Pharmacokinetics of amikacin after intravenous, intra-articular, and combined intravenous and intra-articular administration in healthy neonatal foals.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacokinetics of amikacin administered IV to neonatal foals are described, but little data are available regarding the plasma concentrations contributed by concurrent intra-articular (IA) administration. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: Compare the pharmacokinetics of amikacin when the total dose is administered IV compared to being divided between IV and IA routes of administration in neonatal foals and predict the plasma concentrations from various combined IV and IA dosing regimens. ANIMALS: Eight healthy neonatal foals. METHODS: Foals received 3 amikacin treatment protocols: (1) IV-only (25 mg/kg q24h IV), (2) concurrent IV and IA (16.7 mg/kg q24h IV and 8.3 mg/kg q24h into 1 tarsocrural joint), and (3) IA-only (8.3 mg/kg q24h into 1 tarsocrural joint). Protocols were administered for 3 days beginning at 7, 14, and 21 days of age. Plasma concentrations ≥53 µg/mL at 30 minutes were considered therapeutic for isolates with intermediate susceptibility. RESULTS: Foal age was a significant variable. The IV-only protocol met or exceeded the 30-minute plasma concentrations considered therapeutic (mean µg/mL [95% confidence interval, CI]) in 7- to 9-day-old (54.0 [52.2-56.9]), 14- to 16-day-old (58.1 [55.2-61.0]), and 21- to 23-day-old (66.6 [63.7-69.6]) foals. Concurrent IV and IA protocol did not reach the 30-minute concentration considered therapeutic in 7- to 9-day-old foals (46.5 [43.6-49.4]) but did in 14- to 16-day-old (62.9 [60.0-65.8]) and 21-to 23-day-old (62.6 [59.7-65.6]) foals. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Concurrent IV and IA administration of amikacin produces 30-minute plasma concentrations considered therapeutic in foals 14 to 23 days old, but concentrations observed in younger foals might be below those considered therapeutic for isolates with intermediate susceptibility to amikacin.

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.

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.

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.

Consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the OMERACT Core Outcome Set for shared decision making interventions in rheumatology trials.

OBJECTIVE: To gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set for rheumatology trials evaluating shared decision making (SDM) interventions. METHODS: Following the OMERACT Handbook methods, our Working Group (WG), comprised of 90 members, including 17 patient research partners (PRPs) and 73 clinicians and researchers, had six virtual meetings in addition to email exchanges to develop draft definitions and descriptions. The WG then conducted an international survey of its members to gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions. Finally, the WG members had virtual meetings and e-mail exchanges to review survey results and finalize names, definitions and descriptions of the domains. RESULTS: WG members contributed to developing the definitions. Fifty-two members representing four continents and 13 countries completed the survey, including 15 PRPs, 33 clinicians and 37 researchers. PRPs and clinicians/researchers agreed with all definitions and descriptions with agreements ranging from 87% to 100%. Respondents suggested wording changes to the names, definitions and descriptions to better reflect the domains. Discussions led to further simplification and clarification to address common questions/concerns about the domains. CONCLUSION: Our WG reached consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the core domain set for rheumatology trials of SDM interventions. This step is crucial to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The current study provides consensus-based definitions and descriptions for the domains of the OMERACT core domain set for shared decision making interventions from patients/caregivers, clinicians and researchers. This is a crucial step to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set for trials of SDM interventions.

Defining patient perception of overall well-being and disease activity in the OMERACT Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) core domain set: A report from the JIA working group.

OBJECTIVE: The OMERACT Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) Working Group (WG) aimed to reach agreement on a consensus-based definition and description of the core domain related to patient perception of overall well-being and disease activity. METHODS: A committee of patient research partners, clinicians, methodologists, and researchers drafted working definitions and descriptions. The WG conducted two iterative electronic stakeholder surveys to obtain consensus on domain description, definition, and the distinction between patient perception of overall well-being and disease activity. These definitions were then presented at the OMERACT 2023 Special Interest Group (SIG) session for agreement. RESULTS: Forty-five participants, from 7 countries and 4 continents, were comprised of six patients, 18 caregivers, and 21 healthcare providers. The consensus threshold (70%) was exceeded on all survey questions from both stakeholder groups (patients/caregivers, all others). Agreement was obtained on the new definition, description, and domain title, along with agreement on separate assessments of two target domains, patient perception of overall well-being as it relates to disease and patient perception of disease activity. CONCLUSION: Through an iterative consensus process and achieving agreement from the OMERACT SIG session attendees, the JIA WG has created a detailed definition and description for the two target domains in the patient perception of overall well-being related to disease core domain of the JIA mandatory core domain set. The next phase of this work will be instrument selection using the OMERACT filter 2.2.

