Do patient preferences for core outcome domains for chronic gout studies support the validity of composite response criteria?

Moving urate-lowering therapy in gout beyond guideline recommendations

The 'treat-to target serum urate strategy' when using urate-lowering therapy has been recommended by most specialist rheumatology societies for many years. An alternative "treat-to-avoid-symptoms" in gout has been suggested, albeit without a clear definition of what this means and how it might be implemented in clinical trials or clinical practice. This has hampered efforts to design clinical trials that compare the "treat-to-target [urate]" and "treat-to-avoid-symptoms" strategies in the long-term management of gout. In this review we consider the rationale for the treat-to-target urate strategy when using urate-lowering therapy, potential definitions of a "treat-to-avoid-symptoms" strategy, or perhaps what is not "treat-to-avoid-symptoms", and approaches that might address this uncertainty.

Perspectives on Participation in Clinical Trials Among Individuals With Pain, Depression, and/or Anxiety: An ACTTION Scoping Review

For individuals experiencing pain, the decision to engage in clinical trials may be influenced by a number of factors including current and past care, illness severity, physical functioning, financial stress, and caregiver support. Co-occurring depression and anxiety may add to these challenges. The aim of this scoping review was to describe perspectives about clinical trial participation, including recruitment and retention among individuals with pain and pain comorbidities, including depression and/or anxiety. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Study features, sample demographics, perspectives, barriers and/or motivations were collected and described. A total of 35 assessments were included in this scoping review with 24 focused on individuals with pain (24/35, 68.6%), 9 on individuals with depression and/or anxiety (9/35, 25.7%), and 2 on individuals with pain and co-occurring depression/anxiety (2/35, 5.7%). Barriers among participants with pain and those with depression included: research team's communication of information, fear of interventional risks, distrust (only among respondents with pain), too many procedures, fear of inadequate treatment, disease-life stressors, and embarrassment with study procedures (more commonly reported in participants with depression). Facilitators in both groups included: altruism and supportive staff, better access to care, and the ability to have outcome feedback (more commonly among individuals with depression). Individuals with pain and depression experience challenges that affect trial recruitment and retention. Engaging individuals with pain within research planning may assist in addressing these barriers and the needs of individuals affected by pain and/or depression. PERSPECTIVE: This review highlights the need to address barriers and facilitators to participation in clinical trials, including the need for an assessment of perspectives from underserved or marginalized populations.

Flare Rate Thresholds for Patient Assessment of Disease Activity States in Gout

OBJECTIVE

To determine the relationship between gout flare rate and self-categorization into remission, low disease activity (LDA), and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS).

METHODS

Patients with gout self-categorized as remission, LDA, and PASS, and reported number of flares over the preceding 6 and 12 months. Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine the association between being in each disease state (LDA and PASS were combined) and flare count, and self-reported current flare. A distribution-based approach and extended Youden index identified possible flare count thresholds for each state.

RESULTS

Investigators from 17 countries recruited 512 participants. Remission was associated with a median recalled flare count of zero over both 6 and 12 months. Each recalled flare reduced the likelihood of self-perceived remission compared with being in higher disease activity than LDA/PASS, by 52% for 6 months and 23% for 12 months, and the likelihood of self-perceived LDA/PASS by 15% and 5% for 6 and 12 months, respectively. A threshold of 0 flares in preceding 6 and 12 months was associated with correct classification of self-perceived remission in 58% and 56% of cases, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Flares are significantly associated with perceptions of disease activity in gout, and no flares over the prior 6 or 12 months is necessary for most people to self-categorize as being in remission. However, recalled flare counts alone do not correctly classify all patients into self-categorized disease activity states, suggesting that other factors may also contribute to self-perceived gout disease activity.

Patient Perspectives on Gout and Gout Treatments: A Patient Panel Discussion That Informed the 2020 American College of Rheumatology Treatment Guideline

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to understand patient perspectives to inform the voting process for the 2020 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) gout treatment guideline.

METHODS

We conducted a panel meeting of eight patients with gout in Birmingham, Alabama. Patients were referred to the project by private and academic rheumatologists in the Birmingham area. All participants received orientation related to the guideline development process and evidence rating at the beginning of the meeting. With the help of a physician moderator, the patient panel reviewed nine key clinical scenarios and the supporting evidence and discussed their views and perspectives related to each. They also provided their preference for one of the two treatment options for each clinical scenario.

RESULTS

The patient panel included eight men with gout. Of these eight participants, seven received their gout care from a rheumatologist and one from a primary care physician. Patients favored more active urate-lowering therapy (ULT) management and interventional management of gout flares to achieve desired clinical outcomes, resulting in unanimous consensus on choices related to six clinical scenarios: ULT initiation in gout, treat-to-target management strategy, use of pegloticase for refractory gout, starting ULT during a gout flare, using injectable treatments (over oral) for acute gout flares, and use of febuxostat in people with cardiovascular disease.

CONCLUSION

Knowledge of patient preferences and values is valuable and was influential for the development of the 2020 ACR gout treatment guideline.

2020 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Management of Gout

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidance for the management of gout, including indications for and optimal use of urate-lowering therapy (ULT), treatment of gout flares, and lifestyle and other medication recommendations.

METHODS

Fifty-seven population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions were developed, followed by a systematic literature review, including network meta-analyses with ratings of the available evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and patient input. A group consensus process was used to compose the final recommendations and grade their strength as strong or conditional.

RESULTS

Forty-two recommendations (including 16 strong recommendations) were generated. Strong recommendations included initiation of ULT for all patients with tophaceous gout, radiographic damage due to gout, or frequent gout flares; allopurinol as the preferred first-line ULT, including for those with moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease (CKD; stage >3); using a low starting dose of allopurinol (≤100 mg/day, and lower in CKD) or febuxostat (<40 mg/day); and a treat-to-target management strategy with ULT dose titration guided by serial serum urate (SU) measurements, with an SU target of <6 mg/dl. When initiating ULT, concomitant antiinflammatory prophylaxis therapy for a duration of at least 3-6 months was strongly recommended. For management of gout flares, colchicine, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, or glucocorticoids (oral, intraarticular, or intramuscular) were strongly recommended.

CONCLUSION

Using GRADE methodology and informed by a consensus process based on evidence from the current literature and patient preferences, this guideline provides direction for clinicians and patients making decisions on the management of gout.

2020 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Management of Gout

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidance for the management of gout, including indications for and optimal use of urate-lowering therapy (ULT), treatment of gout flares, and lifestyle and other medication recommendations.

METHODS

Fifty-seven population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions were developed, followed by a systematic literature review, including network meta-analyses with ratings of the available evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and patient input. A group consensus process was used to compose the final recommendations and grade their strength as strong or conditional.

RESULTS

Forty-two recommendations (including 16 strong recommendations) were generated. Strong recommendations included initiation of ULT for all patients with tophaceous gout, radiographic damage due to gout, or frequent gout flares; allopurinol as the preferred first-line ULT, including for those with moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease (CKD; stage >3); using a low starting dose of allopurinol (≤100 mg/day, and lower in CKD) or febuxostat (<40 mg/day); and a treat-to-target management strategy with ULT dose titration guided by serial serum urate (SU) measurements, with an SU target of <6 mg/dl. When initiating ULT, concomitant antiinflammatory prophylaxis therapy for a duration of at least 3-6 months was strongly recommended. For management of gout flares, colchicine, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, or glucocorticoids (oral, intraarticular, or intramuscular) were strongly recommended.

CONCLUSION

Using GRADE methodology and informed by a consensus process based on evidence from the current literature and patient preferences, this guideline provides direction for clinicians and patients making decisions on the management of gout.

Developing a new scoring scheme for the Hemophilia Joint Health Score 2.1

BACKGROUND

The Hemophilia Joint Health Score (HJHS) is a validated outcome tool developed for the assessment of joint health in people with hemophilia. The ordinal joint score assesses 9 items in 6 index joints. It is recognized as an optimal measurement of arthropathy in children and young adults. The aim of this study was to develop an updated scoring system for the HJHS that may overcome the limitations of its current ordinal scoring structure.

METHODS

A survey was developed using 1000Minds decision-making software. Respondents were provided with discrete choice tasks of ranking alternatives to determine the preference weight, or relative importance, placed on different criteria for each HJHS item. The survey was distributed to an anonymous sample of health care professionals with extensive experience in the physical examination of joints in people with hemophilia.

RESULTS

A total of 64 musculoskeletal health care professionals participated; with a 64% survey completion rate. The HJHS item weights provide a sum to 1.0; the highest-ranked item was extension loss (0.139) followed by swelling (0.121), whereas the lowest was duration of swelling (0.057) followed by muscle atrophy (0.08). Compared to the original, the relative efficiency of the new score was 5.4.

CONCLUSIONS

Observed differences in preference weights for HJHS items highlight the potential under- or overestimation of true joint health using the current ordinal scoring system. An updated scoring system using weighted items may improve the precision of HJHS assessment, leading to improved clinical management of joint health, while providing a robust research tool.

Concurrent validity of provisional remission criteria for gout: a dual-energy CT study

Background

Provisional gout remission criteria including five domains (serum urate, tophus, flares, pain due to gout, and patient global assessment) have been proposed. The aim of this study was to test the concurrent validity of the provisional gout remission criteria by comparing the criteria with dual-energy CT (DECT) findings.

Methods

Patients with gout on allopurinol ≥ 300 mg daily were prospectively recruited into a multicenter DECT study. Participants attended a standardized study visit which recorded gout flare frequency in the preceding 12 months, physical examination for tophus, serum urate, and patient questionnaires. DECT scans of both hands/wrists, feet/ankles/Achilles, and knees were analyzed by two DECT radiologists. The relationship between the DECT urate crystal volume and deposition with individual domains as well as the provisional remission criteria set was analyzed.

Results

The provisional remission criteria were fulfilled in 23 (15.1%) participants. DECT urate crystal deposition was observed less frequently in those fulfilling the provisional remission criteria (44%), compared with those not fulfilling the criteria (73.6%, odds ratio 0.28, P = 0.004). The median (range) DECT urate crystal volume was 0.00 (0.00–0.46) cm³ for those fulfilling the remission criteria, compared with 0.08 (0.00–19.53) cm³ for those not fulfilling the criteria (P = 0.002). In multivariate regression analysis, the serum urate and tophus domains were most strongly associated with DECT urate crystal deposition.

Conclusions

In people with gout established on allopurinol, a state of remission as defined by the provisional remission criteria is associated with less DECT urate crystal deposition. While this study provides support for the validity of the provisional gout remission criteria, it also demonstrates that some crystal deposition may be present in people achieving these criteria.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13075-019-1941-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evaluation of Proposed Criteria for Remission and Evidence-Based Development of Criteria for Complete Response in Patients With Chronic Refractory Gout

Objective

The objective of this study is to assess criteria for gout remission and to use the results to inform criteria for a complete response (CR).

Methods

A post hoc analysis of two clinical trials was undertaken to determine the frequency with which subjects with chronic refractory gout who were treated with pegloticase met remission criteria. Mixed modeling was then employed to identify the components that best correlated with time to maximum benefit.

Results

Of the 56 subjects treated with biweekly pegloticase for whom adequate data were collected, 48.2% met the remission criteria. When subjects with persistent lowering of urate levels were examined separately, 27 of 32 (84.4%) met the criteria for remission. In contrast, even when the requirement for lowering of serum urate levels was waived, only 2 of 24 (8.3%) subjects without persistent lowering of urate levels and 0 of 43 subjects receiving placebo met criteria. Mixed modeling indicated that in addition to urate levels, assessment of tophi, swollen joints, and tender joints and patient global assessment best correlated with time to maximum benefit. Using these criteria of CR, 23 of the responders (71.9%) met the criteria. All patients who achieved a CR maintained it for a mean duration of 507.4 days. Finally, 64% of persistent responders to monthly pegloticase also met criteria for CR.

Conclusion

These results have validated the proposed remission criteria for gout and have helped define criteria for CR in individuals with chronic gout treated with pegloticase. This composite CR index can serve as an evidence-based target to inform the design and end points of future clinical trials.

Development of Preliminary Remission Criteria for Gout Using Delphi and 1000Minds Consensus Exercises

OBJECTIVE

To establish consensus for potential remission criteria to use in clinical trials of gout.

METHODS

Experts (n = 88) in gout from multiple countries were invited to participate in a web-based questionnaire study. Three rounds of Delphi consensus exercises were conducted using SurveyMonkey, followed by a discrete-choice experiment using 1000Minds software. The exercises focused on identifying domains, definitions for each domain, and the timeframe over which remission should be defined.

RESULTS

There were 49 respondents (56% response) to the initial survey, with subsequent response rates ranging from 57% to 90%. Consensus was reached for the inclusion of serum urate (98% agreement), flares (96%), tophi (92%), pain (83%), and patient global assessment of disease activity (93%) as measurement domains in remission criteria. Consensus was also reached for domain definitions, including serum urate (<0.36 mm), pain (<2 on a 10-point scale), and patient global assessment (<2 on a 10-point scale), all of which should be measured at least twice over a set time interval. Consensus was not achieved in the Delphi exercise for the timeframe for remission, with equal responses for 6 months (51%) and 1 year (49%). In the discrete-choice experiment, there was a preference towards 12 months as a timeframe for remission.

CONCLUSION

These consensus exercises have identified domains and provisional definitions for gout remission criteria. Based on the results of these exercises, preliminary remission criteria are proposed with domains of serum urate, acute flares, tophus, pain, and patient global assessment. These preliminary criteria now require testing in clinical data sets.

2016 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism criteria for minimal, moderate, and major clinical response in adult dermatomyositis and polymyositis: An International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group/Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation Collaborative Initiative

To develop response criteria for adult dermatomyositis (DM) and polymyositis (PM). Expert surveys, logistic regression, and conjoint analysis were used to develop 287 definitions using core set measures. Myositis experts rated greater improvement among multiple pairwise scenarios in conjoint analysis surveys, where different levels of improvement in 2 core set measures were presented. The PAPRIKA (Potentially All Pairwise Rankings of All Possible Alternatives) method determined the relative weights of core set measures and conjoint analysis definitions. The performance characteristics of the definitions were evaluated on patient profiles using expert consensus (gold standard) and were validated using data from a clinical trial. The nominal group technique was used to reach consensus. Consensus was reached for a conjoint analysis-based continuous model using absolute per cent change in core set measures (physician, patient, and extramuscular global activity, muscle strength, Health Assessment Questionnaire, and muscle enzyme levels). A total improvement score (range 0-100), determined by summing scores for each core set measure, was based on improvement in and relative weight of each core set measure. Thresholds for minimal, moderate, and major improvement were ≥20, ≥40, and ≥60 points in the total improvement score. The same criteria were chosen for juvenile DM, with different improvement thresholds. Sensitivity and specificity in DM/PM patient cohorts were 85% and 92%, 90% and 96%, and 92% and 98% for minimal, moderate, and major improvement, respectively. Definitions were validated in the clinical trial analysis for differentiating the physician rating of improvement (p<0.001). The response criteria for adult DM/PM consisted of the conjoint analysis model based on absolute per cent change in 6 core set measures, with thresholds for minimal, moderate, and major improvement.

2016 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Criteria for Minimal, Moderate, and Major Clinical Response in Adult Dermatomyositis and Polymyositis: An International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group/Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation Collaborative Initiative

OBJECTIVE

To develop response criteria for adult dermatomyositis (DM) and polymyositis (PM).

METHODS

Expert surveys, logistic regression, and conjoint analysis were used to develop 287 definitions using core set measures. Myositis experts rated greater improvement among multiple pairwise scenarios in conjoint analysis surveys, where different levels of improvement in 2 core set measures were presented. The PAPRIKA (Potentially All Pairwise Rankings of All Possible Alternatives) method determined the relative weights of core set measures and conjoint analysis definitions. The performance characteristics of the definitions were evaluated on patient profiles using expert consensus (gold standard) and were validated using data from a clinical trial. The nominal group technique was used to reach consensus.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached for a conjoint analysis-based continuous model using absolute percent change in core set measures (physician, patient, and extramuscular global activity, muscle strength, Health Assessment Questionnaire, and muscle enzyme levels). A total improvement score (range 0-100), determined by summing scores for each core set measure, was based on improvement in and relative weight of each core set measure. Thresholds for minimal, moderate, and major improvement were ≥20, ≥40, and ≥60 points in the total improvement score. The same criteria were chosen for juvenile DM, with different improvement thresholds. Sensitivity and specificity in DM/PM patient cohorts were 85% and 92%, 90% and 96%, and 92% and 98% for minimal, moderate, and major improvement, respectively. Definitions were validated in the clinical trial analysis for differentiating the physician rating of improvement (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The response criteria for adult DM/PM consisted of the conjoint analysis model based on absolute percent change in 6 core set measures, with thresholds for minimal, moderate, and major improvement.

Determining Criteria and Weights for Prioritizing Health Technologies Based on the Preferences of the General Population: A New Zealand Pilot Study

OBJECTIVES

The use of multicriteria decision analysis for health technology prioritization depends on decision-making criteria and weights according to their relative importance. We report on a methodology for determining criteria and weights that was developed and piloted in New Zealand and enables extensive participation by members of the general population.

METHODS

Stimulated by a preliminary ranking exercise that involved prioritizing 14 diverse technologies, six focus groups discussed what matters to people when thinking about technologies that should be funded. These discussions informed the specification of criteria related to technologies' benefits for use in a discrete choice survey designed to generate weights for each individual participant as well as mean weights. A random sample of 3218 adults was invited to participate. To check test-retest reliability, a subsample completed the survey twice. Cluster analysis was performed to identify participants with similar patterns of weights.

RESULTS

Six benefits-related criteria were distilled from the focus group discussions and included in the discrete choice survey, which was completed by 322 adults (10% response rate). Most participants (85%) found the survey easy to understand, and the survey exhibited test-retest reliability. The cluster analysis revealed that participant weights are related more to idiosyncratic personal preferences than to demographic and background characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

The methodology enables extensive participation by members of the general population, for whom it is both acceptable and reliable. Generating weights for each participant allows the heterogeneity of individual preferences, and the extent to which they are related to demographic and background characteristics, to be tested.

Development and First Validation of a Disease Activity Score for Gout

Objective

To develop a new composite disease activity score for gout and provide its first validation.

Methods

Disease activity has been defined as the ongoing presence of urate deposits that lead to acute arthritis and joint damage. Every measure for each Outcome Measures in Rheumatology core domain was considered. A 3‐step approach (factor analysis, linear discriminant analysis, and linear regression) was applied to derive the Gout Activity Score (GAS). Decision to change treatment or 6‐month flare count were used as the surrogate criteria of high disease activity. Baseline and 12‐month followup data of 446 patients included in the Kick‐Off of the Italian Network for Gout cohort were used. Construct‐ and criterion‐related validity were tested. External validation on an independent sample is reported.

Results

Factor analysis identified 5 factors: patient‐reported outcomes, joint examination, flares, tophi, and serum uric acid (sUA). Discriminant function analysis resulted in a correct classification of 79%. Linear regression analysis identified a first candidate GAS including 12‐month flare count, sUA, visual analog scale (VAS) of pain, VAS global activity assessment, swollen and tender joint counts, and a cumulative measure of tophi. Alternative scores were also developed. The developed GAS demonstrated a good correlation with functional disability (criterion validity) and discrimination between patient‐ and physician‐reported measures of active disease (construct validity). The results were reproduced in the external sample.

Conclusion

This study developed and validated a composite measure of disease activity in gout. Further testing is required to confirm its generalizability, responsiveness, and usefulness in assisting with clinical decisions.

A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context

BACKGROUND

Evidence synthesis has seen major methodological advances in reducing uncertainty and estimating the sizes of the effects. Much less is known about how to assess the relative value of different outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To identify studies that assessed preferences for outcomes in health conditions.

METHODS

SEARCH STRATEGY

we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library in February 2014.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

eligible studies investigated preferences of patients, family members, the general population or healthcare professionals for health outcomes. The intention of this review was to include studies which focus on theoretical alternatives; studies which assessed preferences for distinct treatments were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION

study characteristics as study objective, health condition, participants, elicitation method, and outcomes assessed in the study were extracted.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-four studies were identified and categorized into four groups: (1) multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) (n = 71), (2) rating or ranking (n = 25), (3) utility eliciting (n = 5) and (4) studies comparing different methods (n = 23). The number of outcomes assessed by method group varied. The comparison of different methods or subgroups within one study often resulted in different hierarchies of outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

A dominant method most suitable for application in evidence syntheses was not identified. As preferences of patients differ from those of other stakeholders (especially medical professionals), the choice of the group to be questioned is consequential. Further research needs to focus on validity and applicability of the identified methods.