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients.

OBJECTIVE: The evaluation of disease activity in obese rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients presents challenges particularly in the clinical assessment of swollen joints. This study examines the effect of obesity on the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) core set measures used in assessing RA disease activity with specific focus on the swollen joint count (SJC). METHODS: We examined a cross-sectional cohort of 323 early seropositive RA patients (symptom duration ≤15 months). Patients were biologic-naive with equal to or more than 6/44 SJC and equal to or more than 9/44 tender joint count. The ACR core set measures, components of Disease Activity Score (DAS) 44/erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), DAS28/ESR4 item, Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), and body mass index (BMI) were collected. Disease activity measures were compared between BMI categories. Multivariable linear regression models assessed the relationship between high BMI (≥30 kg/m) and lower-extremity (LE) SJC and SJC44 while accounting for other ACR measures. RESULTS: Disease Activity Score 44/ESR4 item, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, physician global, and SJC44 differed across BMI categories (p < 0.05). Of the SJC44, metacarpophalangeal joints and LE joints (knees, ankles, metatarsophalangeal joints) were associated with increased swelling in all BMI groups (P < 0.05). Obesity was significantly associated with LE SJC after adjusting for ACR core set measures. CONCLUSIONS: There is a direct association between increased BMI and increased swelling of LE joints in RA patients. Increases in DAS44-measured disease activity are higher in obese RA patients because of increased LE swollen joints. Disease Activity Score 28 and Clinical Disease Activity Index, which emphasize upper-extremity joint assessment, are not significantly influenced by obesity.

Early rheumatoid arthritis treated with tocilizumab, methotrexate, or their combination (U-Act-Early): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, strategy trial.

BACKGROUND: For patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis, treatment aim is early, rapid, and sustained remission. We compared the efficacy and safety of strategies initiating the interleukin-6 receptor-blocking monoclonal antibody tocilizumab with or without methotrexate (a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [DMARD]), versus initiation of methotrexate monotherapy in line with international guidelines. METHODS: We did a 2-year, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, strategy study at 21 rheumatology outpatient departments in the Netherlands. We included patients who had been diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis within 1 year before inclusion, were DMARD-naive, aged 18 years or older, met current rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria, and had a disease activity score assessing 28 joints (DAS28) of at least 2·6. We randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to start tocilizumab plus methotrexate (the tocilizumab plus methotrexate arm), or tocilizumab plus placebo-methotrexate (the tocilizumab arm), or methotrexate plus placebo-tocilizumab (the methotrexate arm). Tocilizumab was given at 8 mg/kg intravenously every 4 weeks with a maximum of 800 mg per dose. Methotrexate was started at 10 mg per week orally and increased stepwise every 4 weeks by 5 mg to a maximum of 30 mg per week, until remission or dose-limiting toxicity. We did the randomisation using an interactive web response system. Masking was achieved with placebos that were similar in appearance to the active drug; the study physicians, pharmacists, monitors, and patients remained masked during the study, and all assessments were done by masked assessors. Patients not achieving remission on their initial regimen switched from placebo to active treatments; patients in the tocilizumab plus methotrexate arm switched to standard of care therapy (typically methotrexate combined with a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor). When sustained remission was achieved, methotrexate (and placebo-methotrexate) was tapered and stopped, then tocilizumab (and placebo-tocilizumab) was also tapered and stopped. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving sustained remission (defined as DAS28 <2·6 with a swollen joint count ≤four, persisting for at least 24 weeks) on the initial regimen and during the entire study duration, compared between groups with a two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Analysis was based on an intention-to-treat method. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01034137. FINDINGS: Between Jan 13, 2010, and July 30, 2012, we recruited and assigned 317 eligible patients to treatment (106 to the tocilizumab plus methotrexate arm, 103 to the tocilizumab arm, and 108 to the methotrexate arm). The study was completed by a similar proportion of patients in the three groups (range 72-78%). The most frequent reasons for dropout were adverse events or intercurrent illness: 27 (34%) of dropouts, and insufficient response: 26 (33%) of dropouts. 91 (86%) of 106 patients in the tocilizumab plus methotrexate arm achieved sustained remission on the initial regimen, compared with 86 (84%) of 103 in the tocilizumab arm, and 48 (44%) of 108 in the methotrexate arm (relative risk [RR] 2·00, 95% CI 1·59-2·51 for tocilizumab plus methotrexate vs methotrexate, and 1·86, 1·48-2·32 for tocilizumab vs methotrexate, p<0·0001 for both comparisons). For the entire study, 91 (86%) of 106 patients in the tocilizumab plus methotrexate arm, 91 (88%) of 103 in the tocilizumab arm, and 83 (77%) of 108 in the methotrexate arm achieved sustained remission (RR 1·13, 95% CI 1·00-1·29, p=0·06 for tocilizumab plus methotrexate vs methotrexate, 1·14, 1·01-1·29, p=0·0356 for tocilizumab vs methotrexate, and p=0·59 for tocilizumab plus methotrexate vs tocilizumab). Nasopharyngitis was the most common adverse event in all three treatment groups, occurring in 38 (36%) of 106 patients in the tocilizumab plus methotrexate arm, 40 (39%) of 103 in the tocilizumab arm, and 37 (34%) of 108 in the methotrexate arm. The occurrence of serious adverse events did not differ between the treatment groups (17 [16%] of 106 patients in the tocilizumab plus methotrexate arm vs 19 [18%] of 103 in the tocilizumab arm and 13 [12%] of 108 in the methotrexate arm), and no deaths occurred during the study. INTERPRETATION: For patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis, strategies aimed at sustained remission by immediate initiation of tocilizumab with or without methotrexate are more effective, and with a similar safety profile, compared with initiation of methotrexate in line with current standards. FUNDING: Roche Nederland BV.