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.

Consensus of the definitions of the OMERACT glucocorticoid impact core domain set for people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

BACKGROUND: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Glucocorticoid (GC) Impact Working Group has been working to develop a core domain set to measure the impact of GCs on patients living with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. The mandatory domains previously identified for inclusion in all clinical trials measuring the GC effects include infection, bone fragility, mood disturbance, hypertension, diabetes, weight, fatigue, and mortality. Before progressing to instrument selection, the Working Group sought to establish precise definitions of all mandatory domains within the core domain set. METHODS: OMERACT methodology was applied with the use of evidence and consensus-based decision making of all stakeholder groups (patient research partners, health care professionals, clinician researchers, industry members and methodologists) to develop detailed definitions for the broad domain, target domain and domain components, taking into consideration sources of variability that could affect measurement of the domain.  The working group synthesized prior qualitative studies, quantitative work, and results from Delphi rounds, to develop a rich definition of 'what' is to be measured. RESULTS: Between 2021 and 2023, the OMERACT Working Group on GC Impact conducted virtual meetings to establish domain definitions. First, we mapped each domain onto an OMERACT Core Area. All domains were primarily represented within the Pathophysiological Manifestations Core Area, except from Fatigue which was primarily Life Impact and Weight which spanned both Core Areas. Sources of variability included cultural factors, age, gender, education level, socioeconomic status, personal experiences, emotional state, and language barriers. The domain definitions will form the foundation for instrument selection and the initial step of domain / concept match and content validity in the OMERACT pillar of 'truth' before moving on to feasibility and discrimination. CONCLUSION: The OMERACT GC Impact Working Group has developed and agreed upon detailed domain definitions for core domains. Future steps of the working group are to select instruments and develop the core outcome measurement set for clinical trials measuring the impact of GC on patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

Phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors (PDE5i) for the treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon.

BACKGROUND: Raynaud's phenomenon is a vasodilatory phenomenon characterised by digital pallor, cyanosis, and pain of the extremities. Primary Raynaud's phenomenon has no underlying disease associated with it, while secondary Raynaud's phenomenon is associated with connective tissue disorders such as systemic sclerosis. Systemic sclerosis causes fibrosis and commonly affects the skin and internal organs such as the gastrointestinal tract, lungs, kidney, and heart. Phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors (PDE5i) are a class of drugs that increases blood flow to the extremities and may be beneficial in the treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of PDE5i compared to placebo for the treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, and clinical trial registries up to June 2022. We did not apply any language restrictions. We searched the bibliographies of retrieved articles and contacted key experts in the field for additional and unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PDE5i to placebo in people with primary and secondary Raynaud's phenomenon. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: This review included nine RCTs which ranged in duration from four to eight weeks and included a total of 411 participants. The majority had Raynaud's phenomenon secondary to systemic sclerosis. Tadalafil was assessed in four studies, sildenafil in three studies, vardenafil in one study, and a new PDE5 inhibitor known as "PF-00489791" in one study. Three studies were parallel design and six studies were cross-over. The frequency of attacks per week was 24 with placebo and PDE5i reduced the frequency of attacks by an average of three attacks per week (mean difference (MD) -3.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.15 to -1.00; 8 studies; low-certainty evidence). The duration of attacks per day was 55 minutes with placebo and PDE5i reduced the duration of attacks by an average of five minutes (MD -5.31, 95% CI -8.90 to -1.71; 8 studies; low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence from one study with eight participants showed severity of Raynaud's attacks (assessed on a 10 cm visual analogue scale with lower scores indicating less severity) was 20% lower with a PDE5i (3.7 with placebo compared to 1.6 with treatment; MD -2.1, 95% CI -2.7 to 1.4; very low-certainty evidence). Pain and patient global assessment were assessed on a 10 cm visual analogue scale with lower scores indicating improvement. Low-certainty evidence showed that the use of PDE5i may result in little to no difference compared to placebo in reducing the average pain of Raynaud's attacks (3 to 2.9; MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.57; 4 studies). Global scores were 36% lower with the use of a PDE5i compared to placebo (9.2 to 5.6; MD -3.59, 95% CI -4.45 to -2.73; 1 study, 24 participants; low-certainty evidence). The rate of withdrawals during treatment with PDE5i ranged from 4% to 20% compared with 2% in the placebo group in five studies. Four studies reported no withdrawals due to adverse events. Seven studies reported no serious adverse events. The rate of serious adverse events reported in two studies ranged from 2% during treatment to 4% with placebo. The majority of the studies were judged as low or unclear risk of bias for selection, performance, and detection bias. Almost half were judged at high risk of attrition bias and unclear risk for selective reporting bias. We downgraded frequency of attacks, duration of attacks, pain intensity, and patient global assessment for small sample sizes and concerns about inconsistency and graded each as low certainty of evidence. We downgraded severity of attacks to very low certainty due to serious concerns about imprecision and publication bias. We downgraded withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events to moderate certainty of evidence due to a low number of reported events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low-certainty evidence, PDE5i may reduce the frequency of attacks of Raynaud's phenomenon by a small amount per week, result in a small reduction in the duration of attack, improve patients' global assessment of their disease, and result in little to no difference in pain. PDE5i probably result in little or no difference in serious adverse events but slightly increase the likelihood of withdrawing from treatment due to an adverse event.

