Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 48
Filtrar
1.
Ann Rheum Dis ; 2020 Dec 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33355152

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Non-adherence to treatment could preclude reaching an optimal outcome. Thirty to 80% of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) do not adhere to the agreed treatment. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to establish points to consider (PtCs) for the prevention, screening, assessment and management of non-adherence to (non-)pharmacological treatments in people with RMDs. METHODS: An EULAR task force (TF) was established, and the EULAR standardised operating procedures for the development of PtCs were followed. The TF included healthcare providers (HCPs), comprising rheumatologists, nurses, pharmacists, psychologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and patient-representatives from 12 European countries. A review of systematic reviews was conducted in advance to support the TF in formulating the PtCs. The level of agreement among the TF was established by anonymous online voting. RESULTS: Four overarching principles and nine PtCs were formulated. The PtCs reflect the phases of action on non-adherence. HCPs should assess and discuss adherence with patients on a regular basis and support patients to treatment adherence. As adherence is an agreed behaviour, the treatment has to be tailored to the patients' needs. The level of agreement ranged from 9.5 to 9.9 out of 10. CONCLUSIONS: These PtCs can help HCPs to support people with RMDs to be more adherent to the agreed treatment plan. The basic scheme being prevent non-adherence by bonding with the patient and building trust, overcoming structural barriers, assessing in a blame-free environment and tailoring the solution to the problem.

2.
Ann Rheum Dis ; 2020 Nov 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33158881

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) have been approved for use in various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. With five agents licensed, it was timely to summarise the current understanding of JAKi use based on a systematic literature review (SLR) on efficacy and safety. METHODS: Existing data were evaluated by a steering committee and subsequently reviewed by a 29 person expert committee leading to the formulation of a consensus statement that may assist the clinicians, patients and other stakeholders once the decision is made to commence a JAKi. The committee included patients, rheumatologists, a gastroenterologist, a haematologist, a dermatologist, an infectious disease specialist and a health professional. The SLR informed the Task Force on controlled and open clinical trials, registry data, phase 4 trials and meta-analyses. In addition, approval of new compounds by, and warnings from regulators that were issued after the end of the SLR search date were taken into consideration. RESULTS: The Task Force agreed on and developed four general principles and a total of 26 points for consideration which were grouped into six areas addressing indications, treatment dose and comedication, contraindications, pretreatment screening and risks, laboratory and clinical follow-up examinations, and adverse events. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendations were determined based on the SLR and levels of agreement were voted on for every point, reaching a range between 8.8 and 9.9 on a 10-point scale. CONCLUSION: The consensus provides an assessment of evidence for efficacy and safety of an important therapeutic class with guidance on issues of practical management.

3.
RMD Open ; 6(3)2020 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33161377

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To analyse how non-adherence to prescribed treatments might be prevented, screened, assessed and managed in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: An overview of systematic reviews (SR) was performed in four bibliographic databases. Research questions focused on: (1) effective interventions or strategies, (2) associated factors, (3) impact of shared decision making and effective communication, (4) practical things to prevent non-adherence, (5) effect of non-adherence on outcome, (6) screening and assessment tools and (7) responsible healthcare providers. The methodological quality of the reviews was assessed using AMSTAR-2. The qualitative synthesis focused on results and on the level of evidence attained from the studies included in the reviews. RESULTS: After reviewing 9908 titles, the overview included 38 SR on medication, 29 on non-pharmacological interventions and 28 on assessment. Content and quality of the included SR was very heterogeneous. The number of factors that may influence adherence exceed 700. Among 53 intervention studies, 54.7% showed a small statistically significant effect on adherence, and all three multicomponent interventions, including different modes of patient education and delivered by a variety of healthcare providers, showed a positive result in adherence to medication. No single assessment provided a comprehensive measure of adherence to either medication or exercise. CONCLUSIONS: The results underscore the complexity of non-adherence, its changing pattern and dependence on multi-level factors, the need to involve all stakeholders in all steps, the absence of a gold standard for screening and the requirement of multi-component interventions to manage it.

