Patient-reported outcomes in RA care improve patient communication, decision-making, satisfaction and confidence: qualitative results.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into routine clinics, from the perspective of patients with RA, clinicians and other staff. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study using a mixed methods sequential explanatory design at an academic arthritis clinic. RA patients completed selected Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System measures on tablets in the waiting room. Results were immediately available to discuss during the visit. Post-visit surveys with patients and physicians evaluated topics discussed and their impact on decision making; patients rated confidence in treatment. Focus groups or interviews with patients, treating rheumatologists and clinic staff were conducted to understand perspectives and experiences. RESULTS: Some 196 patients and 20 rheumatologists completed post-visit surveys at 816 and 806 visits, respectively. Focus groups were conducted with 24 patients, 10 rheumatologists and 4 research/clinic staff. PROs influenced medical decision-making and RA treatment changes (38 and 18% of visits, respectively). Patients reported very high satisfaction and treatment confidence. Impact on clinical workflow was minimal after a period of initial adjustment. PROs were valued by patients and physicians, and provided new insight into how patients felt and functioned over time. Reviewing results together improved communication, and facilitated patient-centred care, shared decision making, and the identification of new symptoms and contributing psychosocial/behavioural factors. CONCLUSION: PRO use at RA visits was feasible, increased understanding of how disease affects how patients feel and function, facilitated shared decision-making, and was associated with high patient satisfaction and treatment confidence.

Individualized decision aid for diverse women with lupus nephritis (IDEA-WON): A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment decision-making regarding immunosuppressive therapy is challenging for individuals with lupus. We assessed the effectiveness of a decision aid for immunosuppressive therapy in lupus nephritis. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In a United States multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial (RCT), adult women with lupus nephritis, mostly from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds with low socioeconomic status (SES), seen in in- or outpatient settings, were randomized to an individualized, culturally tailored, computerized decision aid versus American College of Rheumatology (ACR) lupus pamphlet (1:1 ratio), using computer-generated randomization. We hypothesized that the co-primary outcomes of decisional conflict and informed choice regarding immunosuppressive medications would improve more in the decision aid group. Of 301 randomized women, 298 were analyzed; 47% were African-American, 26% Hispanic, and 15% white. Mean age (standard deviation [SD]) was 37 (12) years, 57% had annual income of <$40,000, and 36% had a high school education or less. Compared with the provision of the ACR lupus pamphlet (n = 147), participants randomized to the decision aid (n = 151) had (1) a clinically meaningful and statistically significant reduction in decisional conflict, 21.8 (standard error [SE], 2.5) versus 12.7 (SE, 2.0; p = 0.005) and (2) no difference in informed choice in the main analysis, 41% versus 31% (p = 0.08), but clinically meaningful and statistically significant difference in sensitivity analysis (net values for immunosuppressives positive [in favor] versus negative [against]), 50% versus 35% (p = 0.006). Unresolved decisional conflict was lower in the decision aid versus pamphlet groups, 22% versus 44% (p < 0.001). Significantly more patients in the decision aid versus pamphlet group rated information to be excellent for understanding lupus nephritis (49% versus 33%), risk factors (43% versus 27%), medication options (50% versus 33%; p ≤ 0.003 for all); and the ease of use of materials was higher in the decision aid versus pamphlet groups (51% versus 38%; p = 0.006). Key study limitations were the exclusion of men, short follow-up, and the lack of clinical outcomes, including medication adherence. CONCLUSIONS: An individualized decision aid was more effective than usual care in reducing decisional conflict for choice of immunosuppressive medications in women with lupus nephritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02319525.

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.

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.

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.

