Outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis randomised trials over the last 50 years.
ABSTRACT: The development and application of standardised sets of outcomes to be measured and reported in clinical trials have the potential to increase the efficiency and value of research. One of the most notable of the current outcome sets began nearly 20 years ago: the World Health Organization and International League of Associations for Rheumatology core set of outcomes for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials, originating from the OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) Initiative. This study assesses the use of this core outcome set by randomised trials in rheumatology.An observational review was carried out of 350 randomised trials for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis identified through The Cochrane Library (up to and including September 2012 issue). Reports of these trials were evaluated to determine whether or not there were trends in the proportion of trials reporting on the full set of core outcomes over time. Researchers who conducted trials after the publication of the core set were contacted to assess their awareness of it and to collect reasons for non-inclusion of the full core set of outcomes in the study.Since the introduction of the core set of outcomes for rheumatoid arthritis, the consistency of measurement of the core set of outcomes has improved, although variation in the choice of measurement instrument remains. The majority of trialists who responded said that they would consider using the core outcome set in the design of a new trial.This observational review suggests that a higher percentage of trialists conducting trials in rheumatoid arthritis are now measuring the rheumatoid arthritis core outcome set. Core outcome sets have the potential to improve the evidence base for health care, but consideration must be given to the methods for disseminating their availability amongst the relevant communities.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Over the last 20 years, there have been marked improvements in the availability of effective medications for rheumatic conditions such as gout, osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis (RA), which have led to a reduction in disease flares and the risk of re-fracture in osteoporosis, and the slowing of disease progression in RA. However, medication adherence remains suboptimal, as treatment regimens can be complex and difficult to continue long term. Many trials have been conducted to improve adherence to medication. Core domains, which are the outcomes of most relevance to patients and clinicians, are a pivotal component of any trial. These core domains should be measured consistently, so that all relevant trials can be combined in systematic reviews and meta-analyses to reach conclusions that are more valid. Failure to do this severely limits the potential for trial-based evidence to inform decisions on how to support medication adherence. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) - Interventions for Medication Adherence study by the OMERACT-Adherence Group aims to develop a core domain set for interventions that aim to support medication adherence in rheumatology.<h4>Methods/design</h4>This OMERACT-Adherence study has five phases: (1) a systematic review to identify outcome domains that have been reported in interventions focused on supporting medication adherence in rheumatology; (2) semi-structured stakeholder interviews with patients and caregivers to determine their views on the core domains; (3) focus groups using the nominal group technique with patients and caregivers to identify and rank domains that are relevant to them, including the reasons for their choices; (4) an international three-round modified Delphi survey involving patients with diverse rheumatic conditions, caregivers, health professionals, researchers and other stakeholders to develop a preliminary core domain set; and (5) a stakeholder workshop with OMERACT members to review, vote on and reach a consensus on the core domain set for interventions to support medication adherence in rheumatology.<h4>Discussion</h4>Establishing a core domain set to be reported in all intervention studies undertaken to support patients with medication adherence will enhance the relevance and the impact of these results and improve the lives of people with rheumatic conditions.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Limb fractures in children are common yet there are few trials that compare treatments for these injuries. There is significant heterogeneity in the outcomes reported in the paediatric orthopaedic literature, which limits the ability to compare study results and draw firm conclusions. The aim of the CORE-Kids Study is to develop a core outcome set for use in research studies of childhood limb fractures. A core outcome set will provide a minimum set of outcomes to be measured in all trials to minimise the heterogeneity of outcomes reported and minimise reporting bias. A core outcome set ensures that outcomes are reported that are relevant to families as well as clinicians. The core outcome set will include additional upper and lower limb modules. METHODS:The development of the core outcome set will require four phases to evaluate:What are the outcomes that are relevant to professionals?What are the outcomes that are relevant to families?What are the most important of these outcomes?Which outcomes should be included in the core outcome set?This will be completed through a systematic review of trials to identify the outcomes domains that are relevant to trialists. A series of semi-structured interviews will be completed with families to identify the outcome domains that are relevant to families. These outcome domains will be used in a three-round Delphi Study to analyse the importance of these outcome domains to a range of stakeholders including parents, clinicians and researchers. Following this, the core outcome set will be decided at a consensus meeting. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval has been awarded HRA/REC IRAS number 262503. Date of approval 06/08/2019. Dissemination will be through scientific literature and international societies. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative, registration number: 1274. Date of registration 13/12/2018. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42018106605.
