"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.

Real-world evidence: new opportunities for osteoporosis research. Recommendations from a Working Group from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO).

This narrative review summarises the recommendations of a Working Group of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) for the conduct and reporting of real-world evidence studies with a focus on osteoporosis research. PURPOSE: Vast amounts of data are routinely generated at every healthcare contact and activity, and there is increasing recognition that these real-world data can be analysed to generate scientific evidence. Real-world evidence (RWE) is increasingly used to delineate the natural history of disease, assess real-life drug effectiveness, understand adverse events and in health economic analysis. The aim of this work was to understand the benefits and limitations of this type of data and outline approaches to ensure that transparent and high-quality evidence is generated. METHODS: A ESCEO Working Group was convened in December 2022 to discuss the applicability of RWE to osteoporosis research and approaches to best practice. RESULTS: This narrative review summarises the agreed recommendations for the conduct and reporting of RWE studies with a focus on osteoporosis research. CONCLUSIONS: It is imperative that research using real-world data is conducted to the highest standards with close attention to limitations and biases of these data, and with transparency at all stages of study design, data acquisition and curation, analysis and reporting to increase the trustworthiness of RWE study findings.

The Patients' Perspective of Important Glucocorticoid Effects: A Nominal Group Study Among Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Myositis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The objective of this cohort study was to understand the positive and negative effects of glucocorticoids (GCs) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and myositis from the patients' perspective with the aim of developing a patient-reported outcome measure. METHODS: Included patients were asked to participate in 1 of 5 nominal groups where demographic information and a quality-of-life questionnaire were collected. Patients were asked 2 open-ended questions on (1) benefits and (2) harms related to GC use. We used the Nominal Group Technique, a highly structured consensus method in which responses are generated, shared, and ranked. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the results. Nominal group sessions took place from April to May 2019. RESULTS: Of 206 patients who were approached, 21 patients participated, 17 with systemic lupus erythematosus and 4 with myositis, predominantly women with more than 10 years of steroid use. The domains ranked highest for GC benefits were disease control (55 votes), fast onset of action (30 votes), increased energy (10 votes), and pain relief (10 votes). The highest-ranked negative effects were bone loss (38 votes) and weight gain (16 votes); psychological effects and damaged internal organs each received 12 votes. CONCLUSIONS: The top-ranked GC effects-both benefits and harms-among patients with systemic rheumatic disease are consistent with the top domains associated with GC use reported with other inflammatory diseases. This study informs the development of a comprehensive patient-reported outcome measure that can be used across inflammatory diseases.

Development of a bedside pain assessment kit for the classification of patients with osteoarthritis.

There are no standardized bedside assessments for subtyping patients with osteoarthritis (OA) based on pain mechanisms. Thus, we developed a bedside sensory testing kit (BSTK) to classify OA patients based on sensory profiles potentially indicative of pain mechanism. After usability and informal reliability testing (n = 22), the kit was tested in a formal reliability study (n = 20). Patients completed questionnaires and sensory testing: pressure algometry to detect hyperalgesia; repeat algometry after heterotopic noxious conditioning stimulation to measure diffuse noxious inhibitory control (DNIC); light touch using Von Frey filaments; and cold allodynia using a brass rod. The procedure was brief and well tolerated. Algometry and filament testing were highly reliable [intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) 0.71-0.91]; DNIC was acceptably reliable (ICCs 0.53-0.91); brass rod reliability was inconclusive. Patients were classified empirically into four groups: "All abnormal findings" (primary and secondary hyperalgesia and dysfunctional DNIC); "all normal findings"; and two intermediate groups. The "all abnormal findings" group had more neuropathic pain symptoms, and lower WOMAC total, stiffness, and activity scores than the "all normal findings" group. Simple BSTK procedures, consolidated in a kit, reliably classified OA patients into subgroups based on sensory profile, suggesting that OA patients differ in underlying pain mechanisms. Further research is needed to confirm these subgroups and determine their validity in predicting response to treatment.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, gastroprotection, and benefit-risk.

