Patient Experience with Chronic Refractory Gout and Its Impact on Health-Related Quality of Life: Literature Review and Qualitative Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with chronic refractory gout face a considerable burden of disease due to unexpected flares characterized by severe and debilitating pain, which can lead to chronic pain and joint damage. This study aimed to understand the symptoms and impacts of chronic refractory gout on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: A targeted literature review was conducted to identify and review key articles describing the symptoms and impacts of gout, and articles examining the psychometric performance of the Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form-36 (SF-36) and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) in gout. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 20 participants with chronic refractory gout. The results were used to develop the conceptual model and determine the appropriateness of the SF-36 and HAQ-DI in evaluating HRQoL in this population. RESULTS: Most frequently reported symptoms included bodily pain (n = 18, 90.0%), joint swelling (n = 18, 90.0%), joint tenderness (n = 18, 90.0%), and joint pain (n = 16, 80.0%). Most frequently reported impacts were difficulties climbing a flight (n = 20, 100.0%) or several flights of stairs (n = 20, 100.0%), climbing five steps (n = 19, 95.0%), completing chores (n = 19, 95.0%), and running errands and shopping (n = 19, 95.0%). All assessed items from SF-36 and HAQ-DI were reported by ≥ 25% (n = 5) of participants and mapped sufficiently to concepts elicited by participants. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with chronic refractory gout report symptoms and impacts that are highly bothersome and burdensome to everyday life. Items included in the HAQ-DI and SF-36 mapped directly to these symptoms and impacts and are relevant to understand the burden of disease of chronic refractory gout.

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.

Summary of Research: Effects of Adalimumab-adbm Versus Adalimumab Reference Product on Patient-Reported Outcomes in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from VOLTAIRE-RA.

This Summary of Research overviews the results of a study that looked at patient-reported outcomes in the VOLTAIRE-RA trial (NCT02137226), originally published in Rheumatology and Therapy. A biosimilar is a biologic medicine made to be very similar to the original biologic medicine (also known as the reference product). The VOLTAIRE-RA trial compared the efficacy and safety of an adalimumab biosimilar (Cyltezo®, adalimumab-admb) with the adalimumab reference product, Humira®, in people with rheumatoid arthritis. As part of the VOLTAIRE-RA study, participants took either adalimumab-adbm or adalimumab reference product for 24 weeks. Patient-reported outcomes were captured after 12 weeks and after 24 weeks of treatment to assess the effects of treatment on each participant's health-related quality of life. People with rheumatoid arthritis who were given adalimumab-adbm or adalimumab reference product experienced similar clinically meaningful improvements in their health-related quality of life after 12 weeks of treatment. A high proportion of people in this trial who were given adalimumab-adbm or adalimumab reference product reported greater improvement versus a reference US population matched by age and sex. This is notable, as it represents a treatment goal that was difficult to achieve in earlier rheumatoid arthritis trials of non-biologic treatments.

Effects of Adalimumab-adbm Versus Adalimumab Reference Product on Patient-Reported Outcomes in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from VOLTAIRE-RA.

INTRODUCTION: This post hoc analysis of VOLTAIRE-RA compared patient-reported outcomes, including health-related quality of life (HRQoL), in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) before and after treatment with biosimilar adalimumab-adbm or adalimumab reference product. METHODS: HRQoL was assessed by 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) Physical and Mental Component Summary (PCS and MCS, respectively) and domain scores at baseline and weeks 12/24. Results were considered clinically meaningful if improvements were greater than or equal to minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) of 2.5 for PCS and MCS and 5.0 for domain scores. Comparisons with age- and sex-matched norms and treatment-associated changes in domain scores from baseline were quantified using spydergrams and the health utility SF-6D measure. All comparisons between treatment groups were descriptive in nature. RESULTS: No differences in PCS scores were reported between treatment groups at baseline or weeks 12/24. MCS scores slightly favored the reference product group at baseline, and differences in scores at weeks 12/24 generally reflected those differences. Improvements in PCS scores greater than or equal to MCID at weeks 12/24 were reported by over 65% of patients in both treatment groups, while over 56% experienced improvements in MCS scores greater than or equal to MCID at weeks 12/24. Similar proportions receiving reference product and adalimumab-adbm reported scores greater than or equal to US age- and sex-matched normative values at week 24: 14-39% versus 15-36%, respectively, compared with baseline (1-17%). CONCLUSION: In patients with moderate to severely active RA, adalimumab-adbm and adalimumab reference product were both associated with clinically meaningful improvements in SF-36 PCS, MCS, and domain scores that were highly similar at weeks 12/24. The high proportion of patients reporting scores greater than or equal to normative values in both treatment groups is notable, as this represents a treatment goal that was difficult to achieve in earlier RA trials. Video abstract available for this article. TRIAL REGISTRATION: VOLTAIRE-RA (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02137226; EudraCT number, 2012-002945-40). Video abstract (MP4 29755 KB).