Time- and temperature-dependent postmortem ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol concentration changes in rabbits following controlled inhaled cannabis administration.

ostmortem redistribution (PMR), a well-known phenomenon in forensic toxicology, can result in substantial changes in drug concentrations after death, depending on the chemical characteristics of the drug, blood collection site, storage conditions of the body and postmortem interval (PMI). Limited PMR data are available for ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive component in Cannabis sativa. PMR was evaluated after controlled cannabis inhalation via a smoking machine and exposure chamber in New Zealand white rabbits. Necropsies were performed on five control rabbits immediately after euthanasia, whereas 27 others were stored at room temperature (21°C) or refrigerated conditions (4°C) until necropsy at 2, 6, 16, 24 or 36 h after death. THC and its Phase I and glucuronidated Phase II metabolites were quantified in blood, vitreous humor, urine, bile and tissues by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS-MS). Under refrigerated temperature, heart blood THC concentrations significantly increased at PMI 2 h in rabbits, whereas peripheral blood THC concentrations showed a significant increase at PMI 16 h. Central:peripheral blood and liver:peripheral blood ratios for THC ranged from 0.13 to 4.1 and 0.28 to 8.9, respectively. Lung revealed the highest THC concentrations, while brain and liver exhibited the most stable THC concentrations over time. This report contributes much needed data to our understanding of postmortem THC behavior and can aid toxicologists in the interpretation of THC concentrations in medicolegal death investigations.

Protocol for the development of guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses.

BACKGROUND: Involving collaborators and partners in research may increase relevance and uptake, while reducing health and social inequities. Collaborators and partners include people and groups interested in health research: health care providers, patients and caregivers, payers of health research, payers of health services, publishers, policymakers, researchers, product makers, program managers, and the public. Evidence syntheses inform decisions about health care services, treatments, and practice, which ultimately affect health outcomes. Our objectives are to: A. Identify, map, and synthesize qualitative and quantitative findings related to engagement in evidence syntheses B. Explore how engagement in evidence synthesis promotes health equity C. Develop equity-oriented guidance on methods for conducting, evaluating, and reporting engagement in evidence syntheses METHODS: Our diverse, international team will develop guidance for engagement with collaborators and partners throughout multiple sequential steps using an integrated knowledge translation approach: 1. Reviews. We will co-produce 1 scoping review, 3 systematic reviews and 1 evidence map focusing on (a) methods, (b) barriers and facilitators, (c) conflict of interest considerations, (d) impacts, and (e) equity considerations of engagement in evidence synthesis. 2. Methods study, interviews, and survey. We will contextualise the findings of step 1 by assessing a sample of evidence syntheses reporting on engagement with collaborators and partners and through conducting interviews with collaborators and partners who have been involved in producing evidence syntheses. We will use these findings to develop draft guidance checklists and will assess agreement with each item through an international survey. 3. CONSENSUS: The guidance checklists will be co-produced and finalised at a consensus meeting with collaborators and partners. 4. DISSEMINATION: We will develop a dissemination plan with our collaborators and partners and work collaboratively to improve adoption of our guidance by key organizations. CONCLUSION: Our international team will develop guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses. Incorporating partnership values and expectations may result in better uptake, potentially reducing health inequities.

