Individualized decision aid for diverse women with lupus nephritis (IDEA-WON): A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment decision-making regarding immunosuppressive therapy is challenging for individuals with lupus. We assessed the effectiveness of a decision aid for immunosuppressive therapy in lupus nephritis. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In a United States multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial (RCT), adult women with lupus nephritis, mostly from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds with low socioeconomic status (SES), seen in in- or outpatient settings, were randomized to an individualized, culturally tailored, computerized decision aid versus American College of Rheumatology (ACR) lupus pamphlet (1:1 ratio), using computer-generated randomization. We hypothesized that the co-primary outcomes of decisional conflict and informed choice regarding immunosuppressive medications would improve more in the decision aid group. Of 301 randomized women, 298 were analyzed; 47% were African-American, 26% Hispanic, and 15% white. Mean age (standard deviation [SD]) was 37 (12) years, 57% had annual income of <$40,000, and 36% had a high school education or less. Compared with the provision of the ACR lupus pamphlet (n = 147), participants randomized to the decision aid (n = 151) had (1) a clinically meaningful and statistically significant reduction in decisional conflict, 21.8 (standard error [SE], 2.5) versus 12.7 (SE, 2.0; p = 0.005) and (2) no difference in informed choice in the main analysis, 41% versus 31% (p = 0.08), but clinically meaningful and statistically significant difference in sensitivity analysis (net values for immunosuppressives positive [in favor] versus negative [against]), 50% versus 35% (p = 0.006). Unresolved decisional conflict was lower in the decision aid versus pamphlet groups, 22% versus 44% (p < 0.001). Significantly more patients in the decision aid versus pamphlet group rated information to be excellent for understanding lupus nephritis (49% versus 33%), risk factors (43% versus 27%), medication options (50% versus 33%; p ≤ 0.003 for all); and the ease of use of materials was higher in the decision aid versus pamphlet groups (51% versus 38%; p = 0.006). Key study limitations were the exclusion of men, short follow-up, and the lack of clinical outcomes, including medication adherence. CONCLUSIONS: An individualized decision aid was more effective than usual care in reducing decisional conflict for choice of immunosuppressive medications in women with lupus nephritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02319525.

Identifying core domains to assess flare in rheumatoid arthritis: an OMERACT international patient and provider combined Delphi consensus.

OBJECTIVE: For rheumatoid arthritis (RA), there is no consensus on how to define and assess flare. Variability in flare definitions impairs understanding of findings across studies and limits ability to pool results. The OMERACT RA Flare Group sought to identify domains to define RA flares from patient and healthcare professional (HCP) perspectives. METHODS: Flare was described as a worsening of disease activity of sufficient intensity and duration to consider a change in therapy. International patients and HCPs participated in separate and combined rounds of Delphi exercises to rate candidate flare domains previously generated in patient focus groups. Core domains were defined as those with ≥70% ratings of being 'essential' according to the third/final Delphi exercise. RESULTS: The final Delphi included 125 RA patients from 10 countries and 108 HCPs from 23 countries who rated 14 domains. Patients had a mean (±SD) age of 56±12 years and disease duration of 18±12 years. HCPs included physicians from clinical practice/research and industry, allied health providers and researchers with 17±11 years experience. Core domains comprised: pain (93%), function (89%), swollen joints (84%), tender joints (81%), participation (81%), stiffness (79%), patient global assessment (76%) and self-management (75%). Fatigue (68%), which did not reach group consensus, will receive additional consideration. CONCLUSIONS: As part of the process to develop a measure for RA flare, patients and HCPs agreed on eight core domains. Next steps include identifying items to assess domains and conducting studies to validate and refine a new measure.

Harms reported by patients in rheumatology drug trials: a systematic review of randomized trials in the cochrane library from an OMERACT working group.