4.
Ann Rheum Dis ; 2020 Oct 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33055082

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Initiative established the Contextual Factors Working Group to guide the understanding, identification and handling of contextual factors for clinical trials. In clinical research, different uses of the term 'contextual factors' exist. This study explores the perspectives of researchers (including clinicians) and patients in defining 'contextual factor' and its related terminology, identifying such factors and accounting for them in trials across rheumatology. METHODS: We conducted individual semistructured interviews with researchers (including clinicians) who have experience within the field of contextual factors in clinical trials or other potentially relevant areas, and small focus group interviews with patients with rheumatic conditions. We transcribed the interviews and applied qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 12 researchers and 7 patients. Researcher's and patient's descriptions of contextual factors were categorised into two broad themes, each comprising two contextual factors types. The 'treatment effect' theme focused on factors explaining variations in treatment effects (A) among patients and (B) among studies. The 'outcome measurement' theme focused on factors that explain (C) variations in the measurement result itself (apart from actual changes/differences in the outcome) and (D) variations in the outcome itself (beside treatment of interest). Methods for identifying and handling contextual factors differed among these themes and types. CONCLUSIONS: Two main themes for contextual factors with four types of contextual factors were identified based on input from researchers and patients. This will guide operationalisation of contextual factors. Further research should refine our findings and establish consensus among relevant stakeholders.

5.
Ann Rheum Dis ; 79(10): 1269-1276, 2020 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32606042

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To explore whether trial population characteristics modify treatment responses across various interventions, comparators and rheumatic conditions. METHODS: In this meta-epidemiological study, we included trials from systematic reviews available from the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group published up to 23 April 2019 in Cochrane Library with meta-analyses of five or more randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published from year 2000. From trial reports, we extracted data on 20 population characteristics. For characteristics with sufficient data (ie, available for ≥2/3 of the trials), we performed multilevel meta-epidemiological analyses. RESULTS: We identified 19 eligible systematic reviews contributing 187 RCTs (212 comparisons). Only age and sex were explicitly reported in ≥2/3 of the trials. Using information about the country of the trials led to sufficient data for five further characteristics, that is, 7 out of 20 (35%) protocolised characteristics were analysed. The meta-regressions showed effect modification by economic status, place of residence, and, nearly, from healthcare system (explaining 4.8%, 0.9% and 1.5% of the between-trial variation, respectively). No effect modification was demonstrated from age, sex, patient education/health literacy or predominant religion. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the scarce reporting of most population characteristics, hampering investigation of their impact with meta-research. Our sparse results suggest that place of residence (ie, continent of the trial), economic status (based on World Bank classifications) and healthcare system (based on WHO index for health system performance) may be important in explaining the variation in treatment response across trials. There is an urgent need for consistent reporting of important population characteristics in trials. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019127642.


Assuntos
Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/métodos , Doenças Reumáticas/terapia , Resultado do Tratamento , Demografia , Humanos , Fatores Socioeconômicos
6.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 123: 27-38, 2020 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32217079

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To compare estimated treatment effects of physical therapy (PT) between patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and outcomes measured in other ways. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We selected randomized trials of PT with both a PROM and a non-PROM included in Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs). Two reviewers independently extracted data and risk-of-bias assessments. Our primary outcome was the ratio of odds ratios (RORs), used to quantify how effect varies between PROMs and non-PROMs; an ROR > 1 indicates larger effect when assessed by using PROMs. We used REML-methods to estimate associations of trial characteristics with effects and between-trial heterogeneity. RESULTS: From 90 relevant CSRs, 205 PT trials were included. The summary ROR across all the comparisons was not statistically significant (ROR, 0.88 [95% CI: 0.70-1.12]; P = 0.30); however, the heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 88.1%). When stratifying non-PROMs further into clearly objective non-PROMs (e.g., biomarkers) and other non-PROMs (e.g., aerobic capacity), the PROMs appeared more favorable than did clearly objective non-PROMs (ROR, 1.92 [95% CI: 0.99-3.72]; P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Estimated treatment effects based on PROMs are generally comparable with treatment effects measured in other ways. However, in our study, PROMs indicate a more favorable treatment effect compared with treatment effects based on clearly objective outcomes.