A randomized controlled trial evaluating the effects of social networking on chronic disease management in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Social networking has been shown to improve health outcomes in certain patient populations. While patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) increasingly use social networking to communicate with peers, the effects of these interactions are largely unknown. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial, we compared RA patients who participated in a social networking group moderated by peer leaders and who had access to a static website offering RA materials with a control group, who only had access to the website. The primary outcomes were patients' RA knowledge, self-efficacy and empowerment. Secondary outcomes included participation in desired health behaviors, and satisfaction with peer support, among others. Follow-up assessments were conducted at 3 and 6 months. Participants who never signed in were excluded from the primary analysis. RESULTS: 105 participants were randomized to each group. Mean age was 52 (±12.4) and 92.4% were females. Knowledge scores improved in both groups, but only in the control group the differences observed at 3 and 6 months were significant (p≤0.02). Self-efficacy scores also improved in both groups, but only the differences observed at 6 months in the Facebook group were significant (p=0.02). When comparing groups, at 3 months the knowledge improvements observed in the control group were greater compared with those observed in the Facebook group (mean difference 0.4 versus 0.1; respectively, p=0.03). No other differences were observed in secondary outcomes between the 2 groups, except in peer support satisfaction. The Facebook® group reported greater peer support satisfaction in 3 out 5 subscales compared with the control group (p≤0.04). CONCLUSION: Peer support satisfaction was higher in participants using an online social network, but this was not translated into greater disease knowledge or empowerment.

Development of a patient-centered core domain set for prospective observational longitudinal outcome studies in rheumatoid arthritis: an OMERACT initiative.

OBJECTIVES: To identify patient-centered core domains for prospective longitudinal observational studies (LOS) in rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Our working group held a virtual meeting in November 2020 to review data from a literature review and patient qualitative interviews, and to discuss strategies to move forward on domain identification and selection using the OMERACT 2.1 domain selection process. RESULTS: Important candidate domains and subdomains were identified including in the areas of life impact. Consensus was reached on moving forward with a Delphi process. CONCLUSIONS: The meeting provided future directions to identify and select a core set of domains for use in LOS.

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.

Interactions and perceptions of patients with rheumatoid arthritis participating in an online support group.

OBJECTIVE: Peer support is important for psychosocial well-being in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Our objective was to assess the interactions, engagement, and perceptions of participants in an online support group for patients with RA. METHODS: Participants were 18 years or older, diagnosed with RA within 10 years, and residing in the USA or Canada. All participated in a closed Facebook online support group. Membership was by invitation only, and discussions were visible only to members, moderators, and two research staff. Each week, participants discussed a topic posted by a moderator. They also shared other disease-relevant information beside the topics posted. We assessed participants' engagement and qualitatively analyzed the content of their postings in the first 5 weeks of participation. RESULTS: The group had 90 participants: 94% were female and 83% white. Median age was 54 (24-84) years. Mean number of contributors per week was 50 (range, 42-62); 10% of participants never contributed to the discussions. Participation in discussions declined over time. Over three-quarters of participant posting were about information sharing. Participants shared information on disease experiences, medications, social lives (including pictures of themselves, families, and pets), online resources on RA, frustrations, messages of encouragement, and satirical depictions of their disease experience. Many expressed gratitude for the social support provided. CONCLUSION: Participants were generally enthusiastic and shared disease-related information and personal experiences. Social media groups may provide alternative means of providing education and peer support often lacking in traditional models of care.Key Points• The study examines how patients with rheumatoid arthritis engage in an online support group and the nature of their interactions.• This study reveals that social media platforms could provide viable options or complements to the traditional face-to-face small group patient support system.• It may be necessary to pay special attention to how to ensure a sustained participant interest in online social support group among patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Advancing Stiffness Measurement in Rheumatic Disease: Report from the Stiffness Special Interest Group at OMERACT 2018.

OBJECTIVE: To improve measurement of stiffness in rheumatic disease. METHODS: Data presented included (1) 2 qualitative projects, (2) the rheumatoid arthritis (RA) stiffness patient-reported outcome measure (RAST), and (3) 3 items assessing stiffness severity, duration, and interference. RESULTS: Stiffness is multidimensional and includes aspects of stiffness experience such as duration, severity, and effect. Stiffness items showed construct validity in RA. Further efforts are required to develop an instrument that will be taken through the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 for instrument selection. CONCLUSION: The research agenda for the group includes domain content voting for individual diseases, and development of stiffness item banks and disease-specific short forms.