BACKGROUND: Underreporting of harms in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may lead to incomplete or erroneous assessments of the perceived benefit-to-harm profile of an intervention. To compare benefit with harm in clinical practice and future clinical studies, adverse event (AE) profiles including severity need to be understood. Even though patients report harm symptoms earlier and more frequently than clinicians, rheumatology RCTs currently do not provide a reporting framework from the patient's perspective regarding harms. Our objective for this meta-research project was to identify AEs in order to determine harm clusters and whether these could be self-reported by patients. Our other objective was to examine reported severity grading of the reported harms. METHODS: We considered primary publications of RCTs eligible if they were published between 2008 and 2018 evaluating pharmacological interventions in patients with a rheumatic or musculoskeletal condition and if they were included in Cochrane reviews. We extracted data on harms such as reported AE terms together with severity (if described), and categorized AE- and severity-terms into overall groups. We deemed all AEs with felt components appropriate for patient self-reporting. RESULTS: The literature search identified 187 possible Cochrane reviews, of which 94 were eligible for evaluation, comprising 1,297 articles on individual RCTs. Of these RCTs, 93 pharmacological trials met our inclusion criteria (including 31,023 patients; representing 20,844 accumulated patient years), which reported a total of 21,498 AEs, corresponding to 693 unique reported terms for AEs. We further sub-categorized these terms into 280 harm clusters (i.e., themes). AEs appropriate for patient self-reporting accounted for 58% of the AEs reported. Among the reported AEs, we identified medical terms for all of the 117 harm clusters appropriate for patient reporting and lay language terms for 86%. We intended to include severity grades of the reported AEs, but there was no evidence for systematic reporting of clinician- or patient-reported severity in the primary articles of the 93 trials. However, we identified 33 terms suggesting severity, but severity grading was discernible in only 9%, precluding a breakdown by severity in this systematic review. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the need for a standardized framework for patients' reporting of harms in rheumatology trials. Reporting of AEs with severity should be included in future reporting of harms, both from the patients' and investigators' perspectives. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42018108393.

Identifying Possible Outcome Domains from Existing Outcome Measures to Inform an OMERACT Core Domain Set for Safety in Rheumatology Trials.

OBJECTIVE: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Safety Working Group objective was to identify harm domains from existing outcome measurements in rheumatology. METHODS: Systematically searching the MEDLINE database on January 24, 2017, we identified full-text articles that could be used for harm outcomes in rheumatology. Domains/items from the identified instruments were described and the content synthesized to provide a preliminary framework for harm outcomes. RESULTS: From 435 possible references, 24 were read in full text and 9 were included: 7 measurement instruments were identified. Investigation of domains/items revealed considerable heterogeneity in the grouping and approach. CONCLUSION: The ideal way to assess harm aspects from the patients' perspective has not yet been ascertained.

Achieving Consensus on Total Joint Replacement Trial Outcome Reporting Using the OMERACT Filter: Endorsement of the Final Core Domain Set for Total Hip and Total Knee Replacement Trials for Endstage Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Discussion and endorsement of the OMERACT total joint replacement (TJR) core domain set for total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) for endstage arthritis; and next steps for selection of instruments. METHODS: The OMERACT TJR working group met at the 2016 meeting at Whistler, British Columbia, Canada. We summarized the previous systematic reviews, the preliminary OMERACT TJR core domain set and results from previous surveys. We discussed preliminary core domains for TJR clinical trials, made modifications, and identified challenges with domain measurement. RESULTS: Working group participants (n = 26) reviewed, clarified, and endorsed each of the inner and middle circle domains and added a range of motion domain to the research agenda. TJR were limited to THR and TKR but included all endstage hip and knee arthritis refractory to medical treatment. Participants overwhelmingly endorsed identification and evaluation of top instruments mapping to the core domains (100%) and use of subscales of validated multidimensional instruments to measure core domains for the TJR clinical trial core measurement set (92%). CONCLUSION: An OMERACT core domain set for hip/knee TJR trials has been defined and we are selecting instruments to develop the TJR clinical trial core measurement set to serve as a common foundation for harmonizing measures in TJR clinical trials.