7.
Ann Rheum Dis ; 79(6): 685-699, 2020 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31969328

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To provide an update of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations to account for the most recent developments in the field. METHODS: An international task force considered new evidence supporting or contradicting previous recommendations and novel therapies and strategic insights based on two systematic literature searches on efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) since the last update (2016) until 2019. A predefined voting process was applied, current levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned and participants ultimately voted independently on their level of agreement with each of the items. RESULTS: The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 12 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GCs); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib). Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering on sustained clinical remission is provided. Cost and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs are addressed. Initially, MTX plus GCs and upon insufficient response to this therapy within 3 to 6 months, stratification according to risk factors is recommended. With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD or JAK inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD is recommended. On sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered, but not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were mostly high. CONCLUSIONS: These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on the management of RA with respect to benefit, safety, preferences and cost.


Assuntos
Antirreumáticos/uso terapêutico , Artrite Reumatoide/tratamento farmacológico , Produtos Biológicos/uso terapêutico , Sociedades Médicas , Medicamentos Sintéticos/uso terapêutico , Antirreumáticos/economia , Produtos Biológicos/economia , Consenso , Quimioterapia Combinada , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Inibidores de Janus Quinases/uso terapêutico , Medicamentos Sintéticos/economia , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto , Fator de Necrose Tumoral alfa/antagonistas & inibidores
8.
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) ; 72(10): 1410-1419, 2020 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31325214

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify and prioritize factors important to patients and caregivers with regard to medication adherence in gout, osteoporosis (OP), and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to describe the reasons for their decisions. METHODS: Patients with gout, OP, and RA and their caregivers, purposively sampled from 5 rheumatology clinics in Australia, identified and ranked factors that they considered important for medication adherence using nominal group technique and discussed their decisions. An importance score (IS; scale 0-1) was calculated, and qualitative data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: From 14 focus groups, 82 participants (67 patients and 15 caregivers) identified 49 factors. The top 5 factors based on the ranking of all participants were trust in doctor (IS 0.46), medication effectiveness (IS 0.31), doctor's knowledge (IS 0.25), side effects (IS 0.23), and medication-taking routine (IS 0.13). The order of the ranking varied by participant groupings, with patients ranking "trust in doctor" the highest, while caregivers ranked "side effects" the highest. The 5 themes reflecting the reasons for factors influencing adherence were as follows: motivation and certainty in supportive individualized care; living well and restoring function; fear of toxicity and cumulative harm; seeking control and involvement; and unnecessarily difficult and inaccessible. CONCLUSION: Factors related to the doctor, medication properties, and patients' medication knowledge and routine were important for adherence. Strengthening doctor-patient trust and partnership, managing side effects, and empowering patients with knowledge and skills for taking medication could enhance medication adherence in patients with rheumatic conditions.


Assuntos
Artrite Reumatoide/tratamento farmacológico , Gota/tratamento farmacológico , Adesão à Medicação/psicologia , Osteoporose/tratamento farmacológico , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Cuidadores/psicologia , Feminino , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Reumatologia
9.
Ann Rheum Dis ; 79(1): 61-68, 2020 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31300458