Examining the validity of the rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging score according to the OMERACT filter-a systematic literature review.

Objective: To examine whether the RA MRI score (RAMRIS) for RA of the wrist/hand meets the OMERACT filter criteria-truth (validity), discrimination and feasibility. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review in PubMed and Scopus, from 1970 through June 2014, focused on MRI measures of synovitis, osteitis/bone marrow oedema, erosions and/or joint space narrowing in RA randomized controlled trials and observational studies with cohort size ⩾10. Strength of evidence was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook criteria. Results: Of 634 MRI titles/abstracts, 202 met the review criteria, with 92 providing at least 1 type of validity. Four articles provided criterion validity, and 26 articles utilized RAMRIS to assess 1.5 T MRI images. Histopathology data showed inflammation corresponding to MRI of synovitis and osteitis. MRI erosions corresponded to those identified with CT. Content and construct validity for RAMRIS synovitis, osteitis and erosions were documented by correlations with clinical, laboratory and/or radiographic data. Each measure was sensitive to change and responsive to therapy. RAMRIS synovitis and osteitis were able to discriminate between the efficacy of treatments vs placebo in 12-week studies, whereas RAMRIS erosions required studies of ⩾24 weeks. Conclusion: RAMRIS synovitis, osteitis and erosions imaged with 1.5 T MRI are valid and useful for evaluating joint inflammation and damage for RA of the wrist/hand, according to the OMERACT filter.

Validation of OMERACT preliminary rheumatoid arthritis flare domains in the NOR-DMARD study.

OBJECTIVE: Domains identified as a result of qualitative research and Delphi exercises to assess rheumatoid arthritis (RA) flare include pain, function, swollen and tender joints, patient and physician global, laboratory measures, participation, stiffness, self-management and fatigue. Here we examine aspects of construct and content validity of these domains in a longitudinal observational study. METHODS: A total of 1195 patients with RA treated with non-biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or biologics were eligible for the analyses. Working definitions of 'flare' included patient-reported worsening between 3 and 6 months (primary) and treatment change at 6 months (DMARDs and/or systemic corticosteroids) (secondary). Available outcome measures were mapped to the flare domains. Changes between 3 and 6 months were compared between patients with and without 'flare'. Convergent and divergent construct validity and content validity were assessed by correlation analyses and logistic regression analysis, respectively. RESULTS: Applying the flare working definition based on patient-reported worsening, standardised mean differences (SMDs) were >0.5 for the majority of outcomes. The largest SMDs were observed for Pain visual analogue scale (1.30), SF-36 Bodily pain (1.24), Patient global (1.20) and morning stiffness intensity (1.17). The flare working definition based on treatment change yielded lower SMDs (<0.5 for most variables). Consistently stronger intradomain than corresponding interdomain correlations supported convergent and divergent validity of the domains. CONCLUSIONS: Probing a flare definition via outcome measures, the identified flare domains discriminated well between patients with and without worsening. Interdomain and intradomain correlation and logistic regression analyses provide further support for construct and content validity of the identified flare domains.