Developing an OMERACT Core Outcome Set for Assessing Safety Components in Rheumatology Trials: The OMERACT Safety Working Group.

OBJECTIVE: Failure to report harmful outcomes in clinical research can introduce bias favoring a potentially harmful intervention. While core outcome sets (COS) are available for benefits in randomized controlled trials in many rheumatic conditions, less attention has been paid to safety in such COS. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.0 emphasizes the importance of measuring harms. The Safety Working Group was reestablished at the OMERACT 2016 with the objective to develop a COS for assessing safety components in trials across rheumatologic conditions. METHODS: The safety issue has previously been discussed at OMERACT, but without a consistent approach to ensure harms were included in COS. Our methods include (1) identifying harmful outcomes in trials of interventions studied in patients with rheumatic diseases by a systematic literature review, (2) identifying components of safety that should be measured in such trials by use of a patient-driven approach including qualitative data collection and statistical organization of data, and (3) developing a COS through consensus processes including everyone involved. RESULTS: Members of OMERACT including patients, clinicians, researchers, methodologists, and industry representatives reached consensus on the need to continue the efforts on developing a COS for safety in rheumatology trials. There was a general agreement about the need to identify safety-related outcomes that are meaningful to patients, framed in terms that patients consider relevant so that they will be able to make informed decisions. CONCLUSION: The OMERACT Safety Working Group will advance the work previously done within OMERACT using a new patient-driven approach.

An OMERACT Initiative Toward Consensus to Identify and Characterize Candidate Contextual Factors: Report from the Contextual Factors Working Group.

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.

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

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

Content and Construct Validity, Reliability, and Responsiveness of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Flare Questionnaire: OMERACT 2016 Workshop Report.

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.

More than Just Minutes of Stiffness in the Morning: Report from the OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis Flare Group Stiffness Breakout Sessions.

OBJECTIVE: Stiffness was endorsed within the rheumatoid arthritis (RA) flare core domain set at the previous Outcome Measures in Rheumatology meeting (OMERACT 11). Two stiffness breakout groups at the present OMERACT 12 RA flare workshop discussed results of new qualitative studies in RA stiffness. METHODS: Results from 2 independent studies of RA stiffness were presented to breakout group participants, followed by group discussions about stiffness measurement. RESULTS: Both studies identified stiffness as complex, variable with the level of disease activity, and as encompassing concepts of impact, intensity, timing, location, and duration. That stiffness has an effect on multiple dimensions of health was a common finding. Participants agreed that stiffness is an important aspect of RA flare. Whether measuring only morning stiffness duration, the traditional approach in RA, was sufficient in coverage of the concept was unclear. Groups agreed that more research on stiffness measurement is needed considering the importance patients place on the effect of stiffness. CONCLUSION: Results from independent studies highlight stiffness effect as an important feature of RA, in addition to intensity, timing, location, and duration. Additional work is needed to identify optimal ways to assess stiffness in RA and other rheumatologic diseases.

Feasibility and Domain Validation of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) Flare Core Domain Set: Report of the OMERACT 2014 RA Flare Group Plenary.

OBJECTIVE: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) Flare Group was established to develop an approach to identify and measure RA flares. An overview of our OMERACT 2014 plenary is provided. METHODS: Feasibility and validity of flare domains endorsed at OMERACT 11 (2012) were described based on initial data from 3 international studies collected using a common set of questions specific to RA flare. Mean flare frequency, severity, and duration data were presented, and domain scores were compared by flare status to examine known-groups validity. Breakout groups provided input for stiffness, self-management, contextual factors, and measurement considerations. RESULTS: Flare data from 501 patients in an observational study indicated 39% were in flare, with mean (SD) severity of 6.0 (2.6) and 55% lasting > 14 days. Pain, physical function, fatigue, participation, and stiffness scores averaged ≥ 2 times higher (2 of 11 points) in flaring individuals. Correlations between flare domains and corresponding legacy instruments were obtained: r = 0.46 to 0.93. A combined definition (patient report of flare and 28-joint Disease Activity Score increase) was evaluated in 2 other trials, with similar results. Breakout groups debated specific measurement issues. CONCLUSION: These data contribute initial evidence of feasibility and content validation of the OMERACT RA Flare Core Domain Set. Our research agenda for OMERACT 2016 includes establishing duration/intensity criteria and developing criteria to identify RA flares using existing disease activity measures. Ongoing work will also address discordance between patient and physician ratings, facilitate application of flare criteria to clinical care, elucidate the role of self-management, and finalize recommendations for RA flare measurement.