BACKGROUND: Gastroprotective agents (GPA) substantially reduce morbidity and mortality with long-term nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and aspirin. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate efficacy of NSAIDs, protection against NSAID-induced gastrointestinal harm, and balance of benefit and risk. METHODS: Free text searches of PubMed (December 2012) supplemented with "related citation" and "cited by" facilities on PubMed and Google Scholar for patient requirements, NSAID effectiveness, pain relief benefits, gastroprotective strategies, adherence to gastroprotection prescribing, and serious harm with NSAIDs and GPA. RESULTS: Patients want 50% reduction in pain intensity and improved fatigue, distress, and quality of life. Meta-analyses of NSAID trials in musculoskeletal conditions had bimodal responses with good pain relief or little. Number needed to treat (NNTs) for good pain relief were 3 to 9. Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and high-dose histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2 RA) provided similar gastroprotection, with no conclusive evidence of greater PPI efficacy compared with high-dose H2 RA. Prescriber adherence to guidance on use of GPA with NSAIDS was 49% in studies published since 2005; patient adherence was less than 100%. PPI use at higher doses over longer periods is associated with increased risk of serious adverse events, including fracture; no such evidence was found for H2 RA. Patients with chronic conditions are more willing to accept risk of harm for successful treatment than their physicians. CONCLUSION: Guidance on NSAIDs use should ensure that patients have a good level of pain relief and that gastroprotection is guaranteed for the NSAID delivering good pain relief. Fixed-dose combinations of NSAID plus GPA offer one solution.

Increasing uptake through collaboration in the development of core outcome sets: Lessons learned at OMERACT 2023.

OBJECTIVE: This manuscript highlights the importance of enhancing the uptake of Core Outcome Sets (COS) by building partnerships with Collaborators and addressing their needs in COS development. METHODS AND SETTING: This session was structured as a simulation, resembling a format akin to a classic television game show. The moderator posed a series of questions to eight different Collaborator groups who briefly described the importance of COS within their areas of interest. Previous studies examining the uptake of individual core outcomes revealed disparities in uptake rates. The Identified barriers to the uptake of COS include the lack of recommendations for validated instruments for each domain, insufficient involvement of patients and key Collaborator groups in COS development, and a lack of awareness regarding the existence of COS. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis underscores the need for COS development approaches that prioritize the inclusion of patients and diverse Collaborator groups at every stage. While current studies on COS uptake are limited, future research should explore the broader implementation of COS across diverse disease categories and delve into the factors that hinder or facilitate their uptake such as, the importance of COS developers extending their work to recommending domains with well validated instruments. Embracing patient leadership and multifaceted engagement is essential for advancing the relevance and impact of COS in clinical research.

Embracing unity at OMERACT: Valuing equity, promoting diversity, fostering inclusivity.

OBJECTIVE: To increase awareness and understanding of the principles of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusivity (EDI) within Outcome Measures in Rheumatology's (OMERACT) members. For this, we aimed to obtain ideas on how to promote and foster these principles within the organization and determine the diversity of the current membership in order to focus future efforts. METHODS: We held a plenary workshop session at OMERACT 2023 with roundtable discussions on barriers and solutions to increased diversity within OMERACT. We conducted an anonymous, web-based survey of members to record characteristics including population group, gender identity, education level, age, and ability. RESULTS: The workshop generated ideas to increase diversity of participants across the themes of building relationships [12 topics], materials and methods [5 topics], and conference-specific [6 topics]. Four hundred and seven people responded to the survey (25 % response rate). The majority of respondents were White (75 %), female (61 %), university-educated (94 %), Christian (42 %), spoke English at home (60 %), aged 35 to 55 years (50 %), and did not report a disability (64 %). CONCLUSION: OMERACT is committed to improving its diversity. Next steps include strategic recruitment of members to the EDI working group, drafting an EDI mission statement centering equity and inclusivity in the organization, and developing guidance for the OMERACT Handbook to help all working groups create actionable plans for promoting EDI principles.

Exploring the complexities of pain phenotypes: OMERACT 2023 chronic pain working group workshop.

OBJECTIVE: To educate and discuss pain mechanisms (nociceptive, neuropathic, nociplastic) illuminating its possible impact when measuring different outcomes, which may modify, confound and potentially bias the outcome measures applied across various aspects of Rheumatic Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs) clinical trials. METHODS: In the plenary presentations, PM lectured on different pain mechanisms and impact on disease activity assessment. Data from two data sets of RMDs patients, which assessed the prevalence and impact of nociplastic pain were presented and reviewed. Audience breakout group sessions and polling were conducted. RESULTS: Mixed pain etiologies may differentially influence disease activity assessment and therapeutic decision-making. Polling demonstrated a consensus on the need to assess different types of pain as a phenotype, as it constitutes an important contextual factor (a variable that is not an outcome of the trial, but needs to be recognized [and measured] to understand the study results), and to standardize across RMDs. CONCLUSION: There is need for a standardized pain measure that can differentiate underlying pain mechanisms.

