"I couldn't carry on taking a drug like that": A qualitative study of patient perspectives on side effects from rheumatology drugs.

OBJECTIVES: There is growing interest in collecting outcome information directly from patients in clinical trials. This study evaluates what patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) consider important to know about symptomatic side effects they may experience from a new prescription drug. METHODS: Patients with inflammatory arthritis, who had one or more prescribed drugs for their disease for at least 12 months, participated in focus groups and individual interviews. Discussions were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: We conducted seven focus groups with 34 participants across three continents. We found four overarching and two underpinning themes. The 'impact on life' was connected to participants 'daily life', 'family life', 'work life', and 'social life'. In 'psychological and physical aspects' participants described 'limitation to physical function', 'emotional dysregulation' and 'an overall mental state'. Extra tests, hospital visits and payment for medication were considered a 'time, energy and financial burden' of side effects. Participants explained important measurement issues to be 'severity', 'frequency', and 'duration'. Underpinning these issues, participants evaluated the 'benefit-harm-balance' which includes 'the cumulative burden' of having several side effects and the persistence of side effects over time. CONCLUSIONS: In treatment for RMDs, there seems to be an urgent need for feasible measures of patient-reported bother (impact on life and cumulative burden) from side effects and the benefit-harm-balance. These findings contribute new evidence in support of a target domain-an outcome that represents the patient voice evaluating the symptomatic treatment-related side effects for people with RMDs enrolled in clinical trials.

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.

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.

Toward designing human intervention studies to prevent osteoarthritis after knee injury: A report from an interdisciplinary OARSI 2023 workshop.

Objective: The global impact of osteoarthritis is growing. Currently no disease modifying osteoarthritis drugs/therapies exist, increasing the need for preventative strategies. Knee injuries have a high prevalence, distinct onset, and strong independent association with post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA). Numerous groups are embarking upon research that will culminate in clinical trials to assess the effect of interventions to prevent knee PTOA despite challenges and lack of consensus about trial design in this population. Our objectives were to improve awareness of knee PTOA prevention trial design and discuss state-of-the art methods to address the unique opportunities and challenges of these studies. Design: An international interdisciplinary group developed a workshop, hosted at the 2023 Osteoarthritis Research Society International Congress. Here we summarize the workshop content and outputs, with the goal of moving the field of PTOA prevention trial design forward. Results: Workshop highlights included discussions about target population (considering risk, homogeneity, and possibility of modifying osteoarthritis outcome); target treatment (considering delivery, timing, feasibility and effectiveness); comparators (usual care, placebo), and primary symptomatic outcomes considering surrogates and the importance of knee function and symptoms other than pain to this population. Conclusions: Opportunities to test multimodal PTOA prevention interventions across preclinical models and clinical trials exist. As improving symptomatic outcomes aligns with patient and regulator priorities, co-primary symptomatic (single or aggregate/multidimensional outcome considering function and symptoms beyond pain) and structural/physiological outcomes may be appropriate for these trials. To ensure PTOA prevention trials are relevant and acceptable to all stakeholders, future research should address critical knowledge gaps and challenges.

OMERACT 2023 Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Special Interest Group: Winnowing and Binning Preliminary Candidate Domains for the Core Outcome Set.

BACKGROUND: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Working Group held a Special Interest Group (SIG) at the OMERACT 2023 conference in Colorado Springs where SLE collaborators reviewed domain sub-themes generated through qualitative research and literature review. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the SIG and the subsequent meetings of the SLE Working Group was to begin the winnowing and binning of candidate domain sub-themes into a preliminary list of candidate domains that will proceed to the consensus Delphi exercise for the SLE COS. METHODS: Four breakout groups at the SLE SIG in Colorado Springs winnowed and binned 132 domain sub-themes into candidate domains, which was continued with a series of virtual meetings by an advisory group of SLE patient research partners (PRPs), members of the OMERACT SLE Working Group Steering Committee, and other collaborators. RESULTS: The 132 domain sub-themes were reduced to a preliminary list of 20 candidate domains based on their clinical and research relevance for clinical trials and research studies. CONCLUSION: A meaningful and substantial winnowing and binning of candidate domains for the SLE COS was achieved resulting in a preliminary list of 20 candidate domains.

Patient engagement in designing, conducting, and disseminating clinical pain research: IMMPACT recommended considerations.

