EULAR recommendations for the involvement of patient research partners in rheumatology research: 2023 update.

BACKGROUND: Since the publication of the 2011 European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommendations for patient research partner (PRP) involvement in rheumatology research, the role of PRPs has evolved considerably. Therefore, an update of the 2011 recommendations was deemed necessary. METHODS: In accordance with the EULAR Standardised Operational Procedures, a task force comprising 13 researchers, 2 health professionals and 10 PRPs was convened. The process included an online task force meeting, a systematic literature review and an in-person second task force meeting to formulate overarching principles (OAPs) and recommendations. The level of agreement of task force members was assessed anonymously (0-10 scale). RESULTS: The task force developed five new OAPs, updated seven existing recommendations and formulated three new recommendations. The OAPs address the definition of a PRP, the contribution of PRPs, the role of informal caregivers, the added value of PRPs and the importance of trust and communication in collaborative research efforts. The recommendations address the research type and phases of PRP involvement, the recommended number of PRPs per project, the support necessary for PRPs, training of PRPs and acknowledgement of PRP contributions. New recommendations concern the benefits of support and guidance for researchers, the need for regular evaluation of the patient-researcher collaboration and the role of a designated coordinator to facilitate collaboration. Agreements within the task force were high and ranged between 9.16 and 9.96. CONCLUSION: The updated EULAR recommendations for PRP involvement are more substantially based on evidence. Together with added OAPs, they should serve as a guide for researchers and PRPs and will ultimately strengthen the involvement of PRPs in rheumatology research.

Effect of Bimekizumab on Patient-Reported Disease Impact in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis: 1-Year Results from Two Phase 3 Studies.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate 1-year bimekizumab efficacy in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) from the patient perspective using the 12-item PsA Impact of Disease (PsAID-12) questionnaire. METHODS: BE OPTIMAL (NCT03895203; biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [bDMARD]-naïve), BE COMPLETE (NCT03896581; inadequate response/intolerance to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors [TNFi-IR]) and BE VITAL (NCT04009499; open-label extension) assessed bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks in patients with PsA. Post hoc analyses of patient-reported disease impact, assessed by the PsAID-12 questionnaire, are reported to 1 year (collected to week 40 in BE COMPLETE). RESULTS: Overall, 1,112 total patients were included (698 bimekizumab, 414 placebo). Rapid improvements observed with bimekizumab treatment at week 4 continued to week 16 and were sustained to 1 year. At 1 year, mean (standard error) change from baseline in PsAID-12 total score was comparable between bimekizumab-randomized patients and patients who switched to bimekizumab at week 16 (bDMARD-naïve bimekizumab -2.3 [0.1], placebo/bimekizumab -2.2 [0.1]; TNFi-IR bimekizumab -|2.5 [0.1], placebo/bimekizumab -2.2 [0.2]). Proportions of bimekizumab-randomized patients achieving clinically meaningful within-patient improvement (≥3-point decrease from baseline) at week 16 were sustained to 1 year (bDMARD-naïve 49.0%; TNFi-IR 48.5%) and were similar for placebo/bimekizumab patients (bDMARD-naïve 44.4%; TNFi-IR 40.6%). Across studies and arms, 35.3% to 47.8% of patients had minimal or no symptom impact at 1 year. Improvements were observed to 1 year across all single-item domains, including pain, fatigue and skin problems. CONCLUSION: Bimekizumab treatment resulted in rapid and sustained clinically meaningful improvements in disease impact up to 1 year in bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-IR patients with PsA.

Patient research partner involvement in rheumatology research: a systematic literature review informing the 2023 updated EULAR recommendations for the involvement of patient research partners.

BACKGROUND: Patient research partners (PRPs) are people with a disease who collaborate in a research team as partners. The aim of this systematic literature review (SLR) was to assess barriers and facilitators to PRP involvement in rheumatology research. METHODS: The SLR was conducted in PubMed/Medline for articles on PRP involvement in rheumatology research, published between 2017 and 2023; websites were also searched in rheumatology and other specialties. Data were extracted regarding the definition of PRPs, their role and added value, as well as barriers and facilitators to PRP involvement. The quality of the articles was assessed. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and principles of thematic content analysis was applied to qualitative data. RESULTS: Of 1016 publications, 53 articles were included; the majority of these studies were qualitative studies (26%), opinion articles (21%), meeting reports (17%) and mixed-methods studies (11%). Roles of PRPs ranged from research partners to patient advocates, advisors and patient reviewers. PRPs were reported/advised to be involved early in the project (32% of articles) and in all research phases (30%), from the conception stage to the implementation of research findings. The main barriers were challenges in communication and support for both PRPs and researchers. Facilitators of PRP involvement included more than one PRP per project, training of PRPs and researchers, a supportive environment for PRPs (including adequate communication, acknowledgement and compensation of PRPs) and the presence of a PRP coordinator. CONCLUSION: This SLR identified barriers and facilitators to PRP involvement, and was key to updating the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for PRP-researcher collaboration based on scientific evidence.