Upadacitinib monotherapy versus methotrexate monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: efficacy and safety through 5 years in the SELECT-EARLY randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib monotherapy versus methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy over 5 years among MTX-naïve patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the long-term extension (LTE) of the phase 3 SELECT-EARLY trial. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg or MTX. Patients who did not achieve CDAI remission and had < 20% improvement in tender and swollen joint counts at week 26 received rescue therapy (addition of MTX in the upadacitinib group and addition of upadacitinib in the MTX group). Efficacy assessments were evaluated over 5 years and are reported as observed (AO) for patients who received continuous monotherapy with upadacitinib 15/30 mg or MTX and by randomized group applying non-responder imputation (NRI). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) per 100 patient-years were summarized over 5 years. RESULTS: Of 945 patients randomized and treated, 775 (82%) completed week 48 and entered the LTE on study drug. Higher proportions of patients consistently achieved disease activity targets over 5 years with upadacitinib than MTX. In AO analyses, 53%/59% of patients attained CDAI remission with upadacitinib 15/30 mg versus 43% with MTX at week 260. NRI analyses showed better CDAI, DAS28(CRP), and ACR responses with upadacitinib relative to MTX at week 260 (all comparisons, nominal P < .001). Upadacitinib treatment also resulted in numerically greater inhibition of structural joint progression through week 260 compared to MTX. Most TEAEs, serious AEs, and AEs leading to discontinuation were numerically higher in patients receiving upadacitinib 30 mg. Rates of serious infections, herpes zoster, creatine phosphokinase elevation, nonmelanoma skin cancer, and neutropenia were numerically higher with upadacitinib than MTX. The observed safety profile of upadacitinib over 5 years was consistent with earlier trial results and integrated phase 3 safety analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Upadacitinib showed better clinical responses versus MTX in patients with RA throughout the 5-year trial. Higher rates of several AEs were observed with upadacitinib, especially in the 30 mg group, compared to MTX. When used as monotherapy in MTX-naïve patients, the approved upadacitinib 15 mg dose showed better long-term efficacy versus MTX and an overall favorable benefit-risk profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02706873.

Report of the IDEOM Meeting Adjacent to the GRAPPA 2023 Annual Meeting.

The nonprofit organization International Dermatology Outcome Measures (IDEOM) is committed to improving the implementation of patient-centered outcome measures in dermatologic disease. At a conference adjacent to the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) 2023 annual meeting, the IDEOM Psoriatic Disease Workgroup presented updates on recent efforts in outcome measure advancement. Dr. Alice Gottlieb presented the preliminary findings of a study within the Mount Sinai Health System that aims to determine how well the IDEOM musculoskeletal (MSK) symptom framework, which uses the Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool (PEST) and the Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID) instruments, functions in clinical settings. Drs. Joseph Merola and Lourdes Perez-Chada updated attendees on the IDEOM MSK-Q, a 9-item patient-reported questionnaire designed to measure the intensity and impact of MSK symptoms on the quality of life in patients with psoriasis (PsO) with or without psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Dr. Vibeke Strand summarized the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 2023 conference sessions. Dr. April Armstrong discussed the preliminary findings of a multicentered study designed to validate the 7-item Dermatology Treatment Satisfaction Instrument (DermSat-7) among patients with PsO. She also introduced the Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Treatment Satisfaction Instrument, a tool that seeks to capture the level of patient satisfaction with current therapy for PsO and PsA. This report summarizes the developments discussed at the IDEOM PsO and PsA research workgroups during the GRAPPA 2023 annual meeting.

GRAPPA 2023 Annual Meeting Report: Hot Topic Session on Measurement of Musculoskeletal Symptoms in Psoriatic Disease.

During the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) 2023 annual meeting, the International Dermatology Outcome Measures (IDEOM) psoriatic disease (PsD) workgroup presented an update on their efforts toward measurement of musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms in patients with PsD. Dr. Joseph Merola initiated the presentation emphasizing the vital importance of assessing MSK symptoms in patients with psoriasis (PsO) regardless of whether they have been diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). He also discussed existing challenges for evaluating MSK symptoms in patients with PsO without a PsA diagnosis. Dr. Lourdes Perez-Chada then presented their work on the development and validation of the IDEOM Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (MSK-Q), a patient-reported questionnaire developed by the IDEOM to capture the intensity and impact of MSK symptoms on quality of life in patients with PsO with or without PsA. Dr. Perez-Chada also introduced a set of ongoing studies employing the IDEOM MSK-Q, highlighting the potential effects of the data collected through this innovative tool.