Construct and criterion validity of several proposed DAS28-based rheumatoid arthritis flare criteria: an OMERACT cohort validation study.

BACKGROUND: To describe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) worsening that leads to change or re-initiation of treatment, several Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28)-based flare criteria have been described, but none validated. METHODS: Six previously published DAS28-based flare criteria ((1) increase in DAS28 >1.2, or >0.6 if DAS28 >5.1; (2) increase in DAS28 >1.2, or >0.6 if DAS28 ≥3.2; (3) increase >0.6 or DAS28 >3.2; (4) increase in DAS28 >1.2; (5) DAS28 >3.2; (6) DAS28 >2.6) were tested against five hypotheses concerning criterion and construct validity: (1+2) Sensitivity and specificity >70% compared with patient's/physician's judgment; (3) difference in proportion with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug/corticosteroid initiation/increase >0.2; (4) mean difference in C-reactive protein (CRP) >10 mg/l; and (5) no statistical difference in Short Form-36 Mental Health subscale change. Three different RA patient databases in which flare might occur were used. Sensitivity/specificity, χ(2) and two-sample student t test analyses were done. RESULTS: The analyses included 51, 147 and 744 RA patients, from the three databases. Criterion 2 fulfilled most hypotheses: 4 out of 5. Sensitivity and specificity varied between 63%-78% and 84%-92%. Construct validity was demonstrated with 23% more treatment change, higher mean CRP (11.4 mg/l) and depression scale change of -5. Criteria 3, 5 and 6 were more sensitive, criteria 1, 2 and 4 more specific. CONCLUSIONS: An increase in DAS28 >1.2 or >0.6 if DAS28 ≥3.2 appears most discriminating and valid by our predefined validation criteria. Considering the other criteria, sensitivity and specificity shown here might facilitate use in different settings.

Comorbidities are associated with poorer outcomes in community patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of comorbidities on achieving remission by examining changes in the clinical disease activity index (CDAI) in RA patients in the community-based Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America (CORRONA) registry. METHODS: A subcohort of 1548 RA subjects with varying disease duration met the following inclusion criteria: started a DMARD/biologic agent, continued therapy ≥ 3 months, CDAI ≥ 2.8 at study entry and followed longitudinally from baseline to follow-up (mean time 7.46 months). Patients reported comorbidities according to a standardized list of 33 conditions. Entry characteristics were compared across age categories using one-way analysis of variance. Linear and logistic regression models were constructed to assess characteristics [e.g. age, disease duration, number of previous DMARDs/biologics, baseline modified health assessment questionnaire (MHAQ), baseline CDAI and number of comorbidities] associated with primary outcomes: change in CDAI (baseline to follow-up) and CDAI remission (yes/no). RESULTS: Although disease activity measures at entry were similar across age categories, older patients had more comorbidities, less improvement in CDAI/MHAQ and were less likely to attain remission at follow-up. However, after adjusting covariates an increasing number of patient-reported comorbidities and higher baseline CDAI (but not age) were consistently and independently associated with a lower likelihood of clinical improvement or remission (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this observational cohort of community RA patients an increasing number of patients reported comorbidities, independently correlated with less CDAI improvement over time. These results reaffirm that comorbidities may be an important factor in consideration of treat-to-target recommendations and aid in understanding achievable RA therapeutic goals.

Stakeholder endorsement advancing the implementation of a patient-reported domain for harms in rheumatology clinical trials: Outcome of the OMERACT Safety Working Group.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an understanding of the concept of safety/harms experienced by patients involved in clinical trials for their rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and to seek input from the OMERACT community before moving forward to developing or selecting an outcome measurement instrument. METHODS: OMERACT 2023 presented and discussed interview results from 34 patients indicating that up to 171 items might be important for patients' harm-reporting. RESULTS: Domain was defined in detail and supported by qualitative work. Participants in the Special-Interest-Group endorsed (96 %) that enough qualitative data are available to start Delphi survey(s). CONCLUSION: We present a definition of safety/harms that represents the patient voice (i.e., patients' perception of safety) evaluating the symptomatic treatment-related adverse events for people with RMDs enrolled in clinical trials.