PROMIS Fatigue short forms are reliable and valid in adults with rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is prevalent and impactful in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There is no standardized measure for its assessment nor data concerning the performance of PROMIS-Fatigue short forms (SFs) in people with RA. We evaluated the construct validity of 4-, 7-, and 8-item PROMIS-Fatigue SFs in RA patients across the range of disease activity. METHODS: Adult RA patients were recruited from an online patient community and an observational cohort from three academic medical centers. Measures included PROMIS-Fatigue SFs, other PROMIS measures, and other patient reported outcomes including RAND-36 Vitality, Fatigue NRS, and patient global assessment of disease activity. Other measures from the observational cohort included 28-joint swollen and tender joints, physician global assessment, and the composite RA clinical disease activity index (CDAI). RESULTS: Two-hundred online participants and 348 participants from the observational cohort were included. PROMIS Fatigue SF scores spanned the measurement continuum and correlated highly with each other (r's ≥ 0.91) and other fatigue measures (r's ≥ 0.85). PROMIS-Fatigue SF scores were highly and inversely associated with Physical Function and Participation (r's - 0.77 to - 0.78), and moderately-highly and positively correlated with pain, sleep disturbance, anxiety, and depression (r's 0.60 to 0.75). PROMIS-Fatigue SF scores showed dose-response relationships across fatigue severity descriptors and CDAI categories. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide robust evidence supporting the construct validity of the 4, 7, and 8-item PROMIS-Fatigue SFs. They capture fatigue across the spectrum of RA disease activity in diverse groups of individuals and should be considered for use as patient-centered assessments of disease control and treatment efficacy.

Considerations for Evaluating and Recommending Worker Productivity Outcome Measures: An Update from the OMERACT Worker Productivity Group.

OBJECTIVE: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Worker Productivity Group continues efforts to assess psychometric properties of measures of presenteeism. METHODS: Psychometric properties of single-item and dual answer multiitem scales were assessed, as well as methods to evaluate thresholds of meaning. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability and construct validity of single item global measures was moderate to good. The value of measuring both degree of difficulty and amount of time with difficulty in multiitems questionnaires was confirmed. Thresholds of meaning vary depending on methods and external anchors applied. CONCLUSION: We have advanced our understanding of the performance of presenteeism measures and have developed approaches to describing thresholds of meaning.

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.

Core Outcome Sets Specifically for Longterm Observational Studies: OMERACT Special Interest Group Update in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: This is an update from the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Core Outcomes in Longterm Observational Studies Special Interest Group with a focus on rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Preliminary data and proposed next steps were outlined and discussed by participants. RESULTS: Domains identified after initial steps (systematic review and qualitative research) were pain, physical functioning, participation (i.e., work, social), longterm symptoms, fertility/family planning, emotional well-being, coping, financial status, and adverse events including death. CONCLUSION: The group agreed conceptually that short-term core outcomes could be different from longer term ones. Participants emphasized the importance of analyzing the need for core domains specifically for longterm longitudinal observational studies.

Development and Pilot Testing of Multimedia Patient Education Tools for Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis, Osteoporosis, and Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: We developed and tested multimedia patient education tools (video tools) for patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA), osteoporosis (OP), and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We followed an "edutainment" model, incorporating educational patient story lines. The goals were designed to make the programs both didactic and entertaining, with navigation and graphic user interfaces as simple as possible. We created both English and Spanish language versions. Once the video tool was finalized, 60 patients, 20 per disease, were shown the tool and interviewed. Disease knowledge was our primary outcome, and decision conflict, disease management, and acceptability were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: We observed statistically significant differences in pre- to postintervention knowledge questionnaire scores (before and after viewing the video tool) (OA: P = 0.03, OP: P = 0.01, and RA: P < 0.0001). Most participants felt they gained "clarity" on disease duration, symptoms, and the time medication takes to start acting; were "encouraged to see their doctor regularly"; and were more aware about taking their medications. In terms of acceptability, most patients in all disease groups found the length and amount of information presented in the video tools to be "just right," and the presentation to be "balanced." In terms of comprehension, all participants provided a favorable evaluation of the video tool; all found the video easy to use, the vocabulary easy to understand, and the materials to be well organized. CONCLUSION: Multimedia tools that incorporate videos may help patients better understand and manage their disease. Patient involvement in the development process is essential to ensure relevant content and usability.