Test-retest reliability of pain VAS/NRS, stiffness VAS/NRS, HAQ-DI and mHAQ in polymyalgia rheumatica: An OMERACT study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the test-retest reliability of four measurement instruments in polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR): pain severity visual analogue scale (VAS) / numerical rating score (NRS), stiffness severity VAS/NRS, the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and the modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ). METHOD: Two prospectively collected datasets were used. All participants had a diagnosis of PMR and only those with stable disease were included in analyses. Measurement instruments were administered twice, with a testing interval of two to six weeks. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated using a two-way mixed effects model looking for absolute agreement. ICC values of 0.8-0.9 were deemed representative of good test-retest reliability, whilst values >0.9 were representative of excellent test-retest reliability. RESULTS: From the first dataset, 38 participants were analysed. The ICC between baseline and 2 weeks for pain VAS, stiffness VAS, HAQ-DI and mHAQ were 0.84, 0.82, 0.92 and 0.92 respectively. From the second dataset, 58 participants were included in the analysis for pain NRS, 59 for stiffness NRS and 78 for mHAQ. The ICC between baseline and follow-up for pain NRS, stiffness NRS and mHAQ were 0.80, 0.83 and 0.87 respectively. CONCLUSION: Pain severity VAS/NRS, stiffness severity VAS/NRS, HAQ-DI and mHAQ all demonstrate good to excellent test-retest reliability in a PMR patient population.

Developing a core outcome set for foot and ankle disorders in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: A scoping review and report from the OMERACT 2022 foot and ankle special interest group session.

OBJECTIVES: Foot and ankle involvement is common in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, yet high-quality evidence assessing the effectiveness of treatments for these disorders is lacking. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Foot and Ankle Working Group is developing a core outcome set for use in clinical trials and longitudinal observational studies in this area. METHODS: A scoping review was performed to identify outcome domains in the existing literature. Clinical trials and observational studies comparing pharmacological, conservative or surgical interventions involving adult participants with any foot or ankle disorder in the following rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) were eligible for inclusion: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), osteoarthritis (OA), spondyloarthropathies, crystal arthropathies and connective tissue diseases. Outcome domains were categorised according to the OMERACT Filter 2.1. RESULTS: Outcome domains were extracted from 150 eligible studies. Most studies included participants with foot/ankle OA (63% of studies) or foot/ankle involvement in RA (29% of studies). Foot/ankle pain was the outcome domain most commonly measured (78% of studies), being the most frequently specified outcome domain across all RMDs. There was considerable heterogeneity in the other outcome domains measured, across core areas of manifestations (signs, symptoms, biomarkers), life impact, and societal/resource use. The group's progress to date, including findings from the scoping review, was presented and discussed during a virtual OMERACT Special Interest Group (SIG) in October 2022. During this meeting, feedback was sought amongst delegates regarding the scope of the core outcome set, and feedback was received on the next steps of the project, including focus group and Delphi methods. CONCLUSION: Findings from the scoping review and feedback from the SIG will contribute to the development of a core outcome set for foot and ankle disorders in RMDs. The next steps are to determine which outcome domains are important to patients, followed by a Delphi exercise with key stakeholders to prioritise outcome domains.

Pharmacokinetics of aminocaproic acid in thoroughbred horses.

The antifibrinolytic agent aminocaproic acid (ACA) is occasionally used prior to episodes of intense training in racehorses suffering from exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage. Although a previous study indicated that the drug is cleared rapidly in horses, some racetrack practitioners claim that recent adverse analytical findings for ACA in postrace samples were from ACA administrations 5-7 days before the race. The purpose of this study was to re-examine the pharmacokinetics of ACA in horses to address this apparent conundrum. Eight exercise-conditioned thoroughbred horses were administered 5 g of ACA IV, and blood and urine samples were collected at pre-determined time points prior to drug administration and for up to 168 h after dosing. Concentrations of ACA in the serum and urine samples were determined by LC-MS/MS. The pharmacokinetics of ACA in serum were best described by a three-compartment model with a terminal elimination half-life of 24.2 ± 2.9 h. After dosing, ACA was above the lower limit of detection (1 ng/mL for serum and 10 ng/mL for urine) in all serum and urine samples at all time points. In a similar manner, ACA was above the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ; 10 ng/mL for serum and 100 ng/mL for urine) in all serum and urine samples collected from all horses from 0.5 to 120 h post dosing. In six of the eight horses, ACA was above the LLOQ 168 h after dosing in serum and urine samples. LC-MS/MS methodology is the industry standard for testing of samples collected from racehorses with the purpose of controlling the use of medications and performance altering substances. The improved sensitivity of the analytical procedure used in the present study allowed the detection of a prolonged terminal elimination phase of ACA in horses that had not previously been described. Currently, most racing jurisdictions have not adopted a permitted concentration or threshold for ACA in postrace samples, and therefore veterinarians need to allow for an extended withdrawal time of a minimum of 11 days after the administration of ACA to racehorses to substantially reduce the risk of adverse analytical findings of ACA in postrace samples.