Project description:The objectives of this systematic literature review (SLR) were to identify domains and outcome measures used in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) studies in the past 5 years, and to compare the measurement of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 2006 PsA Core Domain Set in studies published in 2010-2015 vs those published in 2006-2010. We performed a systematic literature search in two databases, PubMed and Embase, to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in PsA. We also identified PsA longitudinal observational studies (LOS). Three patient research partners provided input into study conception, and data collection and interpretation. We identified 41 studies representing 22 unique RCTs, 27 LOS and 12 registries. Across all studies, we identified 24 domains and 169 outcome measures. In addition to the PsA Core Domain Set (6 domains), the following domains were also assessed in more than 30% of RCTs: acute phase reactants, dactylitis, enthesitis, fatigue and work productivity. We identified a range of 1-15 outcome measures per domain with a mean (SD) of 7 (4.7) per domain. The complete PsA Core Domain Set was assessed in 59% of RCTs in 2010-2015 compared to 23.5% RCTs in 2006-2010. There has been increased measurement of the PsA Core Domain Set in RCTs and LOS in the past 5 years. Numerous additional outcomes were also measured. The PsA Core Domain Set needs an update to standardise PsA outcome assessments. This SLR will inform the development of an updated PsA Core Domain Set with patient research partner input.
Project description: To determine whether a treatment strategy based on structured ultrasound assessment would lead to improved outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis, compared with a conventional strategy. Multicentre, open label, two arm, parallel group, randomised controlled strategy trial. Ten rheumatology departments and one specialist centre in Norway, from September 2010 to September 2015. 238 patients were recruited between September 2010 and April 2013, of which 230 (141 (61%) female) received the allocated intervention and were analysed for the primary outcome. The main inclusion criteria were age 18-75 years, fulfilment of the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis, disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug naivety with indication for disease modifying drug therapy, and time from first patient reported swollen joint less than two years. Patients with abnormal kidney or liver function or major comorbidities were excluded. 122 patients were randomised to an ultrasound tight control strategy targeting clinical and imaging remission, and 116 patients were randomised to a conventional tight control strategy targeting clinical remission. Patients in both arms were treated according to the same disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug escalation strategy, with 13 visits over two years. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a combination between 16 and 24 months of clinical remission, no swollen joints, and non-progression of radiographic joint damage. Secondary outcomes included measures of disease activity, radiographic progression, functioning, quality of life, and adverse events. All participants who attended at least one follow-up visit were included in the full analysis set. 26 (22%) of the 118 analysed patients in the ultrasound tight control arm and 21 (19%) of the 112 analysed patients in the clinical tight control arm reached the primary endpoint (mean difference 3.3%, 95% confidence interval -7.1% to 13.7%). Secondary endpoints (disease activity, physical function, and joint damage) were similar between the two groups. Six (5%) patients in the ultrasound tight control arm and seven (6%) patients in the conventional arm had serious adverse events. The systematic use of ultrasound in the follow-up of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis treated according to current recommendations is not justified on the basis of the ARCTIC results. The findings highlight the need for randomised trials assessing the clinical application of medical technology.Trial registration Clinical trials NCT01205854.