Quality assessment of websites providing educational content for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: We performed an environmental scan of currently available websites providing educational information about rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and evaluated the quality of these websites. METHODS: We searched three separate search engines, Google, Bing, and Ask.com, on August 27, 2015, using two search terms, "arthritis" and "rheumatoid." Only patient education websites were included. Two independent investigators evaluated the accuracy, completeness, technical elements, design and esthetics, readability, usability, and accessibility of the websites. The navigation experience was also evaluated by an adult training expert. RESULTS: We identified 46 websites. Nearly all websites (98%) provided accurate information. However, no website covered all essential RA topics. Common essential topics not covered included epidemiology, pathogenesis, treatment and disease monitoring, complications, self-management, risks and benefits of treatment, prognosis, treatment adherence, questions for patients to ask their doctors, and costs. For the technical elements, all websites disclosed their ownership, but the date that the content was last updated was mentioned in only 10 websites, ranging from 2007 to 2015. The mean reading level was grade 12.1 (standard deviation ±2.3). Most websites (78%) were easy to navigate but only 33% were friendly for people with visual and/or hearing impairments. The navigation experience was rated fair or poor in 41% of the websites. CONCLUSION: Current patient information on the Internet does not comprehensively address all educational needs of patients with RA, and is often outdated. The findings from our study highlight potential areas for improvement in online education materials for patients with RA.

Achieving Consensus on Total Joint Replacement Trial Outcome Reporting Using the OMERACT Filter: Endorsement of the Final Core Domain Set for Total Hip and Total Knee Replacement Trials for Endstage Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Discussion and endorsement of the OMERACT total joint replacement (TJR) core domain set for total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) for endstage arthritis; and next steps for selection of instruments. METHODS: The OMERACT TJR working group met at the 2016 meeting at Whistler, British Columbia, Canada. We summarized the previous systematic reviews, the preliminary OMERACT TJR core domain set and results from previous surveys. We discussed preliminary core domains for TJR clinical trials, made modifications, and identified challenges with domain measurement. RESULTS: Working group participants (n = 26) reviewed, clarified, and endorsed each of the inner and middle circle domains and added a range of motion domain to the research agenda. TJR were limited to THR and TKR but included all endstage hip and knee arthritis refractory to medical treatment. Participants overwhelmingly endorsed identification and evaluation of top instruments mapping to the core domains (100%) and use of subscales of validated multidimensional instruments to measure core domains for the TJR clinical trial core measurement set (92%). CONCLUSION: An OMERACT core domain set for hip/knee TJR trials has been defined and we are selecting instruments to develop the TJR clinical trial core measurement set to serve as a common foundation for harmonizing measures in TJR clinical trials.

Developing an OMERACT Core Outcome Set for Assessing Safety Components in Rheumatology Trials: The OMERACT Safety Working Group.

OBJECTIVE: Failure to report harmful outcomes in clinical research can introduce bias favoring a potentially harmful intervention. While core outcome sets (COS) are available for benefits in randomized controlled trials in many rheumatic conditions, less attention has been paid to safety in such COS. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.0 emphasizes the importance of measuring harms. The Safety Working Group was reestablished at the OMERACT 2016 with the objective to develop a COS for assessing safety components in trials across rheumatologic conditions. METHODS: The safety issue has previously been discussed at OMERACT, but without a consistent approach to ensure harms were included in COS. Our methods include (1) identifying harmful outcomes in trials of interventions studied in patients with rheumatic diseases by a systematic literature review, (2) identifying components of safety that should be measured in such trials by use of a patient-driven approach including qualitative data collection and statistical organization of data, and (3) developing a COS through consensus processes including everyone involved. RESULTS: Members of OMERACT including patients, clinicians, researchers, methodologists, and industry representatives reached consensus on the need to continue the efforts on developing a COS for safety in rheumatology trials. There was a general agreement about the need to identify safety-related outcomes that are meaningful to patients, framed in terms that patients consider relevant so that they will be able to make informed decisions. CONCLUSION: The OMERACT Safety Working Group will advance the work previously done within OMERACT using a new patient-driven approach.