Opioid use surrounding diagnosis and follow-up in patients with ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis: Results from US claims databases.

OBJECTIVE: To describe patients' use of opioids in the year preceding and year following new diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis (AS), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), or rheumatoid arthritis (RA), compared with patients without the/se diseases. METHODS: This study used US IBM® MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters (CCAE) and Medicaid data and included three cohorts, comprised of incident cases of AS, PsA, or RA (2010-2017). Three matched comparator patients (without the incident disease) were selected for each patient within the disease cohort. Opioid use and appropriate treatment exposure (as defined by US guideline recommendations) in the 12-month baseline and follow-up periods were evaluated using descriptive analyses. RESULTS: Prevalence of claims for opioids was higher for disease cohorts vs. comparators in CCAE; 36.4% of patients with AS, 29.5% with PsA, and 44.4% with RA did not have any claim for guideline-appropriate therapy in follow-up. Prevalence of claims for opioids was also higher for disease cohorts vs. comparators in Medicaid; 30.6% of patients with AS, 36.6% with PsA, and 65.4% with RA did not have any claim for guideline-appropriate therapy in follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AS, PsA, or RA, there was high reliance on opioids at and around the time of diagnosis. Significant proportions of patients were not on appropriate treatment as defined by professional society post-diagnosis guidelines; this discordance between actual patient therapies and treatment recommendations may suggest a need for better awareness of appropriate pain management and treatment strategies in rheumatic diseases. Key Points • This study analysed opioid use among patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), or rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and adds to current knowledge by expanding beyond assessment of opioid use at diagnosis, to the year before and after diagnosis. • Opioid use was found to be highly prevalent in AS, PsA, and RA in the year prior to diagnosis and, interestingly, was still seen during the year after diagnosis. • Opioids are neither disease modifying, nor a targeted/recommended treatment for chronic autoimmune diseases. In addition to their association with significant economic costs, opioids are potentially hazardous and are not better than alternative treatments with superior safety profiles. • The reasons behind opioid prescribing patterns should be explored further to support movement to targeted therapies.

Generating a list of potentially important contextual factors covering randomized trials, cohorts, and measurement property studies: An OMERACT initiative.

OBJECTIVES: To generate candidates for contextual factors (CFs) for each CF type (i.e., Effect Modifying Contextual Factors (EM-CFs), Outcome Influencing Contextual Factors (OI-CFs), and Measurement Affecting Contextual Factors (MA-CFs)) considered important within rheumatology. METHODS: We surveyed OMERACT working groups and conducted a Special Interest Group (SIG) session at the OMERACT 2023 meeting, where the results were reviewed, and additional CFs suggested. RESULTS: The working groups suggested 44, 49, and 21 generic EM-CFs, OI-CFs, and MA-CFs, respectively. SIG participants added 49, 44, and 55 factors, respectively. CONCLUSION: Candidate CFs were identified, next step is a consensus-based set of endorsed (important) CFs.

OMERACT Core outcome measurement set for shared decision making in rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions: a scoping review to identify candidate instruments.

OBJECTIVES: Shared decision making (SDM) is a central tenet in rheumatic and musculoskeletal care. The lack of standardization regarding SDM instruments and outcomes in clinical trials threatens the comparative effectiveness of interventions. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) SDM Working Group is developing a Core Outcome Set for trials of SDM interventions in rheumatology and musculoskeletal health. The working group reached consensus on a Core Outcome Domain Set in 2020. The next step is to develop a Core Outcome Measurement Set through the OMERACT Filter 2.2. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) to identify candidate instruments for the OMERACT Filter 2.2 We systematically reviewed five databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Web of Science). An information specialist designed search strategies to identify all measurement instruments used in SDM studies in adults or children living with rheumatic or musculoskeletal diseases or their important others. Paired reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text articles. We extracted characteristics of all candidate instruments (e.g., measured construct, measurement properties). We classified candidate instruments and summarized evidence gaps with an adapted version of the Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) table. RESULTS: We found 14,464 citations, read 239 full text articles, and included 99 eligible studies. We identified 220 potential candidate instruments. The five most used measurement instruments were the Decisional Conflict Scale (traditional and low literacy versions) (n=38), the Hip/Knee-Decision Quality Instrument (n=20), the Decision Regret Scale (n=9), the Preparation for Decision Making Scale (n=8), and the CollaboRATE (n=8). Only 44 candidate instruments (20%) had any measurement properties reported by the included studies. Of these instruments, only 57% matched with at least one of the 7-criteria adapted SOMP table. CONCLUSION: We identified 220 candidate instruments used in the SDM literature amongst people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Our classification of instruments showed evidence gaps and inconsistent reporting of measurement properties. The next steps for the OMERACT SDM Working Group are to match candidate instruments with Core Domains, assess feasibility and review validation studies of measurement instruments in rheumatic diseases or other conditions. Development and validation of new instruments may be required for some Core Domains.

Nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis: expanding the spectrum of an old disease: A narrative review.

ABSTRACT: Nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) represents a distinct phenotype within the spectrum of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), which is characterized by a range of clinical manifestations. Despite a high disease burden that is comparable to ankylosing spondylitis (also known as radiographic axSpA), there is an unmet need to recognize and effectively manage patients with active nr-axSpA.A targeted literature search was conducted in OVID (MEDLINE and Embase databases) to identify articles on nr-axSpA, including its definition, demographics, epidemiology, burden, diagnosis, clinical presentation, and treatment guidelines.The lack of adequate epidemiological data and incomplete understanding of nr-axSpA among rheumatologists and nonrheumatologists contributes to delayed referrals and diagnosis. This delay results in a substantial burden on patients, physically and psychologically, and the healthcare system. Targeted therapies, such as biologics, including inhibitors of tumor necrosis factor or interleukin-17A, have been approved and utilized for the management of nr-axSpA, and other novel therapeutics with different mechanisms of action are in development. Raising awareness among US internists regarding the prevalence of nr-axSpA, disease burden, clinical presentation, diagnostic tools, and available treatments is important for improved disease management.Future clinical investigations focusing on the development of markers that aid early diagnosis and predict treatment response may also improve the management of nr-axSpA. This review provides an overview of nr-axSpA with the aim of raising awareness of the disease among US internists, with an overarching goal to contribute toward the improved recognition and timely referral of these patients to rheumatologists for diagnosis and management.

Occurrence of Possible Rheumatologic Immune-Related Adverse Events (rh-irAEs) Associated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor (ICI) Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Current epidemiologic literature of rheumatologic immune-related adverse events (rh-irAEs) consists of clinical trials, case reports, or smaller, single-center series. We evaluate the occurrence of rh-irAEs during immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy from US commercial claims data. METHODS: Patients newly initiating ICI therapy in commercial claims data were eligible for inclusion. Rh-irAEs were defined using ≥ 1 International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 or ICD-10-Clinical Modification (CM) claims for selected events, ranging from joint pain and myalgia to ankylosing spondylitis and psoriasis. The percentage of patients experiencing rh-irAEs after ICI initiation was determined. RESULTS: A total of 5722 patients initiating an ICI between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2018, were included; 201 patients (3.5%) had a history of rheumatic disease. Among the 5521 patients without a history of rheumatic disease, 29.6% experienced ≥ 1 rh-irAE in follow-up, decreasing to 22.6% when assessing events for which there was no diagnostic history. Limiting to claims for rh-irAE with a rheumatologist provider, the proportion of patients experiencing an event decreased to 0.9%. Among patients with a history of rheumatic disease, 71.6% experienced ≥ 1 rh-irAE. Limiting to events for which the patient did not have a history during baseline, 35.3% experienced an event. CONCLUSIONS: Occurrence of rh-irAEs during ICI use is higher in patients with pre-existing rheumatic disease compared to those with no pre-existing rheumatic disease. However, the most common events were not definitive rheumatic diseases but rather symptoms, such as pain in joints. Occurrence of events associated with a rheumatologist provider was substantially lower, suggesting that either patients are not referred to a rheumatologist or referral does not result in confirmation of the diagnosis by the rheumatologist.

Improving domain definition and outcome instrument selection: Lessons learned for OMERACT from imaging.

OBJECTIVES: Imaging is one of the most rapidly evolving fields in medicine. Unfortunately, many imaging technologies have been applied as measurement instruments without rigorous evaluation of the evidence supporting their truth, discriminatory capability and feasibility for that context of use. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 Instrument Selection Algorithm (OFISA) is used to evaluate such evidence for use of an instrument in a research setting. The objectives of this work are to: [1] define and describe the key conceptual aspects that are essential for the evaluation of imaging as an outcome measurement instrument and [2] describe how these aspects can be assessed through OFISA. METHODS: Experts in imaging and/or methodology met to formalize concepts and define key steps. These concepts were discussed with a team of patient research partners with interest in imaging to refine technical and methodological aspects into comprehensible information. A workshop was held at OMERACT2020 and feedback was incorporated into existing OMERACT process for domain and instrument selection. RESULTS: Three key lessons were identified: (1) a clear definition of the domain we want to measure is a necessary prerequisite to the selection of a good instrument, (2) the sources of variability that can directly influence the instrument should be clearly identified, (3) incorporating these first two lessons into OFISA improves the quality of every instrument selection process. CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of these lessons in the updated OMERACT Filter (now 2.2) will improve the quality of the selection process for all types of outcome measurement instruments.