Exploring the effect on primary endpoints in trials testing targeted therapy interventions for rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-epidemiological study on the appropriate use of a core outcome set.

OBJECTIVES: To explore which core domain is best associated with the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% response in trials assessing the effect of targeted interventions in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: A meta-epidemiological study was performed on randomised trials investigating biologics and targeted agents compared with placebo or conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with RA. The main outcome measures were ORs for the ACR 20% response and at least one of the eight core domains according to the existing RA core outcome set (COS) analysed based on standardised mean differences. RESULTS: 115 trials involving 55 422 patients with RA were eligible. The OR for achieving ACR 20% response was 3.19 (95% CI 2.96 to 3.44) for the experimental interventions relative to the comparators. The median number of COS domains reported was 6; 18 trials reported only 1 domain, 17 all 8. Univariable meta-regression analyses indicated that each of the eight core domains was significantly associated with ACR 20% response, yet improvements in physical disability explain a successful ACR 20% response the most. Including only trials reporting on all eight core domains, univariable meta-regression analyses proved improvement in fatigue to explain a successful ACR 20% response the most. CONCLUSIONS: Within this dataset, it is evident that the conclusions concerning our primary objective were significantly influenced by both the amount and characteristics of missing data. Our data suggest that fatigue could be more important for the primary endpoint than previously assumed, but this is based on limited data.

Strategies to promote implementation of core outcomes for medication adherence trials in rheumatology: A report from the OMERACT-Adherence Group.

OBJECTIVES: To identify barriers, facilitators, and strategies for future implementation of the OMERACT-Adherence Core Outcome Set (COS) in medication adherence trials for rheumatic conditions. METHODS: Preliminary Delphi survey findings were discussed at OMERACT 2023, utilising the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research 2 to identify implementation barriers, facilitators, and solutions. RESULTS: Implementation strategies included simplifying the COS definitions, making it adaptabile for clinical practice and drug trials, adherence trial training workshops, and collaborating with key stakeholders such as payers and other COS developers. CONCLUSION: Ongoing collaboration with individuals and organisations within and beyond rheumatology ensures broader applicability of OMERACT-Adherence COS.

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.

Validity and score interpretation of the 12-item Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease: an analysis of pooled data from two phase 3 trials of bimekizumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate psychometric performance of the 12-item Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID-12) total and individual item scores in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and to estimate score change thresholds and scores corresponding to different levels of symptom/impact severity. METHODS: Data up to week 16 from 1252 patients with active PsA enrolled in two randomised controlled trials of bimekizumab (BE OPTIMAL (NCT03895203) and BE COMPLETE (NCT03896581)) were used to assess construct validity (correlations with other patient-reported outcomes), known-groups validity (based on Minimal Disease Activity index, Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis and Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score), reliability (Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs)) and responsiveness (sensitivity to change). Clinically meaningful within-patient improvement thresholds were estimated by anchor-based and distribution-based analyses, and symptom/impact severity thresholds were estimated by receiver operating characteristic curve analyses. RESULTS: The mean (SD) PsAID-12 total score at baseline was 4.19 (1.94). PsAID-12 scores demonstrated good convergent validity and good known-groups validity. Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.95) and test-retest reliability (ICC ≥ 0.70) were also good. Responsiveness was acceptable (correlations ≥0.30 for most scores). Improvement thresholds were estimated at 1.5-2 points for the PsAID-12 total score and 2 or 3 points for item scores. Thresholds for different levels of symptom/impact severity could be derived for most PsAID-12 items. CONCLUSIONS: The PsAID-12 demonstrated robust psychometric properties in a large sample of patients with active PsA, supporting its use as a fit-for-purpose patient-reported outcome in this population. Furthermore, thresholds for score interpretation were derived.

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

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

Patient 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.