Toward designing human intervention studies to prevent osteoarthritis after knee injury: A report from an interdisciplinary OARSI 2023 workshop.

Objective: The global impact of osteoarthritis is growing. Currently no disease modifying osteoarthritis drugs/therapies exist, increasing the need for preventative strategies. Knee injuries have a high prevalence, distinct onset, and strong independent association with post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA). Numerous groups are embarking upon research that will culminate in clinical trials to assess the effect of interventions to prevent knee PTOA despite challenges and lack of consensus about trial design in this population. Our objectives were to improve awareness of knee PTOA prevention trial design and discuss state-of-the art methods to address the unique opportunities and challenges of these studies. Design: An international interdisciplinary group developed a workshop, hosted at the 2023 Osteoarthritis Research Society International Congress. Here we summarize the workshop content and outputs, with the goal of moving the field of PTOA prevention trial design forward. Results: Workshop highlights included discussions about target population (considering risk, homogeneity, and possibility of modifying osteoarthritis outcome); target treatment (considering delivery, timing, feasibility and effectiveness); comparators (usual care, placebo), and primary symptomatic outcomes considering surrogates and the importance of knee function and symptoms other than pain to this population. Conclusions: Opportunities to test multimodal PTOA prevention interventions across preclinical models and clinical trials exist. As improving symptomatic outcomes aligns with patient and regulator priorities, co-primary symptomatic (single or aggregate/multidimensional outcome considering function and symptoms beyond pain) and structural/physiological outcomes may be appropriate for these trials. To ensure PTOA prevention trials are relevant and acceptable to all stakeholders, future research should address critical knowledge gaps and challenges.

Defining domains: developing consensus-based definitions for foundational domains in OMERACT core outcome sets.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a set of detailed definitions for foundational domains commonly used in OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) core domain sets. METHODS: We identified candidate domain definitions from prior OMERACT publications and websites and publications of major organizations involved in outcomes research for six domains commonly used in OMERACT Core Domain Sets: pain intensity, pain interference, physical function, fatigue, patient global assessment, and health-related quality of life. We conducted a two-round survey of OMERACT working groups, patient research partners, and then the OMERACT Technical Advisory Group to establish their preferred domain definitions. Results were presented at the OMERACT 2023 Methodology Workshop, where participants discussed their relevant lived experience and identified potential sources of variability giving the needed detail in our domain definitions. RESULTS: One-hundred four people responded to both rounds of the survey, and a preferred definition was established for each of the domains except for patient global assessment for which no agreement was reached. Seventy-five participants at the OMERACT 2023 Methodology Workshop provided lived experience examples, which were used to contextualise domain definition reports for each of the five domains. CONCLUSION: Using a consensus-based approach, we have created a detailed definition for five of the foundational domains in OMERACT core domain sets; patient global assessment requires further research. These definitions, although not mandatory for working groups to use, may facilitate the initial domain-match assessment step of instrument selection, and reduce the time and resources required by future OMERACT groups when developing core outcome sets.

Methods for pragmatic randomized clinical trials of pain therapies: IMMPACT statement.

ABSTRACT: Pragmatic, randomized, controlled trials hold the potential to directly inform clinical decision making and health policy regarding the treatment of people experiencing pain. Pragmatic trials are designed to replicate or are embedded within routine clinical care and are increasingly valued to bridge the gap between trial research and clinical practice, especially in multidimensional conditions, such as pain and in nonpharmacological intervention research. To maximize the potential of pragmatic trials in pain research, the careful consideration of each methodological decision is required. Trials aligned with routine practice pose several challenges, such as determining and enrolling appropriate study participants, deciding on the appropriate level of flexibility in treatment delivery, integrating information on concomitant treatments and adherence, and choosing comparator conditions and outcome measures. Ensuring data quality in real-world clinical settings is another challenging goal. Furthermore, current trials in the field would benefit from analysis methods that allow for a differentiated understanding of effects across patient subgroups and improved reporting of methods and context, which is required to assess the generalizability of findings. At the same time, a range of novel methodological approaches provide opportunities for enhanced efficiency and relevance of pragmatic trials to stakeholders and clinical decision making. In this study, best-practice considerations for these and other concerns in pragmatic trials of pain treatments are offered and a number of promising solutions discussed. The basis of these recommendations was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) meeting organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks.