Identifying core domains to assess flare in rheumatoid arthritis: an OMERACT international patient and provider combined Delphi consensus.

OBJECTIVE: For rheumatoid arthritis (RA), there is no consensus on how to define and assess flare. Variability in flare definitions impairs understanding of findings across studies and limits ability to pool results. The OMERACT RA Flare Group sought to identify domains to define RA flares from patient and healthcare professional (HCP) perspectives. METHODS: Flare was described as a worsening of disease activity of sufficient intensity and duration to consider a change in therapy. International patients and HCPs participated in separate and combined rounds of Delphi exercises to rate candidate flare domains previously generated in patient focus groups. Core domains were defined as those with ≥70% ratings of being 'essential' according to the third/final Delphi exercise. RESULTS: The final Delphi included 125 RA patients from 10 countries and 108 HCPs from 23 countries who rated 14 domains. Patients had a mean (±SD) age of 56±12 years and disease duration of 18±12 years. HCPs included physicians from clinical practice/research and industry, allied health providers and researchers with 17±11 years experience. Core domains comprised: pain (93%), function (89%), swollen joints (84%), tender joints (81%), participation (81%), stiffness (79%), patient global assessment (76%) and self-management (75%). Fatigue (68%), which did not reach group consensus, will receive additional consideration. CONCLUSIONS: As part of the process to develop a measure for RA flare, patients and HCPs agreed on eight core domains. Next steps include identifying items to assess domains and conducting studies to validate and refine a new measure.

'I'm hurting, I want to kill myself': rheumatoid arthritis flare is more than a high joint count--an international patient perspective on flare where medical help is sought.

OBJECTIVE: People with RA have episodes of worsening disease activity (flares) that prompt them to seek clinical review or medication change. This study explored patients' perspectives of flare that prompts them to seek medication review. METHODS: Fourteen focus groups across five countries comprised 67 RA patients. Transcripts were analysed by several researchers and a patient, using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Patients use flare for five different scenarios, including flare that prompts medical help-seeking, where six themes were identified. In 'Symptoms and early warnings', pain is intense (wanting to die), constant and persistent and considered a key feature. Systemic features predominate, including fatigue, feeling generally ill (flu-like), physical and cognitive shut-down and social withdrawal. Warning signs (prodrome) comprise fatigue and flu-like symptoms. 'Self-management of intensifying symptoms' includes pacing, heat/cold, rest and increasing medication, often without medical advice. Patients 'Define this as uncontrollable flare' when clusters of unprovoked, persistent symptoms halt their ability to run daily life, until prompted into 'Seeking help when symptoms can't be contained'. Underpinning themes are 'Individual context' (e.g. different symptom clusters) and 'Uncertainty' (e.g. when to seek help). Patients report that the current patient global visual analogue scale (VAS) does not capture flare. CONCLUSION: Patients use flare for multiple events and seek help for complex clusterings of intense, unprovoked symptoms that defy self-management, not necessarily captured in joint counts or global VAS. Flare terminology and definition have implications for clinical practice and trials, therefore further research should establish a professional/patient consensus.

Optimizing Reliability of Real-Time Sonographic Examination and Scoring of Joint Synovitis in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Musculoskeletal ultrasound real-time image acquisition and scoring are complex, and many factors affect reliability. Static image reliability does not guarantee real-time scoring. This study aimed to identify factors and solutions to improve real-time scoring reliability for the grey scale and power Doppler evaluation of synovitis. We also report on using a novel musculoskeletal ultrasound synovitis rule-based scoring atlas. METHODS: In four stages, we evaluated inter- and intra-reader reliability among three ultrasonographers (US1-3). Intra- and inter-reader reliability was calculated using weighted-kappa, intraclass correlation coefficient, and Spearman correlation. Reliability statistics were compared between stages using permutation tests to compute empirical distributions for differences in those statistics. At each stage, factors that diminished reliability were identified and addressed. After intensive reliability exercises, a RA MSUS atlas with in-depth scoring rules was generated to improve interpretive reliability. RESULTS: The three ultrasonographers had good to excellent intra-reader reliability for real-time acquisition scoring over 2432 views (weighted kappa 0.52-0.80, intraclass correlation coefficient 0.59-0.86, and Spearman correlation 0.64-0.86). Inter-reader reliability was good to excellent between US1/US2 and US1/US3 (weighted kappa 0.51-0.66, intraclass correlation coefficient 0.66-0.75, Spearman correlation 0.59-0.73). US1 achieved significant improvement in intra-reader reliability from stage 1 to stage 2 (p<0.05, weighted-kappa 0.63 to 0.80, intraclass correlation coefficient 0.71 to 0.86, Spearman 0.67 to 0.86) with use of the atlas.  Conclusion: This rheumatoid arthritis musculoskeletal ultrasound study addressed complex factors affecting musculoskeletal ultrasound acquisition-scoring reliability. Systematic identification and amelioration of many factors and using a novel rule-based scoring atlas significantly improved intra-reader reliability.

Harms reported by patients in rheumatology drug trials: a systematic review of randomized trials in the cochrane library from an OMERACT working group.

BACKGROUND: Underreporting of harms in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may lead to incomplete or erroneous assessments of the perceived benefit-to-harm profile of an intervention. To compare benefit with harm in clinical practice and future clinical studies, adverse event (AE) profiles including severity need to be understood. Even though patients report harm symptoms earlier and more frequently than clinicians, rheumatology RCTs currently do not provide a reporting framework from the patient's perspective regarding harms. Our objective for this meta-research project was to identify AEs in order to determine harm clusters and whether these could be self-reported by patients. Our other objective was to examine reported severity grading of the reported harms. METHODS: We considered primary publications of RCTs eligible if they were published between 2008 and 2018 evaluating pharmacological interventions in patients with a rheumatic or musculoskeletal condition and if they were included in Cochrane reviews. We extracted data on harms such as reported AE terms together with severity (if described), and categorized AE- and severity-terms into overall groups. We deemed all AEs with felt components appropriate for patient self-reporting. RESULTS: The literature search identified 187 possible Cochrane reviews, of which 94 were eligible for evaluation, comprising 1,297 articles on individual RCTs. Of these RCTs, 93 pharmacological trials met our inclusion criteria (including 31,023 patients; representing 20,844 accumulated patient years), which reported a total of 21,498 AEs, corresponding to 693 unique reported terms for AEs. We further sub-categorized these terms into 280 harm clusters (i.e., themes). AEs appropriate for patient self-reporting accounted for 58% of the AEs reported. Among the reported AEs, we identified medical terms for all of the 117 harm clusters appropriate for patient reporting and lay language terms for 86%. We intended to include severity grades of the reported AEs, but there was no evidence for systematic reporting of clinician- or patient-reported severity in the primary articles of the 93 trials. However, we identified 33 terms suggesting severity, but severity grading was discernible in only 9%, precluding a breakdown by severity in this systematic review. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the need for a standardized framework for patients' reporting of harms in rheumatology trials. Reporting of AEs with severity should be included in future reporting of harms, both from the patients' and investigators' perspectives. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42018108393.

OMERACT consensus-based operational definition of contextual factors in rheumatology clinical trials: A mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an operational definition of contextual factors (CF) [1]. METHODS: Based on previously conducted interviews, we presented three CF types in a Delphi survey; Effect Modifying -, Outcome Influencing - and Measurement Affecting CFs. Subsequently, a virtual Special Interest Group (SIG) session was held for in depth discussion of Effect Modifying CFs. RESULTS: Of 161 Delphi participants, 129 (80%) completed both rounds. After two rounds, we reached consensus (≥70% agreeing) for all but two statements. The 45 SIG participants were broadly supportive. CONCLUSION: Through consensus we developed an operational definition of CFs, which was well received by OMERACT members.

Effect of interleukin-6 receptor inhibition with tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (OPTION study): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Interleukin 6 is involved in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis via its broad effects on immune and inflammatory responses. Our aim was to assess the therapeutic effects of blocking interleukin 6 by inhibition of the interleukin-6 receptor with tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel group phase III study, 623 patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis were randomly assigned with an interactive voice response system, stratified by site with a randomisation list provided by the study sponsor, to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg (n=205), tocilizumab 4 mg/kg (214), or placebo (204) intravenously every 4 weeks, with methotrexate at stable pre-study doses (10-25 mg/week). Rescue therapy with tocilizumab 8 mg/kg was offered at week 16 to patients with less than 20% improvement in both swollen and tender joint counts. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with 20% improvement in signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis according to American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20 response) at week 24. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00106548. FINDINGS: The intention-to-treat analysis population consisted of 622 patients: one patient in the 4 mg/kg group did not receive study treatment and was thus excluded. At 24 weeks, ACR20 responses were seen in more patients receiving tocilizumab than in those receiving placebo (120 [59%] patients in the 8 mg/kg group, 102 [48%] in the 4 mg/kg group, 54 [26%] in the placebo group; odds ratio 4.0 [95% CI 2.6-6.1], p<0.0001 for 8 mg/kg vs placebo; and 2.6 [1.7-3.9], p<0.0001 for 4 mg/kg vs placebo). More people receiving tocilizumab than those receiving placebo had at least one adverse event (143 [69%] in the 8 mg/kg group; 151 [71%] in the 4 mg/kg group; 129 [63%] in the placebo group). The most common serious adverse events were serious infections or infestations, reported by six patients in the 8 mg/kg group, three in the 4 mg/kg group, and two in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Tocilizumab could be an effective therapeutic approach in patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche, Chugai Pharmaceutical.

Rheumatology Common Toxicity Criteria (RCTC): An Update Reflecting Real-World Use.

INTRODUCTION: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) Rheumatology Common Toxicity Criteria (RCTC) version 2.0 was published in 2007 by the OMERACT Drug Safety Working Group, building on limited experience with RCTC version 1.0, to facilitate standardization of assessment (grading) and reporting of adverse events (AEs) commonly seen in rheumatic disease clinical trials (Woodworth et al. in J Rheumatol 34:1401-1414, 2007). OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to (1) report the real-world performance of RCTC 2.0; (2) report immediately correctable errors in RCTC 2.0, and provide a revised RCTC 2.1; and (3) begin to identify the need for a comprehensive revision of RCTC 2.0. METHODS: Safety data outputs for several large rheumatic/autoimmune disease clinical trials in which RCTC 2.0 was used were evaluated for accuracy of reporting and the ability to assess differences among treatments. We examined RCTC 2.0 tables for errors, as well as for omission of terms for AEs that commonly occur in more recent rheumatology clinical trials. We also considered recommendations from recent US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and international initiatives such CDISC (Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium) to improve the consistency of safety data collection and interpretability of safety data analyses. RESULTS: RCTC 2.0 enabled comparisons of safety data across treatment groups, including grading. However, we discovered inaccuracies in laboratory results grading and omission of AE terms now recognized to occur in rheumatic disease clinical trials. CONCLUSION: The RCTC 2.0 performed as intended, although some inaccuracies and omissions were found. We provide a corrected version, RCTC 2.1, and also recommend further revision of the RCTC within OMERACT guidances to include AEs that have been reported in rheumatology clinical trials since RCTC 2.0 was published. Ideally, a revised RCTC 3.0 would not only facilitate standardized assessment and reporting of AEs, but would also expand and encourage accurate comparison of the safety profiles of treatments for rheumatic/autoimmune diseases.

Identifying Possible Outcome Domains from Existing Outcome Measures to Inform an OMERACT Core Domain Set for Safety in Rheumatology Trials.

OBJECTIVE: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Safety Working Group objective was to identify harm domains from existing outcome measurements in rheumatology. METHODS: Systematically searching the MEDLINE database on January 24, 2017, we identified full-text articles that could be used for harm outcomes in rheumatology. Domains/items from the identified instruments were described and the content synthesized to provide a preliminary framework for harm outcomes. RESULTS: From 435 possible references, 24 were read in full text and 9 were included: 7 measurement instruments were identified. Investigation of domains/items revealed considerable heterogeneity in the grouping and approach. CONCLUSION: The ideal way to assess harm aspects from the patients' perspective has not yet been ascertained.