RESUMO

To update the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the role of the nurse in the management of chronic inflammatory arthritis (CIA) using the most up to date evidence. The EULAR standardised operating procedures were followed. A task force of rheumatologists, health professionals and patients, representing 17 European countries updated the recommendations, based on a systematic literature review and expert consensus. Higher level of evidence and new insights into nursing care for patients with CIA were added to the recommendation. Level of agreement was obtained by email voting. The search identified 2609 records, of which 51 (41 papers, 10 abstracts), mostly on rheumatoid arthritis, were included. Based on consensus, the task force formulated three overarching principles and eight recommendations. One recommendation remained unchanged, six were reworded, two were merged and one was reformulated as an overarching principle. Two additional overarching principles were formulated. The overarching principles emphasise the nurse's role as part of a healthcare team, describe the importance of providing evidence-based care and endorse shared decision-making in the nursing consultation with the patient. The recommendations cover the contribution of rheumatology nursing in needs-based patient education, satisfaction with care, timely access to care, disease management, efficiency of care, psychosocial support and the promotion of self-management. The level of agreement among task force members was high (mean 9.7, range 9.6-10.0). The updated recommendations encompass three overarching principles and eight evidence-based and expert opinion-based recommendations for the role of the nurse in the management of CIA.


Assuntos
Artrite Psoriásica/enfermagem , Artrite Reumatoide/enfermagem , Papel do Profissional de Enfermagem , Reumatologia , Espondilite Anquilosante/enfermagem , Artrite/enfermagem , Educação Continuada em Enfermagem , Acesso aos Serviços de Saúde , Humanos , Educação de Pacientes como Assunto , Satisfação do Paciente , Especialidades de Enfermagem , Espondiloartropatias/enfermagem , Telemedicina
10.
J Rheumatol ; 47(10): 1565-1574, 2020 10 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31839595

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Nonadherence to medications is common in rheumatic conditions and associated with increased morbidity. Heterogeneous outcome reporting by researchers compromises the synthesis of evidence of interventions targeting adherence. We aimed to assess the scope of outcomes in interventional studies of medication adherence. METHODS: We searched electronic databases to February 2019 for published randomized controlled trials and observational studies of interventions with the primary outcome of medication adherence including adults with any rheumatic condition, written in English. We extracted and analyzed all outcome domains and adherence measures with prespecified extraction and analysis protocols. RESULTS: Overall, 53 studies reported 71 outcome domains classified into adherence (1 domain), health outcomes (38 domains), and adherence-related factors (e.g., medication knowledge; 32 domains). We subdivided adherence into 3 phases: initiation (n = 13 studies, 25%), implementation (n = 32, 60%), persistence (n = 27, 51%), and phase unclear (n = 20, 38%). Thirty-seven different instruments reported adherence in 115 unique ways (this includes different adherence definitions and calculations, metric, and method of aggregation). Forty-one studies (77%) reported health outcomes. The most frequently reported were medication adverse events (n = 24, 45%), disease activity (n = 11, 21%), bone turnover markers/physical function/quality of life (each n = 10, 19%). Thirty-three studies (62%) reported adherence-related factors. The most frequently reported were medication beliefs (n = 8, 15%), illness perception/medication satisfaction/satisfaction with medication information (each n = 5, 9%), condition knowledge/medication knowledge/trust in doctor (each n = 3, 6%). CONCLUSION: The outcome domains and adherence measures in interventional studies targeting adherence are heterogeneous. Consensus on relevant outcomes will improve the comparison of different strategies to support medication adherence in rheumatology.

11.
Aging Clin Exp Res ; 31(7): 905-915, 2019 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30993659

RESUMO

There is increasing emphasis on patient-centred research to support the development, approval and reimbursement of health interventions that best meet patients' needs. However, there is currently little guidance on how meaningful patient engagement may be achieved. An expert working group, representing a wide range of stakeholders and disciplines, was convened by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Through a structured, collaborative process the group generated practical guidance to facilitate optimal patient engagement in clinical development and regulatory decisions. Patient engagement is a relational process. The principles outlined in this report were based on lessons learned through applied experience and on an extensive dialogue among the expert participants. This practice guidance forms a starting point from which tailoring of the approach to suit different chronic diseases may be undertaken.