Improvements in Patient-Reported Outcomes After Treatment With Deucravacitinib in Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis: Results From a Randomized Phase 2 Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Deucravacitinib, a tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, was assessed in a phase 2 trial in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Here, we report effects of deucravacitinib from the patient perspective. METHODS: This phase 2, double-blind trial (NCT03881059) randomized patients with active PsA 1:1:1 to deucravacitinib 6 mg once daily (QD), 12 mg QD, or placebo, for 16 weeks. Key secondary end points were changes from baseline (CFBs) at week 16 in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical component summary (PCS) scores. Additional patient-reported outcomes (PROs) assessed disease impact, including fatigue, pain, and mental health. The mean CFBs in PROs and percentages of patients reporting improvements with minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) or scores of greater than normal values were also assessed. RESULTS: This study comprised 203 patients (51.2% female; mean ± SD age, 49.8 ± 13.5 years). At week 16, the adjusted mean difference (95% confidence interval) versus placebo in HAQ-DI and SF-36 PCS CFB was significant for each deucravacitinib group (HAQ-DI 6 mg, -0.26 [-0.42 to -0.10], P = 0.0020; HAQ-DI 12 mg, -0.28 [-0.45 to -0.12], P = 0.0008; SF-36 PCS 6 mg, 3.3 [0.9 to 5.7], P = 0.0062; SF-36 PCS 12 mg, 3.5 [1.1 to 5.9], P = 0.0042). MCID at week 16 were reported for all PROs with either dose of deucravacitinib. Improvements of MCID or to normative values were reported by more patients receiving deucravacitinib than placebo. CONCLUSION: Deucravacitinib groups demonstrate significant and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs versus placebo in patients with active PsA, which warrants further study.

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.

The Sjögren's Working Group: The 2023 OMERACT meeting and provisional domain generation.

Sjögren's disease (SjD) is a systemic autoimmune exocrinopathy with key features of dryness, pain, and fatigue. SjD can affect any organ system with a variety of presentations across individuals. This heterogeneity is one of the major barriers for developing effective disease modifying treatments. Defining core disease domains comprising both specific clinical features and incorporating the patient experience is a critical first step to define this complex disease. The OMERACT SjD Working Group held its first international collaborative hybrid meeting in 2023, applying the OMERACT 2.2 filter toward identification of core domains. We accomplished our first goal, a scoping literature review that was presented at the Special Interest Group held in May 2023. Building on the domains identified in the scoping review, we uniquely deployed multidisciplinary experts as part of our collaborative team to generate a provisional domain list that captures SjD heterogeneity.

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.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Psoriasis: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Multiple patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for health-related quality of life (HRQL) exist for patients with psoriasis. Evidence for the content validity and other measurement properties of these PROMs is critical to determine which HRQL PROMs could be recommended for use. Objective: To systematically review the validity of HRQL-focused PROMs used in patients with psoriasis. Evidence Review: Using PubMed and Embase, full-text articles published in English or Spanish on development or validation studies for psoriasis-specific, dermatology-specific, or generic HRQL PROMs were included. Development studies included original development studies, even if not studied in psoriasis patients per Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) recommendations. If a study included multiple diagnoses, more than 50% of patients had to have psoriasis or psoriasis-specific subgroup analyses available. Data extraction and analysis followed the COSMIN guidelines. Two independent reviewers extracted and analyzed the data, including PROM characteristics, quality of measurement properties (structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, construct validity, and responsiveness), and level of evidence. PROMs were classified into 3 levels of recommendations: (1) PROM recommended for use; (2) PROM requires further validation; and (3) PROM not recommended for use. Findings: Overall, 97 articles were identified for extraction. This included 19 psoriasis-specific, 8 skin-specific, and 6 generic PROMs. According to COSMIN standards, most measures identified received a B recommendation for use, indicating their potential but requiring further validation. Only the Rasch reduced version of the Impact of Psoriasis Questionnaire (IPSO-11 Rasch) received an A recommendation for use given that it had sufficient content validity, structural validity, and internal consistency. Conclusions and Relevance: This study identified a significant lack of information concerning the quality of HRQL measures in psoriasis. This gap in knowledge can be attributed to the fact that traditional measures were developed using validation criteria that differ from the current standards in use. Consequently, additional validation studies in accordance with contemporary standards will be useful in aiding researchers and clinicians in determining the most suitable measure for assessing HRQL in patients with psoriasis.

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.

The COMPARE head-to-head, randomized controlled trial of SEL-212 (pegadricase plus rapamycin-containing nanoparticle, ImmTOR™) versus pegloticase for refractory gout.