The Third Biennial 2018 OMERACT First-time Participant Program: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the expanded/refined first-time participant training program. METHODS: We conducted a refined new participant program at OMERACT 2018 on days 1-4, in which first-time participants provided feedback with online surveys and a nominal group on Day 4. RESULTS: Twenty first-time participants attended the introductory session and 8-12 attended followup sessions. A high proportion valued the newbie session (100%), rating it overall (91%), content-wise (62%), for presentation quality (82%), and value for the money (82%) as outstanding or good. The nominal group technique identified opportunities for further improvement of breakouts/voting. CONCLUSION: The expanded new participant training program is valued by attendees.

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.

A Benefit Risk Review of Pediatric Use of Hydrocodone/Chlorpheniramine, a Prescription Opioid Antitussive Agent for the Treatment of Cough.

Hydrocodone/chlorpheniramine is a prescription opioid licensed in the USA for the relief of cough and upper respiratory symptoms associated with allergy or cold in adults, previously contraindicated in children aged < 6 years. We present findings from a modern benefit risk review of hydrocodone/chlorpheniramine use as an antitussive agent in patients aged 6 to < 18 years. A cumulative search of the manufacturer's pharmacovigilance database covering 1 January 1900-7 August 2017 identified all individual case safety reports (ICSRs) associated with product family name "hydrocodone/chlorpheniramine." The search was inclusive of all MedDRA system organ classes, stratified by age (< 18 years). A comprehensive review of the scientific literature was conducted on safety and efficacy of opioids for pediatric treatment of cough. Three hundred and ninety-one ICSRs associated with hydrocodone/chlorpheniramine were identified; 35/391 ICSRs were in patients < 18 years of age; 18 were considered serious. Four fatalities were reported in patients 6 to < 18 years; two fatalities involved co-suspect medication azithromycin and two were poorly documented. Our literature search identified no robust efficacy data for hydrocodone/chlorpheniramine in the relief of cough and upper respiratory symptoms associated with allergy or cold in patients aged 6 to < 18 years. As we found no evidence of hydrocodone/chlorpheniramine efficacy in the pediatric population, we conclude that the benefit risk profile is unfavorable. This evidence contributed to the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) recent decision that hydrocodone-containing cough and cold medications should no longer be indicated for treatment of cough in patients < 18 years, highlighting the value of proactive re-evaluation of the benefit risk profile of older established drugs. Plain Language Summary People often use medicines containing opioids to treat cough symptoms. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently decided that cough medicines containing opioids should not be used by children under 18 years old. Part of this decision was a review of the benefits and risks of using cough medicines that contain the opioid hydrocodone in children.Why was this review carried out? Most cough medicines that doctors can prescribe were approved several decades ago. Since then, rules for the approval of medicines have become stricter. In this review, researchers looked at the safety of hydrocodone, and how well this opioid relieves cough symptoms in children. Up-to-date information and modern research methods were used.The two key pieces of evidence found were: We could not locate any clinical trials providing robust evidence for the use of hydrocodone for cough relief in children under 18 years of age. (Outside the scope of this review, a number of clinical trials of hydrocodone-containing cough medicines in adults aged 18 years and over have shown the medicine to be effective in these patients.) Cough medicines containing opioids can cause harmful side effects in children such as breathing problems. In the research reported here, ten children died after taking a hydrocodone-containing cough medicine. Nine of these deaths were due to overdose. This evidence was used to draw the following conclusions: In children under 18 years of age, the risks of using hydrocodone for cough relief are greater than any benefits. Older medicines should be reviewed regularly to look at their safety and how well they are working using up-to-date evidence.

Opioid Use in Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis Is Common in the United States: Outcomes of a Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of chronic opioid use in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and to compare the characteristics of patients with and without chronic opioid use. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with AS identified in the Truven Health MarketScan Research database between January 1, 2012, and March 31, 2017. Commercial and Medicaid claims data were examined using both specific (720.0 and M45.x) and broader (720.x and M45.x) International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding definitions. Patients were aged ≥ 18 years on the date of first qualifying ICD code occurrence (the index date). Demographics and clinical characteristics were assessed in the 12-month period preceding the index date. The 12-month followup period was used to assess prevalence and characteristics of chronic opioid use. RESULTS: Chronic opioid use was common among patients with commercial claims (23.5% of ICD 720.0 patients; 27.3% of ICD 720.x patients), and especially those with Medicaid claims (57.1% and 76.7%, respectively). The proportion of patients with claims for anti-tumor necrosis factor therapies during followup was often low, and for Medicaid patients was lower among those with chronic opioid use (29.6% of ICD 720.0 patients; 2.3% of ICD 720.x patients) than those without (47.1% and 7.1%, respectively). Among chronic opioid users in all cohorts, the cumulative supply of opioids was typically high (≥ 270 days in the followup period); most opioids prescribed were Schedule II. CONCLUSION: Patients with AS receive opioids with disturbing frequency. The infrequent prescription of recommended therapies to these patients reflects a need to optimize treatment further through education of patients and healthcare professionals alike.