ABSTRACT: In the traditional clinical research model, patients are typically involved only as participants. However, there has been a shift in recent years highlighting the value and contributions that patients bring as members of the research team, across the clinical research lifecycle. It is becoming increasingly evident that to develop research that is both meaningful to people who have the targeted condition and is feasible, there are important benefits of involving patients in the planning, conduct, and dissemination of research from its earliest stages. In fact, research funders and regulatory agencies are now explicitly encouraging, and sometimes requiring, that patients are engaged as partners in research. Although this approach has become commonplace in some fields of clinical research, it remains the exception in clinical pain research. As such, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials convened a meeting with patient partners and international representatives from academia, patient advocacy groups, government regulatory agencies, research funding organizations, academic journals, and the biopharmaceutical industry to develop consensus recommendations for advancing patient engagement in all stages of clinical pain research in an effective and purposeful manner. This article summarizes the results of this meeting and offers considerations for meaningful and authentic engagement of patient partners in clinical pain research, including recommendations for representation, timing, continuous engagement, measurement, reporting, and research dissemination.

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.

Stakeholder endorsement advancing the implementation of a patient-reported domain for harms in rheumatology clinical trials: Outcome of the OMERACT Safety Working Group.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an understanding of the concept of safety/harms experienced by patients involved in clinical trials for their rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and to seek input from the OMERACT community before moving forward to developing or selecting an outcome measurement instrument. METHODS: OMERACT 2023 presented and discussed interview results from 34 patients indicating that up to 171 items might be important for patients' harm-reporting. RESULTS: Domain was defined in detail and supported by qualitative work. Participants in the Special-Interest-Group endorsed (96 %) that enough qualitative data are available to start Delphi survey(s). CONCLUSION: We present a definition of safety/harms that represents the patient voice (i.e., patients' perception of safety) evaluating the symptomatic treatment-related adverse events for people with RMDs enrolled in clinical trials.

Interleukin-1ß inhibitors for the management of acute gout flares: a systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effects of interleukin-1ß (IL-1ß) inhibitors on gout flares. METHODS: Studies published between 2011 and 2022 that evaluated the effects of IL-1ß inhibitors in adult patients experiencing gout flares were eligible for inclusion. Outcomes including pain, frequency and intensity of gout flares, inflammation, and safety were assessed. Five electronic databases (Pubmed/Medline, Embase, Biosis/Ovid, Web of Science and Cochrane Library) were searched. Two independent reviewers performed study screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessments (Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2 for randomised controlled trials [RCTs] and Downs and Black for non-RCTs). Data are reported as a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Fourteen studies (10 RCTs) met the inclusion criteria, with canakinumab, anakinra, and rilonacept being the three included IL-1ß inhibitors. A total of 4367 patients with a history of gout were included from the 14 studies (N = 3446, RCTs; N = 159, retrospective studies [with a history of gout]; N = 762, post hoc analysis [with a history of gout]). In the RCTs, canakinumab and rilonacept were reported to have a better response compared to an active comparator for resolving pain, while anakinra appeared to be not inferior to an active comparator for resolving pain. Furthermore, canakinumab and rilonacept reduced the frequency of gout flares compared to the comparators. All three medications were mostly well-tolerated compared to their comparators. CONCLUSION: IL-1ß inhibitors may be a beneficial and safe medication for patients experiencing gout flares for whom current standard therapies are unsuitable. REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID: CRD42021267670.

Real-world evidence: new opportunities for osteoporosis research. Recommendations from a Working Group from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO).

This narrative review summarises the recommendations of a Working Group of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) for the conduct and reporting of real-world evidence studies with a focus on osteoporosis research. PURPOSE: Vast amounts of data are routinely generated at every healthcare contact and activity, and there is increasing recognition that these real-world data can be analysed to generate scientific evidence. Real-world evidence (RWE) is increasingly used to delineate the natural history of disease, assess real-life drug effectiveness, understand adverse events and in health economic analysis. The aim of this work was to understand the benefits and limitations of this type of data and outline approaches to ensure that transparent and high-quality evidence is generated. METHODS: A ESCEO Working Group was convened in December 2022 to discuss the applicability of RWE to osteoporosis research and approaches to best practice. RESULTS: This narrative review summarises the agreed recommendations for the conduct and reporting of RWE studies with a focus on osteoporosis research. CONCLUSIONS: It is imperative that research using real-world data is conducted to the highest standards with close attention to limitations and biases of these data, and with transparency at all stages of study design, data acquisition and curation, analysis and reporting to increase the trustworthiness of RWE study findings.

Optimizing and Accelerating the Development of Precision Pain Treatments for Chronic Pain: IMMPACT Review and Recommendations.