Assuntos
Osteoartrite , Osteoporose , Participação do Paciente , Consenso , Pesquisa sobre Serviços de Saúde/organização & administração , Humanos , Osteoartrite/tratamento farmacológico , Osteoartrite/economia , Osteoporose/tratamento farmacológico , Osteoporose/economia , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Sociedades Médicas , Organização Mundial da Saúde
12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30843587

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To describe the experiences (including symptoms and perceived impacts on daily living) of people with a shoulder disorder. METHODS: Systematic review of qualitative studies. We searched for eligible qualitative studies indexed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL (EBSCO), SportDiscus (EBSCO) and Ovid PsycINFO up until November 2017. Two authors independently screened studies for inclusion, appraised their methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist, used thematic synthesis methods to generate themes describing the experiences reported by participants and assessed the confidence in the findings using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) approach. RESULTS: The inclusion criteria were met by eight studies, which included 133 participants (49 females and 84 males) with either rotator cuff disease, adhesive capsulitis, proximal humeral fracture, shoulder instability or unspecified shoulder pain. We generated seven themes to describe what people in the included studies reported experiencing: pain; physical function/activity limitations; participation restriction; sleep disruption; cognitive dysfunction; emotional distress; and other pathophysiological manifestations (other than pain). There were interactions between the themes, with particular experiences impacting on others (e.g. pain leading to reduced activities and sleep disruption). Following grading of the evidence, we considered it likely that most of the review findings were a reasonable representation of the experiences of people with shoulder disorders. CONCLUSION: Patients with shoulder disorders contend with considerable disruption to their life. The experiences described should be considered by researchers seeking to select the most appropriate outcomes to measure in clinical trials and other research studies in people with shoulder disorders.

13.
J Rheumatol ; 46(8): 969-975, 2019 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30709947

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To reach consensus on the core domains to be included in a core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders using the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 Core Domain Set process. METHODS: At OMERACT 2018, the OMERACT Shoulder Working Group conducted a workshop that presented the OMERACT 2016 preliminary core domain set and its rationale based upon a systematic review of domains measured in shoulder trials and international Delphi sessions involving patients, clinicians, and researchers, as well as a new systematic review of qualitative studies on the experiences of people with shoulder disorders. After discussions in breakout groups, the OMERACT core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders was presented for endorsement by OMERACT 2018 participants. RESULTS: The qualitative review (n = 8) identified all domains included in the preliminary core set. An additional domain, cognitive dysfunction, was also identified, but confidence that this represents a core domain was very low. The core domain set that was endorsed by the OMERACT participants, with 71% agreement, includes 4 "mandatory" trial domains: pain, function, patient global - shoulder, and adverse events including death; and 4 "important but optional" domains: participation (recreation/work), sleep, emotional well-being, and condition-specific pathophysiological manifestations. Cognitive dysfunction was voted out of the core domain set. CONCLUSION: OMERACT 2018 delegates endorsed a core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders. The next step includes identification of a core outcome measurement set that passes the OMERACT 2.1 Filter for measuring each domain.


Assuntos
Reumatologia , Dor de Ombro/terapia , Ombro , Humanos , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde
14.
J Rheumatol ; 46(10): 1409-1414, 2019 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30709963

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Shared Decision Making (SDM) Working Group aims to determine the core outcome domain set for measuring the effectiveness of SDM interventions in rheumatology trials. METHODS: A white paper was developed to clarify the draft core domain set. It was then used to prepare for interviews to investigate reasons for lack of consensus on it and to suggest further improvements. RESULTS: OMERACT scientists/clinicians (n = 13) and patients (n = 10) suggested limiting the core domain set to outcome domains, removing process domains, and clarifying remaining domains. CONCLUSION: A revised core domain set will undergo further consensus-building.


