Filgotinib for Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Gilead) of filgotinib (JyselecaTM), as part of the single technology appraisal process, to submit evidence for its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarises the company submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review of the clinical- and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the NICE Appraisal Committee. The evidence for filgotinib was based on two good-quality international randomised controlled trials. In FINCH 1, filgotinib was compared with placebo, and in FINCH 2, filgotinib was compared with adalimumab and placebo. As there was no head-to-head evidence with most active comparators, the company performed two separate network meta-analyses (NMAs), one for the conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs-inadequate response population and one for the biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs-inadequate response population. The outcomes analysed were American College of Rheumatology response criteria at weeks 12 and 24, and European League Against Rheumatism response criteria at 24 weeks. The statistical methods used to perform the NMAs were valid and were in line with previous NICE appraisals. Results of the NMAs are confidential and cannot be reported here, but they were uncertain due to heterogeneity of the included studies. The economic analysis of the patient population with moderate RA suffered from limited evidence on the progression from moderate to severe health states. For the moderate RA population, the final analyses comparing filgotinib, with or without methotrexate, against standard of care resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of around £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained in the company's and ERG's base-case and scenario analyses. NICE recommended filgotinib in combination with methotrexate or as monotherapy when methotrexate is contraindicated, or if people cannot tolerate it, for patients with moderate RA whose disease had responded inadequately to two or more conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). For the severe RA population, in view of the higher or similar net health benefits that filgotinib provided versus its comparators, NICE recommended filgotinib with or without methotrexate for patients whose disease had responded inadequately to two or more conventional DMARDs, who had been treated with one or more biological DMARDs, if rituximab was not an option, or after treatment with rituximab.

Developing a group intervention to manage fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis through modifying physical activity.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is a major symptom of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There is some evidence that physical activity (PA) may be effective in reducing RA fatigue. However, few PA interventions have been designed to manage fatigue and there is limited evidence of end-user input into intervention development. The aim of this research was to co-design an intervention to support self-management of RA fatigue through modifying PA. METHODS: A series of studies used mixed methodological approaches to co-design a fatigue management intervention focused on modifying PA based on UK Medical Research Council guidance, and informed by the Behaviour Change Wheel theoretical framework. Development was based on existing evidence, preferences of RA patients and rheumatology healthcare professionals, and practical issues regarding intervention format, content and implementation. RESULTS: The resulting group-based intervention consists of seven sessions delivered by a physiotherapist over 12 weeks. Each session includes an education and discussion session followed by supervised PA chosen by the participant. The intervention is designed to support modification and maintenance of PA as a means of managing fatigue. This is underpinned by evidence-based behaviour change techniques that might support changes in PA behaviour. Intervention delivery is interactive and aims to enhance capability, opportunity and motivation for PA. CONCLUSION: This study outlines stages in the systematic development of a theory-based intervention designed through consultation with RA patients and healthcare professionals to reduce the impact of RA fatigue. The feasibility of future evaluation of the intervention should now be determined.

Coping Strategies, Psychological Impact, and Support Preferences of Men With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Multicenter Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the existence and distribution of 2 typologies (termed "factors") of men with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) identified through our previous Q-methodology study (n = 30) in a larger sample of men with RA, and whether differences in psychosocial impact or support preferences exist between the 2 factors, and between men and women with RA. METHODS: A postal survey was sent to 620 men with RA from 6 rheumatology units across England, and the support preferences section of the survey was given to 232 women with RA. RESULTS: A total of 295 male patients (47.6%) and 103 female patients (44.4%) responded; 15 male participants had missing data, and thus 280 were included in the analysis. Of these, 61 (22%) were assigned to factor A ("accept and adapt"), 120 (35%) were assigned to factor B ("struggling to match up"), and 99 (35%) were unassigned. The two factors differed significantly, with factor B reporting more severe disease, less effective coping strategies, and poorer psychological status. For support, men favored a question and answer session with a consultant (54%) or specialist nurse (50%), a website for information (69%), a talk by researchers (54%), or a symptom management session (54%). Overall, women reported more interest in support sessions than men, with ≥50% of women reporting interest in nearly every option provided. CONCLUSION: Some men accept and adapt to their RA, but others (43%) report severe disease, less effective coping, and poor psychological status. Men's preferences for support are practical, with a focus on expanding their knowledge.

Development and testing of candidate items for inclusion in a new rheumatoid arthritis stiffness patient-reported outcome measure.

Objective: To qualitatively develop and test a set of candidate items for a new RA stiffness patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that capture the patient perspective. This is an essential first step in PROM development, prior to quantitative development, assessment and validation. Methods: Focus groups further examined the previously developed stiffness conceptual model and explored the patient perspective regarding stiffness assessment. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. An iterative process of item development was then performed by the expert study team of researchers, patients and clinicians, based on the two qualitative datasets and informed by measurement theory and guidelines. Finally, these candidate items were tested using formal cognitive interview methodology and subsequently refined. Results: Sixteen RA patients from the UK participated in focus groups. Data confirmed the conceptual model of the RA patient experience of stiffness and provided insight into stiffness assessment, including suggestions regarding patient-relevant stiffness assessment categories such as impact, location and timing. These data informed the development of 77 candidate stiffness PROM items, including multiple formats for some. Eleven RA patients participated in cognitive interviews. Minor changes were made to items to enhance understanding and 32 items were removed, resulting in 45 candidate PROM items. Conclusion: Rigorous qualitative methodology and considerable patient involvement has underpinned items for a new RA stiffness PROM with strong content validity. Crucially, patient involvement broadened assessment beyond early morning stiffness duration, which may address existing PROM limitations. Items are now suitable for quantitative item reduction, structural development of the final PROM and validation.

Drivers of patient global assessment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who are close to remission: an analysis of 1588 patients.

Objectives: ACR/EULAR Boolean remission in RA is frequently not obtained solely due to a patient global assessment (PGA) >1/10 (a condition often designated as near-remission). This study aimed to assess which domains of impact could explain an elevated PGA in near-remission patients. Methods: We performed an ancillary analysis of data from three cross-sectional studies in patients with established RA. Three disease activity states were defined: remission (tender and swollen joint counts, CRP and PGA all ⩽1), near-remission (tender and swollen joint counts, and CRP are all ≤1 but PGA >1) and non-remission. Physical and psychological domains were assessed using the RA Impact of Disease 0-10 (numeric rating scale) as explanatory factors of PGA. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to explain PGA. Results: A total of 1588 patients (79.1% females) were analysed. The mean disease duration was 13.0 years (s.d. 9.8) and the 28-joint DAS with four variables was 3.2 (s.d. 1.4). Near-remission [mean PGA 3.6 (s.d. 1.9)] was more frequent (19.1%) than remission (12.3%). Scores of RA Impact of Disease domains were similar in near-remission and non-remission patients. In near-remission, PGA was explained (R2adjusted = 0.55) by pain (ß = 0.29), function (ß = 0.23), physical well-being (ß = 0.19) and fatigue (ß = 0.15). Conclusion: Near-remission was more frequent than remission. These patients, despite having no signs of significant inflammation, report an impact of disease similar to the non-remission patients. PGA in near-remission seems to be driven by physical rather than psychological domains. Selecting the best therapy for these patients requires a better understanding of the meaning of PGA, both globally and in individual patients.

Emerging Guidelines for Patient Engagement in Research.

There is growing recognition that involving patients in the development of new patient-reported outcome measures helps ensure that the outcomes that matter most to people living with health conditions are captured. Here, we describe and discuss different experiences of integrating patients as full patient research partners (PRPs) in outcomes research from multiple perspectives (e.g., researcher, patient, and funder), drawing from three real-world examples. These diverse experiences highlight the strengths, challenges, and impact of partnering with patients to conceptualize, design, and conduct research and disseminate findings. On the basis of our experiences, we suggest basic guidelines for outcomes researchers on establishing research partnerships with patients, including: 1) establishing supportive organizational/institutional policies; 2) cultivating supportive attitudes of researchers and PRPs with recognition that partnerships evolve over time, are grounded in strong communication, and have shared goals; 3) adhering to principles of respect, trust, reciprocity, and co-learning; 4) addressing training needs of all team members to ensure communications and that PRPs are conversant in and familiar with the language and process of research; 5) identifying the resources and advanced planning required for successful patient engagement; and 6) recognizing the value of partnerships across all stages of research. The three experiences presented explore different approaches to partnering; demonstrate how this can fundamentally change the way research work is conceptualized, conducted, and disseminated; and can serve as exemplars for other forms of patient-centered outcomes research. Further work is needed to identify the skills, qualities, and approaches that best support effective patient-researcher partnerships.

"You Obviously Just Have to Put on a Brave Face": A Qualitative Study of the Experiences and Coping Styles of Men With Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences, coping styles, and support preferences of male rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. METHODS: Six focus groups comprised 22 men with RA. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three overarching themes describe the experiences, coping styles, and support preferences of men with RA. In "challenges to masculinity," the men described a "reduction in strength and abilities," which can lead to loss of independence, "challenges to masculine identity and role," and "loss of power and control." Coping by "getting through life with RA" meant dealing with RA by "just getting on with it," "information seeking," engaging in "destructive behaviors," and "withdrawing socially." Preferred "sources of support" tended not to include friends, as they were perceived to lack understanding or support. For acceptable support the men reported a preference for information-giving sessions rather than a discussion group, but there was no agreement on whether these should be mixed-sex or men only, or who should run the sessions. CONCLUSION: Male patients reported a range of coping styles and support preferences to address their experiences of living with RA, many of which may not be shared with women. Further research is needed to investigate whether these findings exist in a larger sample and whether the support preferences of men with RA are broadly different from those of women with RA to decide whether there is a clinical need to design a service for the potentially different needs of men.

Stiffness Is the Cardinal Symptom of Inflammatory Musculoskeletal Diseases, Yet Still Variably Measured: Report from the OMERACT 2016 Stiffness Special Interest Group.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Stiffness special interest group (SIG) are to characterize stiffness as an outcome in rheumatic disease and to identify and validate a stiffness patient-reported outcome (PRO) in rheumatology. METHODS: At OMERACT 2016, international groups presented and discussed results of several concurrent research projects on stiffness: a literature review of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) stiffness PRO measures, a qualitative investigation into the RA and polymyalgia rheumatica patient perspective of stiffness, data-driven stiffness conceptual model development, development and testing of an RA stiffness PRO measure, and a quantitative work testing stiffness items in patients with RA and psoriatic arthritis. RESULTS: The literature review identified 52 individual stiffness PRO measures assessing morning or early morning stiffness severity/intensity or duration. Items were heterogeneous, had little or inconsistent psychometric property evidence, and did not appear to have been developed according to the PRO development guidelines. A poor match between current stiffness PRO and the conceptual model identifying the RA patient experience of stiffness was identified, highlighting a major flaw in PRO selection according to the OMERACT filter 2.0. CONCLUSION: Discussions within the Stiffness SIG highlighted the importance of further research on stiffness and defined a research agenda.

Successful Stepwise Development of Patient Research Partnership: 14 Years' Experience of Actions and Consequences in Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT).

There is increasing interest in making patient participation an integral component of medical research. However, practical guidance on optimizing this engagement in healthcare is scarce. Since 2002, patient involvement has been one of the key features of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) international consensus effort. Based on a review of cumulative data from qualitative studies and internal surveys among OMERACT participants, we explored the potential benefits and challenges of involving patient research partners in conferences and working group activities. We supplemented our review with personal experiences and reflections regarding patient participation in the OMERACT process. We found that between 2002 and 2016, 67 patients have attended OMERACT conferences, of whom 28 had sustained involvement; many other patients contributed to OMERACT working groups. Their participation provided face validity to the OMERACT process and expanded the research agenda. Essential facilitators have been the financial commitment to guarantee sustainable involvement of patients at these conferences, procedures for recruitment, selection and support, and dedicated time allocated in the program for patient issues. Current challenges include the representativeness of the patient panel, risk of pseudo-professionalization, and disparity in patients' and researchers' perception of involvement. In conclusion, OMERACT has embedded long-term patient involvement in the consensus-building process on the measurement of core health outcomes. This integrative process continues to evolve iteratively. We believe that the practical points raised here can improve participatory research implementation.

Identifying different typologies of experiences and coping strategies in men with rheumatoid arthritis: a Q-methodology study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify typologies of experiences and coping strategies of men with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). DESIGN: Q-methodology (a qualitative and quantitative approach to grouping people according to their subjective opinion). Men with RA sorted 64 statements relating to their experience of living with RA according to level of agreement across a normal distribution grid. Data were examined using Q-factor analysis. SETTING: Rheumatology outpatient departments in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 30 of 65 invited men with RA participated in this study (46%). RESULTS: All participants ranked highly the need to be well informed about their medication and the importance of keeping a positive attitude. 2 factors describing the experiences and coping strategies of male patients living with RA were identified: factor A: 'acknowledge, accept and adapt' (n=14) take a proactive approach to managing the impact of RA and find different ways of doing things; while factor B: 'trying to match up to a macho ideal' (n=8) are determined to continue with their pre-RA lives, and therefore push themselves to carry on even if this causes them pain. They are frustrated and angry due to the impact of RA but they internalise this rather than directing it at others. CONCLUSIONS: While some men adapt to their RA by renegotiating their masculine identity, others struggle to relinquish their traditional masculine roles. Further research is needed to identify whether the finding that there are 2 distinct groups of men with RA can be generalised, and if so whether the differences can be explained by clinical, social or psychological factors, which may inform different therapeutic approaches.

Rheumatoid arthritis: previously untreated early disease.

INTRODUCTION: Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic autoimmune disease, which most often presents as a symmetrical polyarthritis of the hands and feet. Pharmacological treatments include non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), glucocorticoids (GCs) and other disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drugs (DMARDs), which may be synthetic (either conventional [csDMARDs] or targeted [tsDMARDs]) or biological (bDMARDs). METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic overview, aiming to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of methotrexate in combination with other csDMARDs versus methotrexate monotherapy in people with rheumatoid arthritis who have not previously received any DMARD treatment (first-line treatment)? What are the effects of bDMARDs as monotherapy versus methotrexate or other csDMARDs in people with rheumatoid arthritis who have not previously received any DMARD treatment (first-line treatment)? What are the effects of bDMARDs in combination with methotrexate versus methotrexate monotherapy or other csDMARDs in people with rheumatoid arthritis who have not previously received any DMARD treatment (first-line treatment)? What are the effects of glucocorticoids in combination with methotrexate or with other csDMARDs versus methotrexate or other csDMARDs in people with rheumatoid arthritis who have not previously received any DMARD treatment (first-line treatment)? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to December 2014 (Clinical Evidence overviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this overview). RESULTS: At this update, searching of electronic databases retrieved 2058 studies. Of the full articles evaluated, 10 systematic reviews, 22 RCTs, and one follow-up report were added at this update. We performed a GRADE evaluation for 18 PICO combinations. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic overview, we categorised the efficacy for 22 comparisons based on information about the effectiveness and safety of bDMARDs (monotherapy or combined with csDMARDs), csDMARDs (monotherapy or combined with other csDMARDs), glucocorticoids combined with methotrexate or other csDMARDs, and methotrexate (monotherapy or combined with other csDMARDs), identifying interventions which were likely or unlikely to be beneficial.

Biologic interventions for fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is a common and potentially distressing symptom for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with no accepted evidence-based management guidelines. Evidence suggests that biologic interventions improve symptoms and signs in RA as well as reducing joint damage. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of biologic interventions on fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases up to 1 April 2014: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Current Controlled Trials Register, the National Research Register Archive, The UKCRN Portfolio Database, AMED, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Science Citation Index, Web of Science, and Dissertation Abstracts International. In addition, we checked the reference lists of articles identified for inclusion for additional studies and contacted key authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials if they evaluated a biologic intervention in people with rheumatoid arthritis and had self reported fatigue as an outcome measure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers selected relevant trials, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses using a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 32 studies for inclusion in this current review. Twenty studies evaluated five anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) biologic agents (adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab and infliximab), and 12 studies focused on five non-anti-TNF biologic agents (abatacept, canakinumab, rituximab, tocilizumab and an anti-interferon gamma monoclonal antibody). All but two of the studies were double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trials. In some trials, patients could receive concomitant disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). These studies added either biologics or placebo to DMARDs. Investigators did not change the dose of the latter from baseline. In total, these studies included 9946 participants in the intervention groups and 4682 participants in the control groups. Overall, quality of randomised controlled trials was moderate with a low to unclear risk of bias in the reporting of the outcome of fatigue. We downgraded the quality of the studies from high to moderate because of potential reporting bias (studies included post hoc analyses favouring reporting of positive result and did not always include all randomised individuals). Some studies recruited only participants with early disease. The studies used five different instruments to assess fatigue in these studies: the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Domain (FACIT-F), Short Form-36 Vitality Domain (SF-36 VT), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (0 to 100 or 0 to 10) and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). We calculated standard mean differences for pooled data in meta-analyses. Overall treatment by biologic agents led to statistically significant reduction in fatigue with a standardised mean difference of -0.43 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.38 to -0.49). This equates to a difference of 6.45 units (95% CI 5.7 to 7.35) of FACIT-F score (range 0 to 52). Both types of biologic agents achieved a similar level of improvement: for anti-TNF agents, this stood at -0.42 (95% CI -0.35 to -0.49), equivalent to 6.3 units (95% CI 5.3 to 7.4) on the FACIT-F score; and for non-anti-TNF agents, it was -0.46 (95% CI -0.39 to -0.53), equivalent to 6.9 units (95% CI 5.85 to 7.95) on the FACIT-F score. In most studies, the double-blind period was 24 weeks or less. No study assessed long-term changes in fatigue. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with biologic interventions in patients with active RA can lead to a small to moderate improvement in fatigue. The magnitude of improvement is similar for anti-TNF and non-anti-TNF biologics. However, it is unclear whether the improvement results from a direct action of the biologics on fatigue or indirectly through reduction in inflammation, disease activity or some other mechanism.

Development of a Provisional Core Domain Set for Polymyalgia Rheumatica: Report from the OMERACT 12 Polymyalgia Rheumatica Working Group.

OBJECTIVE: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) working group aims to develop a core set of outcome measures to be used in clinical trials for PMR. Previous reports from OMERACT 11 included a qualitative study of the patient experience and a preliminary literature review. METHODS: A 3-round Delphi survey of clinicians and patients with PMR was undertaken to identify a candidate core domain set for PMR research. Additionally, a literature review of outcome measures and their respective measurement instruments was undertaken. Meetings of patient research partners and clinicians were convened to review face validity of the provisional core domain set, which was subsequently presented and discussed at the OMERACT 12 congress. RESULTS: Of the 60 clinicians taking part in round 1, 55 took part in round 2 and 51 in round 3. Of the 55 patients who took part in round 1, 46 and 35 took part in subsequent rounds. In total, 91% of participants in round 3 deemed the resulting draft core domain set reasonable. The literature review identified 28 studies for full review. Measurement instruments for each proposed domain were identified. Clinicians are highly aware of glucocorticoid-related adverse effects, but there is relatively little evidence about their true prevalence and severity, especially in PMR. CONCLUSION: A provisional core domain set, presented for clinical trials in PMR, comprises acute phase markers, physical function, death, glucocorticoid-related adverse events, and development of giant cell arteritis. Measurement instruments are suggested that may cover each domain, but these require formal validation for clinical trials in PMR.

Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Working Toward Incorporation of the Patient Perspective at OMERACT 12.

OBJECTIVE: The treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) should target patient-relevant outcomes, making patient perspective on remission essential. In 2010, patients, physicians, health professionals, and researchers at the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) conference developed an ambitious research agenda to study the concept of remission. Qualitative research has since helped us understand the concept of remission from the patient perspective. METHODS: During OMERACT 12, the OMERACT working group on patient perspective on remission in RA elaborated on data generated to date and discussed the methodological challenges ahead. Challenges included (1) selection of domains, (2) choice of a patient remission definition or a single domain to add to the current remission definition, and (3) the importance of pain in defining remission from a patient perspective. RESULTS: Focus in the coming years will be on increasing our understanding by identifying the most important domains from the patient perspective regarding remission and investigating how these domains can be measured. Investigation into the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease questionnaire, disease flare, as well as the concordance of domains from our ongoing remission survey is appropriate. More data and further discussions are needed to decide on the next steps. CONCLUSION: Progress summarized over 4 years highlights the main methodological challenges discussed within the working group on patient perspective on remission in RA during OMERACT 12.

Recommendations for the Involvement of Patient Research Partners (PRP) in OMERACT Working Groups. A Report from the OMERACT 2014 Working Group on PRP.

OBJECTIVE: Patient participation in research is increasing; however, practical guidelines to enhance this participation are lacking. Specifically within the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) organization, although patients have participated in OMERACT meetings since 2002, consensus about the procedures for involving patients in working groups has not been formalized. The objective is to develop a set of recommendations regarding patient research partner (PRP) involvement in research working groups. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review on recommendations/guidelines of PRP involvement in research; elaborated a structured consensus process involving multiple participants to develop a set of recommendations; and sought endorsement of recommendations by OMERACT. RESULTS: In the 18 articles included in the literature review, there was general agreement on the broad concepts for recommendations covering PRP involvement in research although they were heterogeneous in detail. Most considered PRP involvement in all phases of research with early engagement, training, and support important, but details on the content were scarce. This review informed a larger consensus-building process regarding PRP inclusion in OMERACT research. Three overarching principles and 8 recommendations were developed, discussed, and refined at OMERACT 2014. The guiding principles were endorsed during the OMERACT plenary session. CONCLUSION: These recommendations for PRP involvement in OMERACT research reinforce the importance of patient participation throughout the research process as integral members. Although the applicability of the recommendations in other research contexts should be assessed, the generalizability is expected to be high. Future research should evaluate their implementation and their effect on outcome development.

The Spirit of OMERACT: Q Methodology Analysis of Conference Characteristics Valued by Delegates.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the major features of OMERACT meetings as valued by frequent participants and to explore whether there are groups of participants with different opinions. METHODS: Using Q methodology (a qualitative and quantitative approach to grouping people according to subjective opinion), participants (who attended more than 1 OMERACT conference) sorted 66 statements relating to the "spirit of OMERACT" according to level of agreement across a normal distribution grid. Data were examined using Q factor analysis. RESULTS: Of 226 potential participants, 105 responded (46%). All participants highly ranked the focus on global standardization of methods, outcome measures, data-driven research, methodological discussion, and international collaboration. Four factors describing the "spirit of OMERACT" were identified: "Evidence not eminence" (n = 31) valued the data- and evidence-driven research above personality and status; "Collaboration and collegiality" (n = 19) valued the international and cross-stakeholder collaboration, interaction, and collegiality; "Equal voices, equal votes, common goals" (n = 12) valued equality in discussion and voting, with everyone striving toward the same goal; "principles and product, not process" (n = 8) valued the principles of focusing on outcome measures and the product of guiding clinical trials, but were unsure whether the process is necessary to reach this. The factors did not segregate different stakeholder groups. CONCLUSION: Delegates value different elements of OMERACT, and thus the "spirit of OMERACT" encompasses evidence-based research, collaboration, and equality, although a small group are unsure whether the process is necessary to achieve the end result. Q methodology may prove useful for conference organizers to identify their delegates' different needs to tailor conference content.

Optimal Strategies for Reporting Pain in Clinical Trials and Systematic Reviews: Recommendations from an OMERACT 12 Workshop.

OBJECTIVE: Pain is a patient-important outcome, but current reporting in randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews is often suboptimal, impeding clinical interpretation and decision making. METHODS: A working group at the 2014 Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT 12) was convened to provide guidance for reporting treatment effects regarding pain for individual studies and systematic reviews. RESULTS: For individual trials, authors should report, in addition to mean change, the proportion of patients achieving 1 or more thresholds of improvement from baseline pain (e.g., ≥ 20%, ≥ 30%, ≥ 50%), achievement of a desirable pain state (e.g., no worse than mild pain), and/or a combination of change and state. Effects on pain should be accompanied by other patient-important outcomes to facilitate interpretation. When pooling data for metaanalysis, authors should consider converting all continuous measures for pain to a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and use the established, minimally important difference (MID) of 10 mm, and the conventionally used, appreciably important differences of 20 mm, 30 mm, and 50 mm, to facilitate interpretation. Effects ≤ 0.5 units suggest a small or very small effect. To further increase interpretability, the pooled estimate on the VAS should also be transformed to a binary outcome and expressed as a relative risk and risk difference. This transformation can be achieved by calculating the probability of experiencing a treatment effect greater than the MID and the thresholds for appreciably important differences in pain reduction in the control and intervention groups. CONCLUSION: Presentation of relative effects regarding pain will facilitate interpretation of treatment effects.

Updating the OMERACT filter at OMERACT 11.

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) community strives to develop core outcome sets for rheumatologic conditions to specify, for each condition, the minimum set of outcomes necessary to provide consistent estimates of the benefits of an intervention. The original and successful OMERACT filter of "truth, discrimination, and feasibility" requires development and updating because of application to a widening range of conditions by an expanding group, particularly patients. It should more explicitly identify the relevant core outcomes that might be universal to all randomized controlled trials within rheumatology. Working from first principles, comparing proposals against actual procedures adopted by OMERACT working groups, and seeking a broad consensus over several major sessions at the OMERACT 11 meeting, a new version has emerged, OMERACT Filter 2.0, which will form the central theme of the intended OMERACT handbook and offers an approach to core outcome set development in many areas of healthcare.