Project description:To evaluate the reliability of concurrent flare identification using 3 methods (patient, rheumatologist and Disease Activity Score (DAS)28 criteria), and construct validity of candidate items representing the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) RA Flare Core Domain Set.Candidate flare questions and legacy measures were administered at consecutive visits to Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH) patients between November 2011 and November 2014. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) core set indicators were recorded. Concordance to identify flares was assessed using the agreement coefficient. Construct validity of flare questions was examined: convergent (Spearman's r); discriminant (mean differences between flaring/non-flaring patients); and consequential (proportions with prior treatment reductions and intended therapeutic change postflare).The 849 patients were 75% female, 81% white, 42% were in remission/low disease activity (R/LDA), and 16-32% were flaring at the second visit. Agreement of flare status was low-strong (κ's 0.17-0.88) and inversely related to RA disease activity level. Flare domains correlated highly (r's≥0.70) with each other, patient global (r's≥0.66) and corresponding measures (r's 0.49-0.92); and moderately highly with MD and patient-reported joint counts (r's 0.29-0.62). When MD/patients agreed the patient was flaring, mean flare domain between-group differences were 2.1-3.0; 36% had treatment reductions prior to flare, with escalation planned in 61%.Flares are common in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and are often preceded by treatment reductions. Patient/MD/DAS agreement of flare status is highest in patients worsening from R/LDA. OMERACT RA flare questions can discriminate between patients with/without flare and have strong evidence of construct and consequential validity. Ongoing work will identify optimal scoring and cut points to identify RA flares.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Core outcome sets (COS) have the potential to reduce waste in research by improving the consistency of outcomes measured in trials of the same health condition. However, this reduction in waste will only be realised through the uptake of COS by clinical trialists. Without uptake, the continued development of COS that are not implemented may add to waste in research. Funders of clinical trials have the potential to have an impact on COS uptake by recommending their use to those applying for funding. The aim of our study was to assess the extent to which applicants followed the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) programme's recommendation to search for a COS to include in their clinical trial. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We examined the outcomes section and detailed project descriptions of all 95 researcher-led primary research applications submitted to the NIHR HTA between January 2012, when the recommendation to search for a COS was included in the guidance for applicants, and December 2015 for evidence that a search for a COS had taken place and rationale for outcome choice in the absence of COS. A survey of applicants was conducted to further explore their use of COS and choice of outcomes with a response rate of 49%. Nine out of 95 applicants (10%) stated in their application that they had searched the COMET (Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials) Initiative database for a COS and another nine referred to searching for a COS using another method, e.g. a review of the literature. Of the 77 (81%) applicants that did not mention COMET or COS in their application, eight stated in the survey that they had searched the COMET database and ten carried out a search using another method. Some applicants who did not search for a COS gave reasons for their choice of outcomes including taking advice from patients and the public and choosing outcomes used in previous trials. CONCLUSION:A funding body can have an impact on COS uptake by encouraging trialists to search for a COS. Funders could take further steps by putting processes in place to prompt applicants to be explicit about searching for COS in their application and notifying the funding board if a search has not taken place. The sources of information used by trialists to make decisions about outcomes in the absence of COS may suggest methods of dissemination for COS.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) psoriatic arthritis (PsA) working group is developing a Core Outcome Measurement Set for PsA clinical trials [randomized controlled trials (RCT) and longitudinal observational studies (LOS)] using the OMERACT Filter 2.1 instrument selection algorithm. Our objective was to assess the Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease questionnaire (PsAID12) for the measurement of the core domain PsA-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL). METHODS:PsAID12 measurement property evidence gathered in a systematic literature review, and additional analyses conducted in LOS, were used to inform a consensus process. Analyses that had not been published were independently reviewed by the OMERACT technical advisory group. Data and process were presented, discussed in breakout groups, and voted on at the OMERACT conference (Terrigal, Australia, May 2018). RESULTS:PsAID12 fulfilled the green (good to go) OMERACT standards for domain match, feasibility, reliability, and construct/longitudinal construct validity. Discrimination and thresholds of meaning were amber (caution but good enough to go forward). The overall working group recommendation was amber/provisional endorsement of PsAID12 for measuring PsA-specific HRQOL in RCT and LOS. Of 96 participants who voted at the PsA OMERACT workshop, 87.5% (84) voted "yes" to endorse this recommendation; 14 of the 96 were patient research partners (PRP) and 93% of them (13) voted "yes"; 82 participants were not PRP and 87% of them (71) voted "yes." CONCLUSION:At OMERACT 2018, PsAID12 was the first patient-reported outcome measure provisionally endorsed as a core outcome measure for disease-specific HRQOL in PsA clinical trials. PsAID12 discrimination and improvement thresholds will be studied in future RCT.