Assuntos
Tomada de Decisão Compartilhada , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde/métodos , Doenças Reumáticas , Reumatologia/métodos , Consenso , Técnica Delfos , Humanos , Participação dos Interessados
15.
J Rheumatol ; 46(9): 1202-1206, 2019 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30647162

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The OMERACT-Adherence meeting was convened to discuss the conceptual and methodological challenges in developing a core domain set (Adherence-CDS) for trials of interventions for medication adherence in rheumatology. METHODS: Forty participants from nine countries participated. RESULTS: Four ideas emerged: for adherence trials, the Adherence-CDS could include adherence and the condition-specific CDS; many factors affect adherence and are intervention targets, contextual factors, or outcome domains; adherence is a critical factor in drug trials; and standardized adherence measures are needed. CONCLUSION: Despite the challenges, the meeting clarified an approach to developing an Adherence-CDS that complements existing OMERACT work and methodology.


Assuntos
Antirreumáticos/uso terapêutico , Adesão à Medicação , Doenças Reumáticas/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Reumatologia
16.
J Rheumatol ; 46(9): 1159-1163, 2019 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30647174

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The Contextual Factors Working Group aims to provide guidance on addressing contextual factors in rheumatology trials within OMERACT. METHODS: During the Special Interest Group session at OMERACT 2018, preliminary results were presented from a case scenario survey and semistructured interviews, including contextual factors mentioned in these. A group-based exercise sought to identify and rank important generic contextual factors. RESULTS: A total of 79 candidate factors were listed. Across the 3 groups, gender/sex, comorbidities, and the healthcare system were ranked as most important. CONCLUSION: The identified important contextual factor domains may be considered a provisional list pending further research.


Assuntos
Doenças Reumáticas , Reumatologia , Consenso , Humanos , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Prognóstico , Fatores de Risco
17.
J Rheumatol ; 44(10): 1536-1543, 2017 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28811351

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) Flare Group was established to develop a reliable way to identify and measure RA flares in randomized controlled trials (RCT). Here, we summarized the development and field testing of the RA Flare Questionnaire (RA-FQ), and the voting results at OMERACT 2016. METHODS: Classic and modern psychometric methods were used to assess reliability, validity, sensitivity, factor structure, scoring, and thresholds. Interviews with patients and clinicians also assessed content validity, utility, and meaningfulness of RA-FQ scores. RESULTS: People with RA in observational trials in Canada (n = 896) and France (n = 138), and an RCT in the Netherlands (n = 178) completed 5 items (11-point numerical rating scale) representing RA Flare core domains. There was moderate to high evidence of reliability, content and construct validity, and responsiveness. Factor analysis supported unidimensionality. Rasch analysis showed acceptable fit to the Rasch model, with items and people covering a broad measurement continuum and evidence of appropriate targeting of items to people, ordered thresholds, minimal differential item functioning by language, sex, or age. A summative score across items is defensible, yielding an interval score (0-50) where higher scores reflect worsening flare. The RA-FQ received endorsement from 88% of attendees that it passed the OMERACT Filter 2.0 "Eyeball Test" for instrument selection. CONCLUSION: The RA-FQ has been developed to identify and measure RA flares. Its review through OMERACT Filter 2.0 shows evidence of reliability, content and construct validity, and responsiveness. These properties merit its further validation as an outcome for clinical trials.


Assuntos
Artrite Reumatoide/diagnóstico , Medição da Dor , Humanos , Psicometria , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Reumatologia , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Inquéritos e Questionários , Avaliação de Sintomas
18.
J Rheumatol ; 44(10): 1544-1550, 2017 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28765239