OMERACT 2023 Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Special Interest Group: Winnowing and Binning Preliminary Candidate Domains for the Core Outcome Set.

BACKGROUND: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Working Group held a Special Interest Group (SIG) at the OMERACT 2023 conference in Colorado Springs where SLE collaborators reviewed domain sub-themes generated through qualitative research and literature review. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the SIG and the subsequent meetings of the SLE Working Group was to begin the winnowing and binning of candidate domain sub-themes into a preliminary list of candidate domains that will proceed to the consensus Delphi exercise for the SLE COS. METHODS: Four breakout groups at the SLE SIG in Colorado Springs winnowed and binned 132 domain sub-themes into candidate domains, which was continued with a series of virtual meetings by an advisory group of SLE patient research partners (PRPs), members of the OMERACT SLE Working Group Steering Committee, and other collaborators. RESULTS: The 132 domain sub-themes were reduced to a preliminary list of 20 candidate domains based on their clinical and research relevance for clinical trials and research studies. CONCLUSION: A meaningful and substantial winnowing and binning of candidate domains for the SLE COS was achieved resulting in a preliminary list of 20 candidate domains.

Patient engagement in designing, conducting, and disseminating clinical pain research: IMMPACT recommended considerations.

ABSTRACT: In the traditional clinical research model, patients are typically involved only as participants. However, there has been a shift in recent years highlighting the value and contributions that patients bring as members of the research team, across the clinical research lifecycle. It is becoming increasingly evident that to develop research that is both meaningful to people who have the targeted condition and is feasible, there are important benefits of involving patients in the planning, conduct, and dissemination of research from its earliest stages. In fact, research funders and regulatory agencies are now explicitly encouraging, and sometimes requiring, that patients are engaged as partners in research. Although this approach has become commonplace in some fields of clinical research, it remains the exception in clinical pain research. As such, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials convened a meeting with patient partners and international representatives from academia, patient advocacy groups, government regulatory agencies, research funding organizations, academic journals, and the biopharmaceutical industry to develop consensus recommendations for advancing patient engagement in all stages of clinical pain research in an effective and purposeful manner. This article summarizes the results of this meeting and offers considerations for meaningful and authentic engagement of patient partners in clinical pain research, including recommendations for representation, timing, continuous engagement, measurement, reporting, and research dissemination.

Very early invasive strategy in higher risk non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: the RAPID NSTEMI trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether a very early invasive strategy (IS)±revascularisation improves clinical outcomes compared with standard care IS in higher risk patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). METHODS: Multicentre, randomised, controlled, pragmatic strategy trial of higher risk patients with NSTE-ACS, defined by Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events 2.0 score of ≥118, or ≥90 with at least one additional high-risk feature. Participants were randomly assigned to very early IS±revascularisation (<90 min from randomisation) or standard care IS±revascularisation (<72 hours). The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, new myocardial infarction or hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months. RESULTS: The trial was discontinued early by the funder due to slow recruitment during the COVID-19 pandemic. 425 patients were randomised, of whom 413 underwent an IS: 204 to very early IS (median time from randomisation: 1.5 hours (IQR: 0.9-2.0)) and 209 to standard care IS (median: 44.0 hours (IQR: 22.9-72.6)). At 12 months, there was no significant difference in the primary outcome between the early IS (5.9%) and standard IS (6.7%) groups (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.09; p=0.86). The incidence of stroke and major bleeding was similar. The length of hospital stay was reduced with a very early IS (3.9 days (SD 6.5) vs 6.3 days (SD 7.6), p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of very early IS did not improve clinical outcomes compared with a standard care IS in higher risk patients with NSTE-ACS. However, the primary outcome rate was low and the trial was underpowered to detect such a difference. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03707314.

OMERACT systemic lupus erythematosus domain survey.

BACKGROUND: Since the development of the OMERACT Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Core Outcome Set (COS) in 1998, many new SLE domains have been identified and measures developed, creating a need to update the SLE COS. To revisit the 1998 SLE COS and research agenda domains, and generate new candidate domains, we conducted this study of patients with SLE and collaborators. OBJECTIVE: (1) To evaluate existing candidate SLE domains for inclusion in the SLE COS. (2) To generate additional candidate SLE domains for COS consideration. (3) To engage SLE collaborators, including patients, in developing the updated SLE COS. METHODS: The OMERACT SLE Working Group's steering committee developed a survey to assess the importance of candidate SLE domains and generate additional domains for consideration towards the SLE COS. Patients with SLE followed at the University of Toronto Lupus Clinic (patient group) and members of the OMERACT SLE Working Group (collaborator group) were invited to complete the survey between August 2022 and February 2023. RESULTS: A total of 175 patients were invited and 100 completed the survey. Of 178 collaborators invited, 145 completed the survey. Patients tended to prioritize life-impact domains while collaborators prioritized clinical domains. Both patients and collaborators recommended additional domains to those included in the 1998 SLE COS and research agenda. CONCLUSION: The domain inclusion and importance results demonstrate that patients and collaborators prioritize different domains, so capturing the perspectives of both groups is essential to ensure a holistic assessment of SLE. The results of the study identify domains that already have a high level of agreement for potential inclusion in the SLE COS, domains that require further explanation, and novel domains that warrant consideration.

GI-REASONS: a novel 6-month, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) trial.

OBJECTIVES: Because of the limitations of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies, a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) study may be an appropriate alternative, as the design allows the assessment of clinical outcomes in clinical practice settings. The Gastrointestinal (GI) Randomized Event and Safety Open-Label Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug (NSAID) Study (GI-REASONS) was designed to reflect standard clinical practice while including endpoints rigorously evaluated by a blinded adjudication committee. The objective of this study was to assess if celecoxib is associated with a lower incidence of clinically significant upper and/or lower GI events than nonselective NSAIDs (nsNSAIDs) in standard clinical practice. METHODS: This was a PROBE study carried out at 783 centers in the United States, where a total of 8,067 individuals aged ≥ 55 years, requiring daily NSAIDs to treat osteoarthritis, participated. The participants were randomized to celecoxib or nsNSAIDs (1:1) for 6 months and stratified by Helicobacter pylori status. Treatment doses could be adjusted as per the United States prescribing information; patients randomized to nsNSAIDs could switch between nsNSAIDs; crossover between treatment arms was not allowed, and patients requiring aspirin at baseline were excluded. The primary outcome was the incidence of clinically significant upper and/or lower GI events. RESULTS: Significantly more nsNSAID users met the primary endpoint (2.4% (98/4,032) nsNSAID patients and 1.3% (54/4,035) celecoxib patients; odds ratio, 1.82 (95% confidence interval, 1.31-2.55); P = 0.0003). Moderate to severe abdominal symptoms were experienced by 94 (2.3%) celecoxib and 138 (3.4%) nsNSAID patients (P=0.0035). Other non-GI adverse events were similar between treatment groups. One limitation is the open-label design, which presents the possibility of interpretive bias. CONCLUSIONS: Celecoxib was associated with a lower risk of clinically significant upper and/or lower GI events than nsNSAIDs. Furthermore, this trial represents a successful execution of a PROBE study, where therapeutic options and management strategies available in clinical practice were incorporated into the rigor of a prospective RCT.

Advice from professional societies: appropriate use of NSAIDs.

OBJECTIVE: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are some of the most commonly used medications due to their well-known analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and antipyretic actions. Due to their known benefits and inherent risks, there have been multiple guidelines from national professional societies that suggest appropriate use to provide both maximum benefit and mitigate risk of adverse events, particularly in older individuals. DESIGN: A literature search was undertaken using PubMed and search terms including pain, aging, treatment, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, arthritis, older patient, and guidelines. Practice guideline reviews were conducted from the following sources: American Geriatric Society, American College of Rheumatology, and the European League Against Rheumatism suggesting the appropriate and safer use of NSAIDs, along with references to guidelines product by Osteoarthritis Research International, the American Gastroenterological Association. CONCLUSIONS: Literature-based and professional society guidelines provides clinicians with means optimize efficacy and safety of NSAIDs in clinical practice. Summary recommendations are provided in this review.