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To compare the effectiveness and safety of three non-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) ? inhibitors (rituximab, abatacept, and tocilizumab) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. DESIGN:Population based prospective study. SETTING:53 university and 54 non-university clinical centres in France. PARTICIPANTS:3162 adults (>18 years) with rheumatoid arthritis according to 1987 American College of Rheumatology criteria, enrolled in one of the three French Society of Rheumatology registries; who had no severe cardiovascular disease, active or severe infections, or severe immunodeficiency, with follow-up of at least 24 months. INTERVENTION:Initiation of intravenous rituximab, abatacept, or tocilizumab for rheumatoid arthritis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:The primary outcome was drug retention without failure at 24 months. Failure was defined as all cause death; discontinuation of rituximab, abatacept, or tocilizumab; initiation of a new biologic or a combination of conventional disease modifying antirheumatic drugs; or increase in corticosteroid dose >10 mg/d compared with baseline at two successive visits. Because of non-proportional hazards, treatment effects are presented as life expectancy difference without failure (LEDwf), which measures the difference between average duration of survival without failure. RESULTS:Average durations of survival without failure were 19.8 months for rituximab, 15.6 months for abatacept, and 19.1 months for tocilizumab. Average durations were greater with rituximab (LEDwf 4.1, 95% confidence interval 3.1 to 5.2) and tocilizumab (3.5, 2.1 to 5.0) than with abatacept, and uncertainty about tocilizumab compared with rituximab was substantial (-0.7, -1.9 to 0.5). No evidence was found of difference between treatments for mean duration of survival without death, presence of cancer or serious infections, or major adverse cardiovascular events. CONCLUSION:Among adults with refractory rheumatoid arthritis followed-up in routine practice, rituximab and tocilizumab were associated with greater improvements in outcomes at two years compared with abatacept.
Project description:BACKGROUND:In Germany, the care of patients with inflammatory arthritis could be improved. Although specialized rheumatology nurses could take over substantial aspects of patient care, this hardly occurs in Germany. Thus, the aim of the study is to examine structured nursing consultation in rheumatology practices. METHODS/DESIGN:In total, 800 patients with a stable course of rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis in 20 centers in North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony will be randomized to either nurse-led care or standard care. Participating nurses will study for a special qualification in rheumatology and trial-specific issues. It is hypothesized that nurse-led care is non-inferior to standard care provided by rheumatologists with regard to a reduction of disease activity (DAS28) while it is hypothesized to be superior regarding changes in health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) after 1 year. Secondary outcomes include functional capacity, patient satisfaction with treatment, and resource consumption. DISCUSSION:Since there is insufficient care of rheumatology patients in Germany, the study may be able to suggest improvements. Nurse-led care has the potential to provide more efficient and effective patient care. This includes a more stringent implementation of the treat-to-target concept, which may lead to a higher percentage of patients reaching their treatment targets, thereby improving patient-related outcomes, such as quality of life, functional capacity, and participation. Additionally, nurse-led care may be highly cost-effective. Finally, this project may form the basis for a sustainable implementation of nurse-led care in standard rheumatology care in Germany. TRIAL REGISTRATION:German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00015526. Registered on 11 January 2019.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Collaboration with patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) highlights that outcomes important to them include fatigue, coping, and life enjoyment. However, these are not commonly measured in clinical trials. There is little evidence about which outcomes patients would prioritize, or what factors influence patients' prioritization. Our objective was to develop a complementary core set with patients to promote inclusion of their priority outcomes in pharmacologic interventions. METHODS:Nominal groups were conducted with RA patients to rank 63 outcomes generated from previous in-depth interviews. A multicenter postal survey provided the final selection of core outcomes for the Rheumatoid Arthritis Patient Priorities for Pharmacologic Interventions (RAPP-PI), in which RA patients rated the importance of the priority outcomes from the nominal groups and ranked the top 6. RESULTS:Twenty-six patients participated in 5 nominal group discussions and reduced the 63 initial outcomes to the 32 most important. A total of 254 participants in the survey ranked priority treatment outcomes to form the RAPP-PI: pain, activities of daily living, joint damage, mobility, life enjoyment, independence, fatigue, and valued activities. The 8 priorities represent 3 domains of treatment outcomes: direct impact of RA, psychosocial well-being, and function/participation. Chi-square tests showed that disease severity, disease duration, sex, and patients' perceptions of managing, self-efficacy, and normality influenced the selection of priority treatment outcomes. CONCLUSION:Collaboration with patients has captured their perspectives of priority outcomes from pharmacologic interventions. Although there is some overlap with professional core outcomes, the additional use of this complementary set will give a broader evaluation of effectiveness of interventions from the key stakeholders: patients.