Distinction and prognosis of early arthritis phenotypes: an analysis in three European cohorts.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to evaluate whether there are differences in the long-term prognosis across various phenotypes of early arthritis (EA). METHODS: Three EA cohorts (Reade, Etude et Suivi des Polyarthrites Indifférenciées Récentes (ESPOIR) and Early Arthritis Clinic (EAC)) were analysed. Clinical data were collected up to 24 years. Hands and feet radiographs were scored according to the Sharp van der Heijde (SvdH) method. Latent class analysis was applied to determine the EA phenotypes at baseline. Each class received a label reflecting its most prominent features. Prognostic outcomes included Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Short Form 36 (SF36) and SvdH score. The association between class membership and outcomes over time was tested in multivariable models. RESULTS: In total, 390 (Reade), 798 (ESPOIR) and 3991 (EAC) patients were analysed separately. Two classes with symmetrical polyarthritis emerged; one of these labelled as autoimmune inflammatory polyarthritis (AIPA), had high likelihood of acute phase reactants (APR) elevation and autoantibody positivity, while the other (mild-inflammatory polyarthritis; MIPA) had not. A third class had oligoarthritis of upper limbs (OAUL) and could be subdivided into autoimmune OAUL and mild-inflammatory OAUL. A fifth class had oligoarthritis of lower limbs. The SvdH scores were worse in patients with APR/autoantibodies (AIPA) than in those without (MIPA). No clinically meaningful differences across classes in HAQ or SF36 over time were found. CONCLUSION: Radiographic progression over time primarily occurs in EA patients with APR/autoantibodies. The absence of these markers, however, does not necessarily translate into better long-term function and quality of life. Clinicians should not only aim at preventing joint damage, but look beyond structural progression in order to further improve the lives of people with EA.

Involving patients as research partners in research in rheumatology: a literature review in 2023.

OBJECTIVE: The inclusion of patient research partners (PRPs) in research projects is increasingly recognised and recommended in rheumatology. The level of involvement of PRPs in translational research in rheumatology remains unknown, while in randomised clinical trials (RCTs), it has been reported to be 2% in 2020. Therefore, we aimed to assess the involvement of PRPs in recent translational studies and RCTs in rheumatology. METHODS: We conducted a scoping literature review of the 80 most recent articles (40 translational studies and 40 RCTs) from four target diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus and lower extremity osteoarthritis. We selected 20 papers from each disease, published up until 1 March 2023, in rheumatology and general scientific journals. In each paper, the extent of PRP involvement was assessed. Analyses were descriptive. RESULTS: Of 40 translational studies, none reported PRP involvement. Of 40 RCTs, eight studies (20%) reported PRP involvement. These trials were mainly from Europe (75%) and North America (25%). Most of them (75%) were non-industry funded. The type of PRP involvement was reported in six of eight studies: six studies reported PRP participation in the study design or design of the intervention and two of them in the interpretation of the results. All the trials reporting the number of PRPs (75%), involved at least two PRPs. CONCLUSION: Despite a worldwide movement advocating for increased patient involvement in research, PRPs in translational research and RCTs in rheumatology are significantly under-represented. This limited involvement of PRPs in research highlights a persistent gap between the existing recommendations and actual practice.

Association between obesity and likelihood of remission or low disease activity status in psoriatic arthritis applying index-based and patient-based definitions of remission: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate whether obese patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were less likely to be in remission/low disease activity (LDA). METHODS: We used data from the ReFlaP, an international multi-centre cohort study (NCT03119805), which recruited consecutive adults with definite PsA (disease duration ≥ 2 years) from 14 countries. Demographics, clinical data, comorbidities, and patient-reported outcomes were collected. Remission/LDA was defined as Very Low Disease Activity (VLDA)/minimal disease activity (MDA), Disease Activity in PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) ≤4/≤14, or by patients' opinion. Obesity was defined as physician-reported and/or body mass index ≥30 kg/m2. We evaluated the association between obesity and the presence of remission/LDA, with adjustment in multivariable regression models. RESULTS: Among 431 patients (49.3% women), 136 (31.6%) were obese. Obese versus non-obese patients were older, more frequently women, had higher tender joint and enthesitis counts and worse pain, physical function and health-related quality of life. Obese patients were less likely to be in VLDA; DAPSA remission and MDA, with adjusted ORs of 0.31 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.77); 0.39 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.80) and 0.61 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.99), respectively. Rates of DAPSA-LDA and patient-reported remission/LDA were similar for obese and non-obese patients. CONCLUSION: PsA patients with comorbid obesity were 2.5-3 folds less likely to be in remission/LDA by composite scores compared with non-obese patients; however, remission/LDA rates were similar based on the patients' opinion. PsA patients with comorbid obesity may have different disease profiles and require individualised management.