Updating the OMERACT filter: implications for patient-reported outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: At a previous Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) meeting, participants reflected on the underlying methods of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument development. The participants requested proposals for more explicit instrument development protocols that would contribute to an enhanced version of the "Truth" statement in the OMERACT Filter, a widely used guide for outcome validation. In the present OMERACT session, we explored to what extent these new Filter 2.0 proposals were practicable, feasible, and already being applied. METHODS: Following overview presentations, discussion groups critically reviewed the extent to which case studies of current OMERACT Working Groups complied with or negated the proposed PRO development framework, whether these observations had a more general application, and what issues remained to be resolved. RESULTS: Several aspects of PRO development were recognized as particularly important, and the need to directly involve patients at every stage of an iterative PRO development program was endorsed. This included recognition that patients contribute as partners in the research and not merely as subjects. Correct communication of concepts with the words used in questionnaires was central to their performance as measuring instruments, and ensuring this understanding crossed cultural and linguistic boundaries was important in international studies or comparisons. CONCLUSION: Participants recognized, endorsed, and were generally already putting into practice the principles of PRO development presented in the plenary session. Further work is needed on some existing instruments and on establishing widespread good practice for working in close collaboration with patients.

Establishing a core domain set to measure rheumatoid arthritis flares: report of the OMERACT 11 RA flare Workshop.

OBJECTIVE: The OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) Flare Group (FG) is developing a data-driven, patient-inclusive, consensus-based RA flare definition for use in clinical trials, longterm observational studies, and clinical practice. At OMERACT 11, we sought endorsement of a proposed core domain set to measure RA flare. METHODS: Patient and healthcare professional (HCP) qualitative studies, focus groups, and literature review, followed by patient and HCP Delphi exercises including combined Delphi consensus at Outcome Measures in Rheumatology 10 (OMERACT 10), identified potential domains to measure flare. At OMERACT 11, breakout groups discussed key domains and instruments to measure them, and proposed a research agenda. Patients were active research partners in all focus groups and domain identification activities. Processes for domain selection and patient partner involvement were case studies for OMERACT Filter 2.0 methodology. RESULTS: A pre-meeting combined Delphi exercise for defining flare identified 9 domains as important (>70% consensus from patients or HCP). Four new patient-reported domains beyond those included in the RA disease activity core set were proposed for inclusion (fatigue, participation, stiffness, and self-management). The RA FG developed preliminary flare questions (PFQ) to measure domains. In combined plenary voting sessions, OMERACT 11 attendees endorsed the proposed RA core set to measure flare with ≥78% consensus and the addition of 3 additional domains to the research agenda for OMERACT 12. CONCLUSION: At OMERACT 11, a core domain set to measure RA flare was ratified and endorsed by attendees. Domain validation aligning with Filter 2.0 is ongoing in new randomized controlled clinical trials and longitudinal observational studies using existing and new instruments including a set of PFQ.

Patient advocacy and arthritis: moving forward.

Patient advocacy is based on the premise that people have the right to make their own choices about their health care. Personal advocacy is centred on the experiential expertise of the individual affected by the condition, whereas group advocacy is grounded on patient-centred strategies and actions. The first patient advocacy groups for arthritis were set up over 20 years ago in the USA and have subsequently spread to many other countries. This paper discusses the growth and impact of personal advocacy as well as recent developments in group advocacy in the Asia-Pacific region, Europe, and North America, in terms of arthritis awareness, research, corporate partnerships, and the Bone and Joint Decade global initiative.