Large variability in the individual response to even the most-efficacious pain treatments is observed clinically, which has led to calls for a more personalized, tailored approach to treating patients with pain (ie, "precision pain medicine"). Precision pain medicine, currently an aspirational goal, would consist of empirically based algorithms that determine the optimal treatments, or treatment combinations, for specific patients (ie, targeting the right treatment, in the right dose, to the right patient, at the right time). Answering this question of "what works for whom" will certainly improve the clinical care of patients with pain. It may also support the success of novel drug development in pain, making it easier to identify novel treatments that work for certain patients and more accurately identify the magnitude of the treatment effect for those subgroups. Significant preliminary work has been done in this area, and analgesic trials are beginning to utilize precision pain medicine approaches such as stratified allocation on the basis of prespecified patient phenotypes using assessment methodologies such as quantitative sensory testing. Current major challenges within the field include: 1) identifying optimal measurement approaches to assessing patient characteristics that are most robustly and consistently predictive of inter-patient variation in specific analgesic treatment outcomes, 2) designing clinical trials that can identify treatment-by-phenotype interactions, and 3) selecting the most promising therapeutics to be tested in this way. This review surveys the current state of precision pain medicine, with a focus on drug treatments (which have been most-studied in a precision pain medicine context). It further presents a set of evidence-based recommendations for accelerating the application of precision pain methods in chronic pain research. PERSPECTIVE: Given the considerable variability in treatment outcomes for chronic pain, progress in precision pain treatment is critical for the field. An array of phenotypes and mechanisms contribute to chronic pain; this review summarizes current knowledge regarding which treatments are most effective for patients with specific biopsychosocial characteristics.

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.

FDA/Arthritis Foundation osteoarthritis drug development workshop recap: Assessment of long-term benefit.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize proceedings of a workshop convened to discuss the current state of science in the disease of osteoarthritis (OA), identify the knowledge gaps, and examine the developmental and regulatory challenges in bringing these products to market. DESIGN: Summary of the one-day workshop held virtually on June 22nd, 2021. RESULTS: Speakers selected by the Planning Committee presented data on the current approach to assessment of OA therapies, biomarkers in OA drug development, and the assessment of disease progression and long-term benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Demonstrated by numerous failed clinical trials, OA is a challenging disease for which to develop therapeutics. The challenge is magnified by the slow time of onset of disease and the need for clinical trials of long duration and/or large sample size to demonstrate the effect of an intervention. The OA science community, including academia, pharmaceutical companies, regulatory agencies, and patient communities, must continue to develop and test better clinical endpoints that meaningfully reflect disease modification related to long-term patient benefit.

Pain Reduction in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Who Use Opioids: A Post Hoc Analysis of Phase 3 Trials of Baricitinib.

OBJECTIVE: Pain reduction with baricitinib was assessed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who either used opioids or did not use opioids during three randomized, double-blind phase 3 trials. METHODS: Analysis populations were as follows: i) baricitinib 4 mg once daily versus placebo groups integrated from RA-BEAM (NCT01710358) for patients with inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate, RA-BUILD (NCT01721057) with IR to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and RA-BEACON (NCT01721044) with IR to at least one tumor necrosis factor inhibitors; ii) baricitinib 2 mg versus placebo from RA-BUILD and RA-BEACON; and iii) adalimumab 40 mg every other week versus placebo from RA-BEAM. Pain was measured by the Patient Assessment of Pain Visual Analog Scale. Analysis of covariance modeling assessed differences in pain reduction between treatments at each time point through Week 24, with an interaction term to test heterogeneous treatment effects across opioid users and nonusers. RESULTS: Baricitinib 4 mg had greater pain reduction versus placebo in opioid users and nonusers (P < 0.05) at all time points starting from Week 1; the pain reduction was similar between opioid users and nonusers. Baricitinib 2 mg had greater pain reduction versus placebo in opioid users and nonusers starting at Week 4. A significant difference in pain reduction was not observed for adalimumab versus placebo in the opioid users but was observed in nonusers at all time points. CONCLUSION: Pain reduction was observed and was similar between opioid users and nonusers with baricitinib 2 mg and 4 mg but not adalimumab in this post hoc analysis.

Serum urate as a proposed surrogate outcome measure in gout trials: From the OMERACT working group.

Serum urate (SU) is the most common primary efficacy outcome in trials of urate-lowering therapies for gout. Despite this, it is not formally considered a validated surrogate outcome. In this paper we will outline the definitions of biomarkers and surrogate outcome measures, respectively as well as the available frameworks and challenges in the assessment of the validity of serum urate as a surrogate in gout (i.e. a reasonable replacement for gout symptoms).