Tolerability and comparative effectiveness of TNF-, IL-17-, and IL-23(p19) inhibitors in psoriatic arthritis: A target trial emulation study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare tolerability and effectiveness of two different classes of biological Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs (bDMARDs; interleukin (IL)-17- and IL-23(p19) inhibitors) relative to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) regarding the drug survival rates and treatment outcomes in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: We emulated a target trial on comparative effectiveness using observational data from a prospective cohort study based on the Parker Institute's PsA cohort - the PIPA cohort. All patients underwent interview and clinical examination programme at baseline and at follow-up visits at four and twelve months. The primary endpoint, drug survival, was assessed up to 12 months from baseline. We estimated hazard ratios from proportional hazards model and used propensity score adjustment in an attempt to deconfound and emulate a random treatment assignment. RESULTS: We included a total of 109 patients in the intention-to-monitor population at baseline initiating either TNFi (75 patients), IL17i (26 patients), or IL23(19)i (8 patients). Hazard ratios in the propensity adjusted model comparing IL-17i and IL-23(p19)i to TNFi were 1.36 (95% CI 0.59-3.14) and 0.56 (95% CI 0.10-3.24), respectively. TNFi and IL-17i had comparable effects regarding response rates and changes in clinical outcomes after 12 months, whereas IL-23(p19)i tended to perform better overall. CONCLUSION: No decisive differences between drugs were observed at group level regarding drug survival and clinical outcomes after 12 months. TNFi, IL-17i, and IL-23(p19)i may all be considered equally effective in the treatment of patients with PsA, advocating for investigating more in personalised treatment strategies.

Application of clinical and molecular profiling data to improve patient outcomes in psoriatic arthritis.

Achieving a good outcome for a person with Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) is made difficult by late diagnosis, heterogenous clinical disease expression and in many cases, failure to adequately suppress inflammatory disease features. Single-centre studies have certainly contributed to our understanding of disease pathogenesis, but to adequately address the major areas of unmet need, multi-partner, collaborative research programmes are now required. HIPPOCRATES is a 5-year, Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) programme which includes 17 European academic centres experienced in PsA research, 5 pharmaceutical industry partners, 3 small-/medium-sized industry partners and 2 patient-representative organizations. In this review, the ambitious programme of work to be undertaken by HIPPOCRATES is outlined and common approaches and challenges are identified. It is expected that, when completed, the results will ultimately allow for changes in the approaches to diagnosing, managing and treating PsA allowing for better short-term and long-term outcomes.

Improving outcomes in Psoriatic Arthritis Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) is a form of arthritis which is found in approximately 30% of people who have the skin condition, Psoriasis. Frequently debilitating and progressive, achieving a good outcome for a person with PsA is made difficult by late diagnosis, disease clinical features and in many cases, failure to adequately control features of inflammation. Research studies from individual centres have certainly contributed to our understanding of why people develop PsA but to adequately address the major areas of unmet need, multi-centre, collaborative research programmes are now required. HIPPOCRATES is a 5-year, Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) programme which includes 17 European academic centres experienced in PsA research, 5 pharmaceutical industry partners, 3 small-/medium-sized industry partners and 2 patient representative organisations (see appendix). In this review, the ambitious programme of work to be undertaken by HIPPOCRATES is outlined and common approaches and challenges are identified. The participation of patient research partners in all stages of the work of HIPPOCRATES is highlighted. It is expected that, when completed, the results will ultimately allow for changes in the approaches to diagnosing, managing and treating PsA allowing for improvements in short-term and long-term outcomes.

Series: Public engagement with research. Part 4: Maximising the benefits of involving the public in research implementation.

This final article in the four-part series focuses on the often neglected yet important role of the public in implementing research in General Practice and Primary Care more broadly. Experience in implementation of findings from research with public engagement in Primary Care has highlighted how partnership working with patients and the public is important in transitioning from 'what we know' from the evidence-base to 'what we do' in practice. Factors related to Primary Care research that make public engagement important are highlighted e.g. implementing complex interventions, implementing interventions that increase health equity, implementing interventions in countries with different primary healthcare system strengths. Involvement of patients and public can enhance the development of modelling and simulation included in studies on systems modelling for improving health services. We draw on the emerging evidence base to describe public engagement in implementation and offer some guiding principles for engaging with the public in the implementation in General Practice and Primary Care in general. Illustrative case studies are included to support others wishing to offer meaningful engagement in implementing research evidence.