Identifying Provisional Generic Contextual Factor Domains for Clinical Trials in Rheumatology: Results from an OMERACT Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: The Contextual Factors Working Group aims to provide guidance on addressing contextual factors in rheumatology trials within OMERACT. METHODS: During the Special Interest Group session at OMERACT 2018, preliminary results were presented from a case scenario survey and semistructured interviews, including contextual factors mentioned in these. A group-based exercise sought to identify and rank important generic contextual factors. RESULTS: A total of 79 candidate factors were listed. Across the 3 groups, gender/sex, comorbidities, and the healthcare system were ranked as most important. CONCLUSION: The identified important contextual factor domains may be considered a provisional list pending further research.

Ultra-low doses of rituximab for continued treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (REDO study): a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Rituximab is an effective treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, given as either two doses of 1000 mg (2 weeks apart) every 6 months (the dose recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency) or two doses of 500 mg (2 weeks apart) or one dose of 1000 mg (a standard low dose) every 6 months. Findings of several small uncontrolled studies suggest that doses lower than the recommended dose or standard low dose might be sufficient for maintenance treatment, potentially improving safety and reducing costs. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy of ultra-low doses of rituximab (one dose of 500 mg or 200 mg) with a standard low dose of rituximab (one dose of 1000 mg) for patients with rheumatoid arthritis who respond to standard doses of rituximab. METHODS: The REDO study is a randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial done at five centres in the Netherlands. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with rheumatoid arthritis responding well to rituximab were randomly allocated (1:2:2) to receive intravenous rituximab as one dose of either 1000 mg, 500 mg, or 200 mg, respectively. Volumes of all doses were equal to achieve masking. Randomisation lists were computer-generated and stratified by rheumatoid factor or anti-citrullinated protein antibody status (positive or negative) and concomitant use of conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (yes or no). The primary analysis was a per-protocol hierarchical testing procedure comparing ultra-low doses with a standard low dose (500 mg vs 1000 mg at 3 months, followed by 500 mg vs 1000 mg at 6 months, 200 mg vs 1000 mg at 3 months, and 200 mg vs 1000 mg at 6 months), using a non-inferiority margin of 0·60 on change from baseline in the 28-joint disease activity score based on C-reactive protein levels (DAS28-CRP). The study is registered at www.trialregister.nl, NTR6117. FINDINGS: Between Dec 15, 2016, and Sept 20, 2018, 142 patients were randomly allocated to either 1000 mg rituximab (n=29), 500 mg rituximab (n=58), or 200 mg rituximab (n=55). The 500 mg dose was non-inferior to 1000 mg at 3 months (mean change from baseline in DAS28-CRP, -0·07, 95% CI -0·41 to 0·27) but not at 6 months (0·29, -0·08 to 0·65). Because of the hierarchical testing procedure, non-inferiority could not be tested for the 200 mg dose. 13 patients had serious adverse events, three (10%) in the 1000 mg group, six (10%) in the 500 mg group, and four (7%) in the 200 mg group. The most frequently reported serious adverse events were cardiovascular. No deaths occurred during the study. A significantly lower incidence of infections was seen in the ultra-low-dose groups compared with the standard dose group (1·10 infections per patient-year with the 1000 mg dose vs 0·52 per patient-year with the 500 mg dose and 0·51 per patient-year with the 200 mg dose; rate ratio 0·47, 95% CI 0·21-0·83; p=0·013 for 500 mg vs 1000 mg; 0·44, 0·22-0·88; p=0·019 for 200 mg vs 1000 mg). INTERPRETATION: Our study did not show non-inferiority of ultra-low doses of rituximab for continued treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Nonetheless, in clinical practice, a strategy with an ultra-low dose of rituximab might be considered after evaluation of risks and benefits, although further studies are needed to establish non-inferiority. Further analyses and a 2-year observational extension are ongoing and should provide further insight into efficacy and safety. FUNDING: Menzis and Centraal Ziekenfonds.

Scleroderma renal crisis and renal involvement in systemic sclerosis.

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/nrneph.2016.124.