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.

The OMERACT First-time Participant Program: Fresh Eye from the New Guys.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the experience of the first-time participant (newbie) training program at the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 2016 meeting. METHODS: We conducted new participant sessions at OMERACT 2016, including a 2-h introductory session on Day 1 followed by 1-h evening followup sessions on days 1-4. Pre- and post-meeting surveys assessed participants' levels of comfort with the principles of the OMERACT Filter 2.0 (the essential tools for OMERACT methodology) and the different types of OMERACT sessions, and whether participants felt welcome. In addition, on the final day, a nominal group technique was used to elicit problematic components of the meeting and to develop solutions to those problems. RESULTS: Of the 43 new attendees, 38 participated in the introductory session and 14-18 attended the followup sessions. Comparing Day 1 (preintroductory session) to days 1-3 (post), a similar proportion understood different types of sessions extremely well [45% (pre) versus 47%, 44%, and 36% (post), respectively], and a higher proportion understood principles of the OMERACT filter extremely well [22% (pre) versus 55%, 44%, and 40% (post), respectively]. Most reported feeling welcome (86.7%) and felt they contributed to breakout sessions (93.3%) on the evening of Day 1; results were sustained on days 2-3. The most commonly reported "best" experience included the OMERACT culture and the most common reported experience needing improvement included facilitation issues during breakouts. CONCLUSION: The first-time participants came to OMERACT 2016 with a high baseline level of understanding. They rapidly attained a high comfort level with participation and provided concrete and innovative solutions to the most commonly reported experiences needing improvement.

Risk of QT prolongation and torsade de pointes associated with exposure to hydroxyzine: re-evaluation of an established drug.

Several noncardiac drugs have been linked to cardiac safety concerns, highlighting the importance of post-marketing surveillance and continued evaluation of the benefit-risk of long-established drugs. Here, we examine the risk of QT prolongation and/or torsade de pointes (TdP) associated with the use of hydroxyzine, a first generation sedating antihistamine. We have used a combined methodological approach to re-evaluate the cardiac safety profile of hydroxyzine, including: (1) a full review of the sponsor pharmacovigilance safety database to examine real-world data on the risk of QT prolongation and/or TdP associated with hydroxyzine use and (2) nonclinical electrophysiological studies to examine concentration-dependent effects of hydroxyzine on a range of human cardiac ion channels. Based on a review of pharmacovigilance data between 14th December 1955 and 1st August 2016, we identified 59 reports of QT prolongation and/or TdP potentially linked to hydroxyzine use. Aside from intentional overdose, all cases involved underlying medical conditions or concomitant medications that constituted at least 1 additional risk factor for such events. The combination of cardiovascular disorders plus concomitant treatment of drugs known to induce arrhythmia was identified as the greatest combined risk factor. Parallel patch-clamp studies demonstrated hydroxyzine concentration-dependent inhibition of several human cardiac ion channels, including the ether-a-go-go-related gene (hERG) potassium ion channels. Results from this analysis support the listing of hydroxyzine as a drug with "conditional risk of TdP" and are in line with recommendations to limit hydroxyzine use in patients with known underlying risk factors for QT prolongation and/or TdP.

Lumiracoxib is effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: a prospective randomized 13-week study versus placebo and celecoxib.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of lumiracoxib compared with placebo and celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). Following a 3- to 7-day washout period for previous non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 1,600 patients aged >or=18 years with primary knee OA were randomized to receive lumiracoxib 200 or 400 mg once daily (o.d.), celecoxib 200 mg o.d. or placebo for 13 weeks. Primary efficacy variables were OA pain intensity in the target knee, patient's global assessment of disease activity and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale and total scores at week 13. Secondary variables included OA pain intensity in the target knee and physician's and patient's global assessments of disease activity by visit. Exploratory analysis of responder rates using the Outcomes Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) criteria was performed. Safety and tolerability were assessed. Lumiracoxib was superior to placebo in all primary and secondary variables and was generally similar to celecoxib. There were no statistically significant differences between the two doses of lumiracoxib. All active treatments were significantly more effective than placebo at weeks 2 and 13 in terms of response to treatment assessed using OMERACT-OARSI criteria. The incidence of adverse events was similar across the groups. Lumiracoxib 200 mg o.d. is a well-tolerated and effective treatment option for OA of the knee, providing pain relief and improved functional status with efficacy superior to placebo and similar to celecoxib. Lumiracoxib demonstrated a tolerability profile similar to placebo and celecoxib.