Proceedings of the Collaborative Research Network Meeting at the GRAPPA 2022 Annual Meeting.

At the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) 2022 annual meeting, the Collaborative Research Network (CRN) met to present updates on several projects. These included the GRAPPA-Industry biomarker projects, Axial Psoriatic Arthritis Molecular and Clinical Characterisation Study, Axial Involvement in Psoriatic Arthritis Cohort (AXIS) study, and the Health Initiatives in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Consortium European States (HIPPOCRATES). The meeting concluded with a discussion on pathways to further academia-industry collaboration.

Series: Public engagement with research. Part 1: The fundamentals of public engagement with research.

BACKGROUND: In the first of a four-part series, we describe the fundamentals of public engagement in primary care research. OBJECTIVES: The article's purpose is to encourage, inform and improve the researcher's awareness about public engagement in research. For a growing number of researchers, funders and patient organisations in Europe, public engagement is a moral and ethical imperative for conducting high-quality research. DISCUSSION: Starting with an explanation of the role of public engagement in research, we highlight its diversity and benefits to research, researchers and the public members involved. We summarise principles of good practice and provide valuable resources for researchers to use in their public engagement activities. Finally, we discuss some of the issues encountered when researchers collaborate with members of the public and provide practical steps to address them. Case studies of real-life situations are used to illustrate and aid understanding. CONCLUSION: We hope this article and the other papers in this series will encourage researchers to better consider the role and practice of public engagement and the potential added value to research that collaborating with the public could provide.

Initiating Evaluation of Composite Outcome Measures for Psoriatic Arthritis: 2022 Updates From the GRAPPA-OMERACT Working Group.

The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA)-Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) working group-comprising rheumatologists, dermatologists, methodologists, and patient research partners-provided updates at the GRAPPA 2022 annual meeting on its work to evaluate composite outcome measures for PsA. Ten composite outcome measures were considered. Initial steps were to define the population, the purpose of use, and the proposed pros and cons of the 10 candidate composite instruments for PsA. Preliminary Delphi exercises within the working group and GRAPPA stakeholders confirmed high priority for evaluating minimal disease activity (MDA); moderate priority for Disease Activity in PsA (DAPSA), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria, Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS), Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity Index (CPDAI), 3 visual analog scale (VAS), and 4VAS; and low priority for Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), Psoriatic Arthritis Responder Criteria (PsARC), and Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3). Further appraisal of candidate composite instruments is ongoing.

EULAR points to consider for the definition of clinical and imaging features suspicious for progression from psoriasis to psoriatic arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The transition from psoriasis (PsO) to psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and the early diagnosis of PsA is of considerable scientific and clinical interest for the prevention and interception of PsA. OBJECTIVE: To formulate EULAR points to consider (PtC) for the development of data-driven guidance and consensus for clinical trials and clinical practice in the field of prevention or interception of PsA and for clinical management of people with PsO at risk for PsA development. METHODS: A multidisciplinary EULAR task force of 30 members from 13 European countries was established, and the EULAR standardised operating procedures for development for PtC were followed. Two systematic literature reviews were conducted to support the task force in formulating the PtC. Furthermore, the task force proposed nomenclature for the stages before PsA, through a nominal group process to be used in clinical trials. RESULTS: Nomenclature for the stages preceding PsA onset, 5 overarching principles and 10 PtC were formulated. Nomenclature was proposed for three stages towards PsA development, namely people with PsO at higher risk of PsA, subclinical PsA and clinical PsA. The latter stage was defined as PsO and associated synovitis and it could be used as an outcome measure for clinical trials evaluating the transition from PsO to PsA. The overarching principles address the nature of PsA at its onset and underline the importance of collaboration of rheumatologists and dermatologists for strategies for prevention/interception of PsA. The 10 PtC highlight arthralgia and imaging abnormalities as key elements of subclinical PsA that can be used as potential short-term predictors of PsA development and useful items to design clinical trials for PsA interception. Traditional risk factors for PsA development (ie, PsO severity, obesity and nail involvement) may represent more long-term disease predictors and be less robust for short-term trials concerning the transition from PsO to PsA. CONCLUSION: These PtC are helpful to define the clinical and imaging features of people with PsO suspicious to progress to PsA. This information will be helpful for identification of those who could benefit from a therapeutic intervention to attenuate, delay or prevent PsA development.