Developing an Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Core set of Outcome Measures for FOot and ankle disorders in RheumaTic and musculoskeletal diseases (COMFORT): core domain set study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Foot and ankle involvement is common in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). High-quality evidence is lacking to determine the effectiveness of treatments for these disorders. Heterogeneity in the outcomes used across clinical trials and observational studies hinders the ability to compare findings, and some outcomes are not always meaningful to patients and end-users. The Core set of Outcome Measures for FOot and ankle disorders in RheumaTic and musculoskeletal diseases (COMFORT) study aims to develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in all trials of interventions for foot and ankle disorders in RMDs. This protocol addresses core outcome domains (what to measure) only. Future work will focus on core outcome measurement instruments (how to measure). METHODS: COMFORT: Core Domain Set is a mixed-methods study involving the following: (i) identification of important outcome domains through literature reviews, qualitative interviews and focus groups with patients and (ii) prioritisation of domains through an online, modified Delphi consensus study and subsequent consensus meeting with representation from all stakeholder groups. Findings will be disseminated widely to enhance uptake. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol details the development process and methodology to identify and prioritise domains for a COS in the novel area of foot and ankle disorders in RMDs. Future use of this standardised set of outcome domains, developed with all key stakeholders, will help address issues with outcome variability. This will facilitate comparing and combining study findings, thus improving the evidence base for treatments of these conditions. Future work will identify suitable outcome measurement instruments for each of the core domains. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database, as of June 2022: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2081.

Reliability and validity of PROMIS physical function, pain interference, and fatigue as patient reported outcome measures in adult idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: International study from the OMERACT myositis working group.

OBJECTIVE: Pain interference, fatigue, and impaired physical function are common features of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM). The objective of this study was to evaluate the construct validity and test-retest reliability of the Patient Reported Outcome Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference 6av1.0, Fatigue 7av1.0, and Physical Function 8bv2.0 instruments. METHODS: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) were deployed to adult IIM patients from OMERACT Myositis Working Group (MWG) international clinic sites via two online surveys (2019, 2021). Internal consistency of each PROM was analyzed by Cronbach's α. Construct validity was determined by a priori hypotheses generated by the MWG with >75% agreement for each hypothesis and calculated with Pearson correlations. Test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient with PROMIS instruments administered at time zero and 7 days. RESULTS: Surveys were sent to 368 participants in total; participants who completed each questionnaire varied (n=65 to 263). For construct validity, 10 out of 13 a priori hypotheses were met supporting construct validity of PROMIS instruments (Pain Interference 3/4, fatigue 4/4, and Physical Function 3/5). Test-retest reliability was strong for all PROMIS instruments. All PROMIS instruments demonstrated excellent internal consistency. None of the measures demonstrated any ceiling or floor effects except for a ceiling effect in the Pain Interference instrument. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents test-retest reliability and construct validity evidence supporting PROMIS Pain Interference (6a v1.0), Fatigue (7a v1.0), and Physical Function (8b v2.0) using a large international cohort of patients with IIM. Internal consistency of these instruments was excellent. A ceiling effect was noted in the Pain Interference instrument.

How Is Health Equity Assessed in Cochrane Musculoskeletal Reviews?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the extent to which Cochrane Musculoskeletal systematic reviews assess and analyze health equity considerations. METHODS: We included Cochrane Musculoskeletal systematic reviews that included trials with participants aged ≥ 50 years and that were published from 2015 to 2020. We assessed the extent to which reviews considered health equity in the description of the population in the PICO (Patient/Population - Intervention - Comparison/Comparator - Outcome) framework, data analysis (planned and conducted), description of participant characteristics, summary of findings, and applicability of results using the PROGRESS-Plus framework. The PROGRESS acronym stands for place of residence (rural or urban), race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupation, gender/sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status, and social capital, and Plus represents age, disability, relationship features, time-dependent relationships, comorbidities, and health literacy. RESULTS: In total, 52 systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. At least 1 element of PROGRESS-Plus was considered in 90% (47/52) of the reviews regarding the description of participants and in 85% (44/52) of reviews regarding question formulation. For participant description, the most reported factors were age (47/52, 90%) and sex (45/52, 87%). In total, 8 (15%) reviews planned to analyze outcomes by sex, age, and comorbidities. Only 1 had sufficient data to carry this out. In total, 19 (37%) reviews discussed the applicability of the results to 1 or more PROGRESS-Plus factor, most frequently across sex (12/52, 23%) and age (9/52, 17%). CONCLUSION: Sex and age were the most reported PROGRESS-Plus factors in any sections of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal reviews. We suggest a template for reporting participant characteristics that authors of reviews believe may influence outcomes. This could help patients and practitioners make judgments about applicability.

Physicians' vs patients' global assessments of disease activity in rheumatology and musculoskeletal trials: A meta-research project with focus on reasons for discrepancies.

BACKGROUND: In most rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), global assessments of disease activity by physicians and patients are 'anchor outcomes' in therapeutic trials evaluating whether a treatment is effective. OBJECTIVES: To compare physicians' vs patients' global assessments of disease activity in RMD trials and explore reasons for discrepancies between them. METHODS: Eligible trials were sampled from systematic reviews of treatments for RMDs by using the Cochrane database of systematic reviews (i.e., reviews from the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group, [CMSG]). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for RMDs were eligible if they reported quantitative analyses of both physicians´ and patients´ global assessments at the same time point for the comparison of the same experimental intervention against the same comparator (i.e., placebo, no treatment, or other treatment). We accepted data from trial comparisons for each type of outcome, regardless of the type of intervention and type of RMD within the CMSG. Using mixed-effects meta-regression models, we assigned the dependent variable as the ratio of odds ratios (ROR) of global change with the experimental intervention, versus the control comparator. An ROR>1 would indicate that physicians rated the experimental intervention more favorable than their patients did. RESULTS: We were able to estimate the ROR (data from both physicians' and patients' global assessments) across 70 trials (116 randomized comparisons) in 7 diseases (ankylosing spondylitis, fibromyalgia, psoriatic arthritis, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and gout). The combined ROR across all effectiveness comparisons were rated significantly in favor of the intervention by physicians: ROR=1.15 CI 95% (1.07 to 1.23). This combined ROR was based on a substantial heterogeneity across comparisons (I2=89.1%). Across all the stratified analyses, the type of the RMD was an informative reason for discrepancies, with a statistically significant ROR in rheumatoid arthritis ROR=1.33, CI 95% (1.13 to 1.56), unlike the ROR in all other conditions (ROR=1.04, CI 95% (0.95-1.14). CONCLUSION: In comparative effectiveness research on rheumatology, physicians' global assessments of disease activity, surprisingly, are more in favor of the experimental interventions than are those of the patients.

Pharmacokinetic Evaluation of a Cannabidiol Supplement in Horses.

Cannabidiol (CBD) products have gained popularity among horse owners despite limited evidence regarding pharmacokinetics. The purpose of this study was to describe the pharmacokinetic profile of multiple doses of an orally administered cannabidiol product formulated specifically for horses. A randomized 2-way crossover design was used. Seven horses received 0.35 or 2.0 mg/kg CBD per os every 24 hours for 7 total doses, separated by a 2-week washout. Plasma CBD and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) were quantified using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) daily through day 10, then on day 14 after beginning CBD administration. On the final day of CBD administration, plasma CBD and THC were quantified at multiple times. After administration of 0.35 mg/kg of CBD, the Cmax of CBD was 6.6 ± 2.1 ng/mL while Tmax was 1.8 ± 1.2 hour, whereas the Cmax for THC was 0.7 ± 0.6 ng/mL with a Tmax of 2.5 ± 1 hour. After administration of 2.0 mg/kg of CBD, the Cmax of CBD was 51 ± 14 ng/mL with a mean Tmax of 2.4 ± 1.1 hour and terminal phase half-life of 10.4 ± 6 hour, whereas the Cmax of THC was 7.5 ± 2.2 ng/mL with a Tmax of 2.9 ± 1.1 hour. Oral administration of a cannabidiol product at 0.35 mg/kg or 2.0 mg/kg once daily for 7 days was well-tolerated. Based on plasma CBD levels obtained, dose escalation trials in the horse evaluating clinical efficacy at higher mg/kg dose rates are indicated.