OBJECTIVES: Serum urate (SU) lowering with PEGylated uricases in gout can reduce flares and tophi. However, treatment-emergent anti-drug antibodies adversely affect safety and efficacy and the currently approved PEGylated uricase pegloticase requires twice-monthly infusions. Investigational SEL-212 therapy aims to promote uricase-specific tolerance via monthly sequential infusions of a proprietary rapamycin-containing nanoparticle (ImmTOR) and pegadricase. METHODS: COMPARE was a randomized, phase 2, open-label trial of SEL-212 vs pegloticase in adults with refractory gout. SEL-212 [ImmTOR (0.15 mg/kg) and pegadricase (0.2 mg/kg)] was infused monthly or pegloticase (8 mg) twice monthly for 6 months. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with SU <6 mg/dl for ≥80% of the time during 3 and 6 months. Secondary outcomes were mean SU, gout flares, number of tender and/or swollen joints and safety. RESULTS: During months 3 and 6 combined, numerically more participants achieved and maintained a SU <6 mg/dl for ≥80% of the time with SEL-212 vs pegloticase (53.0% vs 46.0%, P = 0.181). The percentage reductions in SU levels were statistically greater during months 3 and 6 with SEL-212 vs pegloticase (-73.79% and -47.96%, P = 0.0161). Reductions in gout flare incidence and number of tender and/or swollen joints were comparable between treatments. There were numerical differences between the most common treatment-related adverse events of interest with SEL-212 and pegloticase: gout flares (60.2% vs 50.6%), infections (25.3% vs 18.4%) and infusion-related reactions (15.7% vs 11.5%), respectively. Stomatitis (and related terms) was experienced by eight participants (9.6%) with SEL-212 and none with pegloticase. Stomatitis, a known event for rapamycin, was associated with ImmTOR only. CONCLUSIONS: SEL-212 efficacy and tolerability were comparable to pegloticase in refractory gout. This was associated with a substantial reduction in treatment burden with SEL-212 due to decreased infusion frequency vs pegloticase. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03905512.

Decision Impact Analysis to Measure the Influence of Molecular Signature Response Classifier Testing on Treatment Selection in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical guidelines offer little guidance for treatment selection following inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) was validated to predict tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) inadequate response. The decision impact of MSRC results on biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD) selection was evaluated. METHODS: This is an analysis of AIMS, a longitudinal, prospective database of patients with RA tested using the MSRC. This study assessed selection of b/tsDMARDs class after MSRC testing by surveying physicians, the rate of b/tsDMARD prescriptions aligning with MSRC results, and the percentage of physicians utilizing MSRC results for decision-making. RESULTS: Of 1018 participants, 70.7% (720/1018) had treatment selected after receiving MSRC results. In this MSRC-informed cohort, 75.6% (544/720) of patients received a b/tsDMARD aligned with MSRC results, and 84.6% (609/720) of providers reported using MSRC results to guide treatment selection. The most prevalent reason reported (8.2%, 59/720) for not aligning treatment selection with MSRC results from the total cohort was health insurance coverage issues. CONCLUSION: This study showed that rheumatologists reported using the MSRC test to guide b/tsDMARD selection for patients with RA. In most cases, MSRC test results appeared to influence clinical decision-making according to physician self-report. Wider adoption of precision medicine tools like the MSRC could support rheumatologists and patients in working together to achieve optimal outcomes for RA.

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.

Patient outcomes in longitudinal observational studies (POLOS) of rheumatoid arthritis: Determining the OMERACT core domain set.

OBJECTIVE: To define and select rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-specific core domain set for Longitudinal Observational Studies (LOS) within the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) framework. METHODS: A three-round online Delphi exercise, including patient research partners (PRPs) and other community partners in healthcare, was conducted. Domains scored 7-9 (i.e., critically important to include) by ≥ 70 % of participants in both groups were included. Items were consolidated in a subsequent dedicated meeting. RESULTS: Nineteen domains scored ≥ 70 % consensus in both groups. The focus group refined these into a list of twelve domains. CONCLUSION: The achieved consensus will inform the next steps of developing the core domain set for LOS in RA.

International Dermatology Outcome Measures (IDEOM) - Report from the 2022 Annual Meeting.

BACKGROUND: The International Dermatology Outcome Measures (IDEOM) is a non-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of evidence-based, consensus-driven outcome measures in dermatological diseases. Researchers and stakeholders from various backgrounds collaborate to develop these objective benchmark metrics to further advance treatment and management of dermatological conditions. SUMMARY: The 2022 IDEOM Annual Meeting was held on June 17-18, 2022. Leaders and stakeholders from the hidradenitis suppurativa, acne, vitiligo, actinic keratosis, alopecia areata, itch, cutaneous lymphoma, and psoriatic disease workgroups discussed the progress of their respective outcome-measures research. This report summarizes each workgroup's updates from 2022 and their next steps as established during the 2022 IDEOM Annual Meeting. J Drugs Dermatol. 2023;22(12):1153-1159 doi:10.36849/JDD.7615.

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.