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Working Group was to determine the core set of outcome domains and subdomains for measuring the effectiveness of shared decision-making (SDM) interventions in rheumatology clinical trials. METHODS: Following the OMERACT Filter 2.0, and based on a previous literature review of SDM outcome domains and a nominal group process at OMERACT 2014, (1) an online Delphi survey was conducted to gather feedback on the draft core set and refine its domains and subdomains, and (2) a workshop was held at the OMERACT 2016 meeting to gain consensus on the draft core set. RESULTS: A total of 170 participants completed Round 1 of the Delphi survey, and 116 completed Round 2. Respondents came from 29 countries, with 49% being patients/caregivers. Results showed that 14 out of the 17 subdomains within the 7 domains exceeded the 70% criterion (endorsement ranged from 83% to 100% of respondents). At OMERACT 2016, only 8% of the 96 attendees were patients/caregivers. Despite initial votes of support in breakout groups, there was insufficient comfort about the conceptualization of these 7 domains and 17 subdomains for these to be endorsed at OMERACT 2016 (endorsement ranged from 17% to 68% of participants). CONCLUSION: Differences between the Delphi survey and consensus meeting may be explained by the manner in which the outcomes were presented, variations in participant characteristics, and the context of voting. Further efforts are needed to address the limited understanding of SDM and its outcomes among OMERACT participants.


Assuntos
Tomada de Decisões , Doenças Reumáticas/terapia , Reumatologia , Consenso , Gerenciamento Clínico , Humanos
19.
J Rheumatol ; 44(12): 1889-1893, 2017 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28765250

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) working group on the patients' perspective on remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been working on this topic since 2010. At OMERACT 2016, progress and preliminary data on validity of measurement instruments for pain, fatigue, and independence in remission in RA were presented, and future directions were explored. METHODS: A special interest group was organized, in which the current data on the patients' perspective on remission were presented. The ongoing study that aimed to validate measurement instruments for pain, fatigue, and independence in a state of low disease activity or remission was presented, and preliminary data on construct validity and discriminative capacity were evaluated cross-sectionally. RESULTS: At OMERACT 2016, the progress of the working group and preliminary data from 142 of the anticipated 300 patients were presented. Selected instruments significantly correlated with the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (construct validity) and all instruments except 1 discriminated between patients in and patients not in remission. The subsequent discussion mainly focused around 3 points: (1) the formulation of patient perceived remission, (2) the duration of remission, and (3) the measurement of the domain independence. An informal vote indicated a slight preference for working toward modifying the current remission criteria by adding patient-reported outcomes (PRO), or by substituting the patient's global assessment with 1 or more PRO. CONCLUSION: More evidence on measuring patients' perspective on remission in RA is needed before an informed decision can be made regarding development or modification of remission definitions.


Assuntos
Artrite Reumatoide/tratamento farmacológico , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde/métodos , Participação do Paciente , Indução de Remissão , Humanos , Reumatologia
20.
J Rheumatol ; 44(11): 1734-1739, 2017 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28461648

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The importance of contextual factors (CF) for appropriate patient-specific care is widely acknowledged. However, evidence in clinical trials on how CF influence outcomes remains sparse. The 2014 Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Handbook introduced the role of CF in outcome assessment and defined them as "potential confounders and/or effect modifiers of outcomes in randomized controlled trials." Subsequently, the CF Methods Group (CFMG) was formed to develop guidance on how to address CF in clinical trials. METHODS: First, the CFMG conducted an e-mail survey of OMERACT working groups (WG) to analyze how they had addressed CF in outcome measurement so far. The results facilitated an informed discussion at the OMERACT 2016 CFMG Special Interest Group (SIG) session, with the aim of gaining preliminary consensus regarding an operational definition of CF and to make a first selection of potentially relevant CF. RESULTS: The survey revealed that the WG had mostly used the OMERACT Handbook and/or the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) definition. However, significant heterogeneity was found in the methods used to identify, refine, and categorize CF candidates. The SIG participants agreed on using the ICF as a framework along with the OMERACT Handbook definition. A list with 28 variables was collected including person-related factors and physical and social environments. Recommendations from the SIG guided the CFMG to formulate 3 preliminary projects on how to identify and analyze CF. CONCLUSION: New methods are urgently needed to assist researchers to identify and characterize CF that significantly influence the interpretation of results in clinical trials. The CFMG defined first steps to develop further guidance.


Assuntos
Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/normas , Doenças Reumáticas/terapia , Reumatologia/normas , Consenso , Interpretação Estatística de Dados , Humanos , Projetos de Pesquisa
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA