Endorsement of the domains of knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) flare: A report from the OMERACT 2020 inaugural virtual consensus vote from the flares in OA working group

The Flare-OA-16 questionnaire measuring flare in knee and hip osteoarthritis in the patient perspective: scale reduction and validation using a Rasch model

OBJECTIVES

The recent Flare-OA questionnaire measuring flare in knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) (19 items in 5 domains, numerical rating scale) showed good psychometric properties along with classical test theory. This study aimed to determine its scaling properties by Rasch analysis and to present evidence for a refined scalable version.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

The participants were 398 subjects (mean age 64 years [standard deviation = 8.1], 70.4% women) recruited from Australia, France, and the United States, with clinically and radiologically symptomatic knee or hip OA, who completed an online survey. The sample was split into derivation and validation subsamples, stratified by country and joint. Rasch analysis examined differential item functioning (DIF) for sex, age, country, and joint. A confirmatory factor analysis and an analysis of convergent validity were performed to document the psychometric properties of the short version.

RESULTS

To fit the Rasch model, we reordered thresholds of answering modalities when necessary. Two items were removed. A local dependency between 2 items was solved by combining items modalities into a super-item. A uniform DIF (expected and nonremoved) was identified for one item that was split by joint, and a nonuniform DIF for one item for age and country (removed). The person-item threshold distribution showed a well-focused scale; the confirmatory factor analysis and the analysis of convergent validity showed good fit indicators for the short version.

CONCLUSION

The Rasch analysis was helpful in guiding the decision to refine the measurement instrument. After analysis, the 16-item Flare-OA self-report questionnaire is available for use in clinical research.

Building a composite score for patient self-report of flare in osteoarthritis: a comparison of methods with the Flare-OA-16 questionnaire

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to compare methods of constructing a composite score for the Flare-OA-16 self-reported questionnaire.

METHODS

Participants with knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) completed a validated 16-item questionnaire assessing five domains of flare. Three estimation methods were compared: (i) second-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); (ii) logistic regression, according to the participant's self-report of flare (yes/no); and (iii) Rasch method, with weighted scores in each dimension. The distribution (floor effect [FF] and ceiling effect [CF]) were described and the known-group validity (by self-reported flare) tested by Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Similarity between the scores was analyzed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and their performance against self-report compared by areas under ROC curves (AUC). Intrascore test-retest reliability at 14 days was assessed by ICC.

RESULTS

In a sample of 381 participants, 247 reported having a flare. CFA showed fit indices (comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.95; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.08) and estimated composite mean score = 4.33(SD = 2.85) (FF = 14.9%, CF = 0%). For the logistic regression estimation, the mean composite score was 6.48 (SD = 3.13) (FF = 0%; CF = 0%). With Rasch model, the mean composite score was 4.35 (SD = 2.60) (FF = 14.9%; CF = 0%). Similarity analysis indicated a greater concordance between CFA and Rasch scores (ICC = 0.98) than between logistic regression score and the two others (ICC = 0.88 with Rasch score and 0.90 with CFA score). The AUC indicated similar performance of all methods: logistic model (AUC = 0.89 [0.85-0.92]), CFA, and Rasch model (AUC = 0.86 [0.82-0.90]). The difference between groups was significant (P < .05) for scores estimated by CFA (3.98), Rasch model (4.95), and logistic regression (4.30). The reproducibility was ICC = 0.84 (0.75-0.90) for Rasch and CFA scores and ICC = 0.78(0.66-86) for logistic model.

CONCLUSION

Three alternatives explored to build a composite score showed similar construct validity. Some metric superiority (better score distribution and reproducibility) of the Rasch model is promising for the detection of occurrence and assessment of severity of a flare in OA.

Development of a core domain set for ankle osteoarthritis: An international consensus study of patients and health professionals

OBJECTIVES

To develop an internationally agreed-upon core domain set for ankle osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

In a three-part Delphi process, a group of multidisciplinary health professionals with expertise in ankle OA and people with ankle OA responded to online questionnaires. The questionnaires proposed a list of 29 candidate domains derived from a systematic review of ankle OA research, and interviews with people with ankle OA and health professionals. Consensus was defined a priori as ≥70% agreement in people with ankle OA and health professionals whether a domain should or should not be included in a core domain set. An online consensus meeting was held to discuss and resolve undecided candidate domains.

RESULTS

A total of 100 people (75 health professionals and 25 people with ankle OA) from 18 countries (4 continents) participated in this study. Five domains reached consensus for inclusion in a core domain set for ankle OA - pain severity, health-related quality of life, function, disability and ankle range of motion. Twenty-one candidate domains reached agreement not to be included in the core domain set, and three domains remained undecided (ankle instability, physical capacity, and mental health).

CONCLUSION

This international consensus study, which included people with ankle OA and health professionals, has established a core domain set for ankle OA with five domains that should be measured and reported in all ankle OA trials - pain severity, health-related quality of life, function, disability and ankle range of motion. This core domain set will guide the reporting of outcomes in clinical trials on ankle OA. Future research should determine which outcome measurement instruments should be used to measure each of the core domains.

Evaluation and management of knee osteoarthritis

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) significantly contributes to the global disability burden, with its incidence expected to escalate by 74.9% by 2050. The urgency to comprehend and tackle this condition is critical, necessitating an updated and thorough review of KOA. A systematic review up to February 26, 2024, has elucidated the principal aspects of KOA's pathogenesis, risk factors, clinical manifestations, and contemporary management paradigms. The origins of KOA are intricately linked to mechanical, inflammatory, and metabolic disturbances that impair joint function. Notable risk factors include age, obesity, and previous knee injuries. Diagnosis predominantly relies on clinical assessment, with radiographic evaluation reserved conditionally. The significance of rehabilitation assessments, informed by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health framework, is highlighted. Treatment strategies are diverse, prioritizing nonpharmacological measures such as patient education, exercise, and weight management, with pharmacological interventions considered adjuncts. Intra-articular injections and surgical options are contemplated for instances where conventional management is inadequate. KOA stands as a predominant disability cause globally, characterized by a complex etiology and profound effects on individuals' quality of life. Early, proactive management focusing on nonpharmacological interventions forms the cornerstone of treatment, aiming to alleviate symptoms and enhance joint function. This comprehensive review underscores the need for early diagnosis, individualized treatment plans, and the integration of rehabilitation assessments to optimize patient outcomes. Further research is needed to refine prevention strategies and improve management outcomes for KOA patients.

Advancing composite outcome measures: Insights on weighting components from OMERACT 2023

OBJECTIVE

The OMERACT Composite Working Group hosted a workshop at OMERACT 2023 to explore the complexities of weighting components in the development of composite outcomes. This study presents the methodology and findings of this workshop, exploring the complexities of weighting the individual components of composite outcome measures.

METHODS

The workshop featured a multifaceted program, beginning with a plenary session that introduced the concept of composite outcomes, shared a patient's journey with rheumatic disease through a narrative, illustrated a composite outcome for Osteoarthritis Flares, and outlined the five domains selected for this composite outcome. A breakout exercise engaged participants in ranking and assigning weights to these domains, followed by group discussions to reach a consensus on weights. The workshop concluded with another plenary session that discussed various weighting approaches, including discrete choice and conjoint analysis from the ANCA-Associated Vasculitis working group, and outlined future directions for research on composite outcome methods.

RESULTS

The breakout exercise revealed the challenges in assigning relative importance to different domains, highlighting the variability in participant perspectives. Consensus discussions highlighted the diversity in approaches to weighting, the need for appropriate methods to determine domain weights and the impact of such weights on the interpretation of composite scores.

CONCLUSION

The OMERACT 2023 workshop underscored the significance of a systematic approach to weighting components in composite outcome development. It highlighted the complexity of achieving consensus on the importance of domains and the role of incorporating the perspectives of patient research partners in this process. Future research directions include refining weighting methodologies, moving composites through the OMERACT Filter and enhancing understanding of their implications for clinical trials. The findings contribute to the ongoing discourse on optimizing composite outcome measures in rheumatology and beyond, advocating for a balanced integration of scientific rigour and patient-centeredness in their development.

Towards a patient-centred definition for atopic dermatitis flare: a qualitative study of adults with atopic dermatitis

BACKGROUND

The term 'flare' is used across multiple diseases, including atopic dermatitis (AD), to describe increased disease activity. While several definitions of an AD flare have been proposed, no single definition of AD flare is widely accepted and it is unclear what the term 'AD flare' means from the patient perspective.

OBJECTIVES

To understand AD flares from the adult patient perspective and to explore how adults with AD define an AD flare.

METHODS

Participants were adults with AD recruited from the National Eczema Association Ambassadors programme, a volunteer patient-engagement programme. They participated in online focus groups to discuss how they describe AD flares from their perspective, how they define its start and stop, and how they relate to existing definitions of flare. Using a grounded theory approach, transcripts were analysed and coded using an iterative process to identify concepts to support a patient-centred conceptual framework of 'flare'.

RESULTS

Six 90-min focus groups of 3-8 participants each were conducted with 29 US adults (≥ 18 years of age) with AD who had at least one self-reported AD flare in the past year. When participants were presented with examples of previously published definitions of AD flare, participants found them problematic and unrelatable. Specifically, they felt that flare is hard to quantify or put on a numerical scale, definitions cannot solely be about skin symptoms and clinical verbiage does not resonate with patients' lived experiences. Concepts identified by patients as important to a definition of flare were changes from patient's baseline/patient's normal, mental/emotional/social consequences, physical changes in skin, attention needed/all-consuming focus, itch-scratch-burn cycle and control/loss of control/quality of life. Figuring out the trigger that initiated a flare was an underlying concept of the experience of flare but was not considered a contributor to the definition.

CONCLUSIONS

The results highlight the complexity and diversity of AD flare experiences from the adult patient perspective. Previously published definitions of AD flares did not resonate with patients, suggesting a need for a patient-centred flare definition to support care conversations and AD management.

Assessing domain match and feasibility of candidate instruments matching with OMERACT endorsed domains to measure flare in knee and hip osteoarthritis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the domain match (truth) and feasibility of candidate instruments assessing flare in knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) according to the identified domains.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From a literature review (575 papers), instruments were selected and evaluated using the truth and feasibility elements of the OMERACT Filter 2.2. These were evaluated by 26 experts, including patients, in two Delphi survey rounds. The final selection was obtained by a vote.

RESULTS

44 instruments were identified. In Delphi Round 1, five instruments were selected. In Round 2, all instruments obtained at least 75 % in terms of content match with the endorsed domains and feasibility. In the final selection, the Flare-OA questionnaire obtained 100 % favorable votes.

CONCLUSION

Through consensus of the working group, the Flare-OA questionnaire was selected as the best candidate instrument to move into a full assessment of its measurement properties using the OMERACT Filter 2.2.

A scoping review of patient self-report measures of flare in knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA): A report from the OMERACT flares in OA working group

PURPOSE

We aimed to analyze the content validity/domain match and feasibility of self-report instruments that could measure flare in osteoarthritis (OA), by extending our 2017 literature review on the definition of flare in knee and hip OA.

METHOD

We searched PubMed (Medline), Web of Science and PsycInfo (Ebsco Host) databases for original articles reporting research about flare (or synonyms) in humans with knee and hip OA, between 2017 and 2023. Four experts worked independently, checking the records, and assessing content validity and feasibility, writing justification for exclusion.

RESULTS

At literature review phase, 575 papers were filtered. After experts' analysis, 59 studies were included, and 44 instruments associated with flare in OA were identified. Most were studies about pain in knee or hip OA (35 %), cultural adaptation of a measure (33 %) or studies investigating psychometric properties of full (16 %) or short form (4 %) instruments. The assessment of domain match and feasibility revealed that 15 instruments were assigned a label of 'yes' or 'uncertain' as to whether or not there was a good match with the domain concept or whether the instrument was considered feasible to use.

DISCUSSION

Most identified instruments considered different aspects of pain and the associated discomfort in performing daily activities but did not include the central aspects of flare in OA, i.e. the change of state, nor the additional Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) endorsed domains for OA flare namely stiffness, swelling, psychological aspects, impact of symptoms including fatigue and sleep disturbance. Although it is possible that the period specified to conduct this literature review may have led to some recognized instruments being excluded, this review demonstrates the need for the research community to reach consensus on the best way to measure self-reported flares in future clinical trials and observational studies.

Evaluation and Treatment of Knee Pain: A Review

Importance

Approximately 5% of all primary care visits in adults are related to knee pain. Osteoarthritis (OA), patellofemoral pain, and meniscal tears are among the most common causes of knee pain.

Observations

Knee OA, affecting an estimated 654 million people worldwide, is the most likely diagnosis of knee pain in patients aged 45 years or older who present with activity-related knee joint pain with no or less than 30 minutes of morning stiffness (95% sensitivity; 69% specificity). Patellofemoral pain typically affects people younger than 40 years who are physically active and has a lifetime prevalence of approximately 25%. The presence of anterior knee pain during a squat is approximately 91% sensitive and 50% specific for patellofemoral pain. Meniscal tears affect an estimated 12% of the adult population and can occur following acute trauma (eg, twisting injury) in people younger than 40 years. Alternatively, a meniscal tear may be a degenerative condition present in patients with knee OA who are aged 40 years or older. The McMurray test, consisting of concurrent knee rotation (internal or external to test lateral or medial meniscus, respectively) and extension (61% sensitivity; 84% specificity), and joint line tenderness (83% sensitivity; 83% specificity) assist diagnosis of meniscal tears. Radiographic imaging of all patients with possible knee OA is not recommended. First-line management of OA comprises exercise therapy, weight loss (if overweight), education, and self-management programs to empower patients to better manage their condition. Surgical referral for knee joint replacement can be considered for patients with end-stage OA (ie, no or minimal joint space with inability to cope with pain) after using all appropriate conservative options. For patellofemoral pain, hip and knee strengthening exercises in combination with foot orthoses or patellar taping are recommended, with no indication for surgery. Conservative management (exercise therapy for 4-6 weeks) is also appropriate for most meniscal tears. For severe traumatic (eg, bucket-handle) tears, consisting of displaced meniscal tissue, surgery is likely required. For degenerative meniscal tears, exercise therapy is first-line treatment; surgery is not indicated even in the presence of mechanical symptoms (eg, locking, catching).

Conclusions and Relevance

Knee OA, patellofemoral pain, and meniscal tears are common causes of knee pain, can be diagnosed clinically, and can be associated with significant disability. First-line treatment for each condition consists of conservative management, with a focus on exercise, education, and self-management.

Assessment of Pain in Osteoarthritis of the Knee

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) pain is a subjective and personal experience, making it challenging to characterise patients' experiences and assess their pain. In addition, there is no global standard for the assessment of pain in KOA. Therefore, this article examines the possible methods of assessing and characterising pain in patients with KOA using clinical symptoms, pain assessment tools, and imaging. We examine the current methods of assessment of pain in KOA and their application in clinical practice and clinical trials. Furthermore, we explore the possibility of creating individualised pain management plans to focus on different pain characteristics. With better evaluation and standardisation of pain assessment in these patients, it is hoped that patients would benefit from improved quality of life. At the same time, improvement in pain assessment would enable better data collection regarding symptom response in clinical trials for the treatment of osteoarthritis.

Quantifying sustained pain worsening in knee osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

Recent work suggests that many persons with knee osteoarthritis (OA) experience stable symptoms over time. Whether patients experience periods of symptom exacerbation or flare which interrupt this stable course, and how long such periods last, has received little study. Our objective is to describe the frequency and duration of episodes of pain worsening in persons with knee OA.

METHODS

We selected participants from the Osteoarthritis Initiative with radiographic, symptomatic knee OA. We defined a clinically relevant increase in knee pain as an increase in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain of ≥9 points. We defined sustained worsening as maintaining at least 80% of the initial increase. We used Poisson regression to estimate the incidence rate (IR) of episodes of pain worsening.

RESULTS

1093 participants were included in the analysis. Eighty-eight percent had ≥1 increase in WOMAC pain ≥9 points (IR: 26.3 per 100 person years (95% CI: 25.2, 27.4)). Forty-eight percent had ≥1 episode of sustained worsening (IR: 9.7 per 100 person-years (95% CI: 8.9, 10.5)). Elevated pain was maintained an average of 2.4 years after the initial increase.

CONCLUSION

Most participants with knee OA reported at least one clinically relevant increase in WOMAC pain, but fewer than half experienced an episode of sustained pain worsening. These individual-level data portray a more nuanced and fluctuating course of OA pain than suggested by trajectory studies. These data could be useful in shared decision-making regarding prognosis and treatment choices in persons affected by symptomatic knee OA.

Clinical aspects and outcomes in osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most prevalent type of arthritis worldwide, and its incidence significantly increases with age. It commonly affects the knees, hips, spine, big toes, and hands. OA can be identified through clinical examination, symptoms, and imaging methods. Its main symptoms include pain, stiffness, and limitations in joint movement. Examinations may reveal coarse crepitus, bony enlargement, and tenderness at the joint line. In severe cases of OA, rest pain, night pain, and deformity may occur. OA can lead to decreased physical activity, function, and quality of life due to symptoms such as pain and stiffness. To evaluate these impacts, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are necessary. Various generic, disease-specific, and joint-specific PROMs have been developed and used in clinical practice to assess the outcomes of OA.

Osteoarthritis Flares

The phenomenon of flares is a common feature in the daily life of people with osteoarthritis (OA). Characterized by episodes of sudden-onset increases in signs and symptoms, their impact can often be distressing and disabling. Despite their potential to have both short-term and long-term consequences for patients across the whole course of the condition, their occurrence and optimal management are not fully understood. This article provides a contemporary perspective on defining OA flares and their potential triggers, and offers suggestions for how health professionals might explore flare patterns with patients in clinical practice and frame timely best-practice treatment approaches.

Development and validation of the Flare-OA questionnaire for measuring flare in knee and hip osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

Ability to assess flares in osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee and hip (KHOA) is important in clinical care and research. Using mixed methods, we developed a self-reported instrument measuring flare and assessed its psychometric properties.

METHODS

We constructed questionnaire items from semi-structured interviews and a focus group (patients, clinicians) by using a dual-language (English-French) approach. A Delphi consensus method was used to select the most relevant items. Patients with OA from Australia, France and the United States completed the preliminary Flare-OA, HOOS, KOOS and Mini-OAKHQOL questionnaires online. We used a factor analysis and content approach to reduce items and determine structural validity. We tested the resulting questionnaire (score 0-100) for internal consistency, convergent and known-groups validity.

RESULTS

Initially, 180 statements were generated and reduced to 33 items in five domains (response 0 = not at all, to 10 = absolutely) by Delphi consensus (50 patients, 116 professionals) and an expert meeting. After 398 patients (mean [SD] age 64 [8.5] years, 70.4% female, 86.7% knee OA) completed the questionnaire, it was reduced to 19 items by factor analysis and a content approach (RMSEA = 0.06; CFI = 0.96; TLI = 0.94). The Cronbach's alpha was >0.9 for the five domains and the whole questionnaire. Correlation coefficients between Flare-OA and other instrument scores were as predicted, supporting construct validity. The difference in Flare-OA score between patients with and without flare (31.8) largely exceeded 2 SEM (10.2).

CONCLUSION

Flare-OA is a valid and reliable patient-reported instrument for assessing the occurrence and severity of flare in patients with KHOA in clinical research.