The EULAR Outcome Measures Library: development and an example from a systematic review for systemic lupus erythematous instruments.

OBJECTIVES: Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are relevant in rheumatology. Variable accessibility and validity of commonly used PROs are obstacles to homogeneity in evidence synthesis. The objective of this project was to provide a comprehensive library of "validated PROs". METHODS: A launch meeting with rheumatologists, PROs methodological experts, and patients, was held to define the library's aims and scope, and basic requirements. To feed the library we performed systematic reviews on selected diseases and domains. Relevant information on PROs was collected using standardised data collection forms based on the COSMIN checklist. RESULTS: The EULAR Outcomes Measures Library (OML), whose aims are to provide and to advise on PROs on a user-friendly manner albeit based on scientific grounds, has been launched and made accessible to all. PROs currently included cover any domain and, are generic or specifically target to the following diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, spondyloarthritis, low back pain, systemic lupus erythematosus, gout, osteoporosis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and fibromyalgia. Up to 236 instruments (106 generic and 130 specific) have been identified, evaluated, and included. The systematic review for SLE, which yielded 10 specific instruments, is presented here as an example. The OML website includes, for each PRO, information on the construct being measured and the extent of validation, recommendations for use, and available versions; it also contains a glossary on common validation terms. CONCLUSIONS: The OML is an in progress library led by rheumatologists, related professionals and patients, that will help to better understand and apply PROs in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

Finalisation and validation of the rheumatoid arthritis impact of disease score, a patient-derived composite measure of impact of rheumatoid arthritis: a EULAR initiative.

OBJECTIVE: A patient-derived composite measure of the impact of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the rheumatoid arthritis impact of disease (RAID) score, takes into account pain, functional capacity, fatigue, physical and emotional wellbeing, quality of sleep and coping. The objectives were to finalise the RAID and examine its psychometric properties. METHODS: An international multicentre cross-sectional and longitudinal study of consecutive RA patients from 12 European countries was conducted to examine the psychometric properties of the different combinations of instruments that might be included within the RAID combinations scale (numeric rating scales (NRS) or various questionnaires). Construct validity was assessed cross-sectionally by Spearman correlation, reliability by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) in 50 stable patients, and sensitivity to change by standardised response means (SRM) in 88 patients whose treatment was intensified. RESULTS: 570 patients (79% women, mean ± SD age 56 ± 13 years, disease duration 12.5 ± 10.3 years, disease activity score (DAS28) 4.1 ± 1.6) participated in the validation study. NRS questions performed as well as longer combinations of questionnaires: the final RAID score is composed of seven NRS questions. The final RAID correlated strongly with patient global (R=0.76) and significantly also with other outcomes (DAS28 R=0.69, short form 36 physical -0.59 and mental -0.55, p<0.0001 for all). Reliability was high (ICC 0.90; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.94) and sensitivity to change was good (SRM 0.98 (0.96 to 1.00) compared with DAS28 SRM 1.06 (1.01 to 1.11)). CONCLUSION: The RAID score is a patient-derived composite score assessing the seven most important domains of impact of RA. This score is now validated; sensitivity to change should be further examined in larger studies.

European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the inclusion of patient representatives in scientific projects.

OBJECTIVE: To develop recommendations to enable successful inclusion of the patient perspective in European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)-funded scientific research projects. METHODS: The EULAR standardised operational procedures for guideline development were followed. A systematic literature review was presented during a first task force meeting, including 3 rheumatologists, 1 rheumatologist/epidemiologist, 2 allied health professionals, 2 representatives of arthritis research organisations and 7 patient representatives, resulting in 38 statements. A Delphi method was carried out to reduce and refine the statements and agree on a set of eight. Next, a survey among a wider group of experts, professionals and patient representatives (n=42), was completed. Feedback from this wider group was discussed at the second meeting and integrated in the final wording of the recommendations. Subsequently, the level of agreement of the group of experts (n=81) was re-evaluated. RESULTS: The project resulted in a definition of patient research partner and agreement on a set of eight recommendations for their involvement in research projects. These recommendations provide practical guidance for organising patient participation, capturing (1) the role of patient research partners, (2) phase of involvement, (3) the recommended number, (4) recruitment, (5) selection, (6) support, (7) training and (8) acknowledgement. CONCLUSION: Collaboration between patients and professionals in research is relatively new. Trials or effectiveness studies are not yet available. Nevertheless, it is possible to define recommendations for the inclusion of patients in research following a solid expert opinion based consensus process.

Elaboration of the preliminary Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) score: a EULAR initiative.

BACKGROUND: Current response criteria in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) usually assess only three patient-reported outcomes (PROs): pain, functional disability and patient global assessment. Other important PROs such as fatigue are not included. OBJECTIVE: To elaborate a patient-derived composite response index for use in clinical trials in RA, the RA Impact of Disease (RAID) score. METHODS: Ten patients identified 17 domains or areas of health relevant for inclusion in the score, then 96 patients (10 per country in 10 European countries) ranked these domains in order of decreasing importance. The seven most important domains were selected. Instruments were chosen for each domain after extensive literature research of psychometric properties and expert opinion. The relative weight of each of the domains was obtained from 505 patients who were asked to "distribute 100 points" among the seven domains. The average ranks of importance of these domains were then computed. RESULTS: The RAID score includes seven domains with the following relative weights: pain (21%), functional disability (16%), fatigue (15%), emotional well-being (12%), sleep (12%), coping (12%) and physical well-being (12%). Weights were similar across countries and across patient and disease characteristics. Proposed instruments include the Health Assessment Questionnaire and numerical ratings scales. CONCLUSION: The preliminary RAID score is a patient-derived weighted score to assess the impact of RA. An ongoing study will allow the final choice of questionnaires and assessment of validity. This score can be used in clinical trials as a new composite index that captures information relevant to patients.