Dutch juvenile idiopathic arthritis patients, carers and clinicians create a research agenda together following the James Lind Alliance method: a study protocol

Significant pain decrease in children with non-systemic Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis treated to target: results over 24 months of follow up

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare pain-scores in three targeted treatment-strategies in JIA-patients and to identify characteristics predicting persistent pain.

METHODS

In the BeSt-for-Kids-study 92 DMARD-naïve JIA-patients were randomized in 3 treatment-strategies: 1) initial sequential DMARD-monotherapy 2) initial methotrexate (MTX)/prednisolone-bridging or 3) initial MTX/etanercept. Potential differences in VAS pain scores (0-100 mm) over time between treatment-strategies were compared using linear mixed models with visits clustered within patients. A multivariable model was used to assess the ability of baseline characteristics to predict the chance of high pain-scores during follow-up.

RESULTS

Pain-scores over time reduced from mean 55.3 (SD 21.7) to 19.5 (SD 25.3) mm after 24 months. On average, pain-scores decreased significantly with β -1.37 mm (95% CI -1.726; -1.022) per month. No significant difference was found between treatment-strategies (interaction term treatment arm*time (months) β (95% CI) arm 1: 0.13 (-0.36; 0.62) and arm 2: 0.37 (-0.12; 0.86) compared to arm 3). Correction for sex and symptom duration yielded similar results. Several baseline characteristics were predictive for pain over time. Higher VAS pain [β 0.44 (95% CI 0.25; 0.65)] and higher active joint count [0.77 (0.19; 1.34)] were predictive of higher pain over time, whereas, low VAS physician [ -0.34 (-0.55; -0.06)], CHQ Physical [ -0.42 (-0.72; -0.11)] and Psychosocial summary Score [ -0.42 (-0.77; -0.06)] were predictive of lower pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment-to-target seems effective in pain-reduction in non-systemic JIA-patients irrespective of initial treatment-strategy. Several baseline-predictors for pain over time were found, which could help to identify patients with a high risk for development of chronic pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch Trial Registry number 1574.

Matching researchers' needs and patients' contributions: practical tips for meaningful patient engagement from the field of rheumatology

There is an increasing recognition of the importance of patient engagement and involvement in health research, specifically within the field of rheumatology. In general, researchers in this specialty appreciate the value of patients as partners in research. In practice, however, the majority of researchers does not involve patients on their research teams. Many researchers find it difficult to match their needs for patient engagement and the potential contributions from individuals living with rheumatic disease. In this Viewpoint, we provide researchers and patients practical tips for matching 'supply and demand,' based on our own experiences as patient engagement consultants and trainers in rheumatology research. All authors started as a 'naïve' patient or caregiver, an identity that evolved through a process of 'adversarial growth': positive changes that are experienced as a result of the struggle with highly challenging life circumstances. Here, we introduce four stages of adversarial growth in the context of research. We submit that all types of patients have their own experiences, qualities and skills, and can add specific input to research. The recommendations for engagement are not strict directives. They are meant as starting points for discussion or interview. Regardless of individual qualities and knowledge, we believe that all patients engaged in research have a single goal in common: to contribute to research that ultimately will change the lives of many other patients.

Research priority setting for paediatric rheumatology in the UK

The evidence base that underlies the management of children and young people with paediatric rheumatic diseases is deficient. In this field, there are many crucial unanswered questions. The UK Paediatric Rheumatology Clinical Studies Group, supported by UK National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network: children and Versus Arthritis, elicited ideas for research priorities from paediatric rheumatologists, trainees, allied health-care professionals, nurse specialists, patients, parents of patients, carers, and charities. These ideas were collected through online surveys and face-to-face meetings. A modified Delphi process was used, which included online research priority ranking surveys and a consensus workshop. A longlist of 55 disease-specific research priorities and 37 general research priorities were voted on in the first survey. A list of 11 top general research priorities was produced. The top ten disease-specific research priorities were discussed in depth at a Delphi workshop to determine their final ranking. This Health Policy paper will help to guide clinicians, academics, and funding bodies to prioritise research in paediatric rheumatic diseases, specifically in areas of unmet patient needs.

Research agenda setting with children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: Lessons learned

AIM

The aim of this qualitative study is to understand the research priorities of Dutch children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) as well as researching how children can be involved.

BACKGROUND

Several health research agendas have successfully been developed with adults but rarely with children. Children are still seldom recognized as possessing credible knowledge about their own body and life. This research project with focus group discussions and interviews with children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) was an innovative addition to a nationwide prioritization of research questions of patients with JIA, their carers and health care professionals, based on the James Lind Alliance (JLA) methodology.

RESULTS

Children with JIA appreciated being invited to give their opinion on JIA research prioritization as knowledgeable actors. They have clear views on what topics need most attention. They want more insight on how to medically and socially treat JIA so that they can better fulfil their aspirations at school, later in work and with their relationships.

CONCLUSION

We have identified the Top 5 research priorities for children with JIA. Most priorities are unique and differ from the priorities of the adolescents and young adults, parents and healthcare professionals in the main JLA priority setting exercise. Ultimately, two of the children's priorities were included in the final JLA Top 10.

Reducing fatigue in pediatric rheumatic conditions: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Although fatigue is a prevalent distressing symptom in children and adolescents with Pediatric Rheumatic Conditions (PRCs), intervention studies designed for reducing fatigue in PRCs are limited.

AIM

To systematically review evidence regarding the efficacy of interventions intended to reduce fatigue in patients with PRCs.

METHODS

Comprehensive electronic searches were performed in PubMed/ MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cinahl. The risk of bias was assessed using the 'Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials' and 'Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After Studies With No Control Group' for respectively studies with and without a control group.

RESULTS

Ten out of 418 studies were included with a total of 240 participants (age range 5-23 years). Interventions included land-based and aquatic-based exercise therapy, prednisolone, vitamin-D and creatine supplementation, psychological therapy and a transition program into an adult rheumatology program. Fatigue was assessed with self-reported questionnaires in all included studies. Land-based exercise therapy was effective in one pre-post intervention study, whereas not effective in two randomized controlled trials. Aquatic-based exercise therapy was found more effective than land-based exercise therapy. Two placebo-controlled studies showed a significant positive effect in reducing subjective fatigue with prednisolone and vitamin-D. Creatine was not found effective. Cognitive therapy was effective in one pre-post intervention study, while one RCT did not show an effect in reducing fatigue. A transition program based on health education showed a small reducing effect, however, it was not clear if this was a significant effect. Six studies showed a high risk of bias, three studies a moderate risk, and one study had a low risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Insufficient evidence is provided to substantiate the efficacy of current interventions to reduce fatigue in PRCs. The low number of studies, non-comparable interventions, risk of bias, and inconclusive outcomes of the included studies denote future research should focus on intervention studies aimed at the treatment of fatigue in children and adolescents with PRCs. Identification of possible underlying biological and psychosocial mechanisms as possible treatment targets to reduce complaints of fatigue in children and adolescents with PRCs is warranted.

Association of adalimumab trough concentrations and treatment response in patients with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relationship of adalimumab trough concentrations and treatment response in paediatric patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

METHODS

Monocentric cohort study of JIA patients treated with adalimumab. Clinical data and samples were collected during routine follow-up. Adalimumab trough concentrations were quantified by a novel liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assay. Anti-adalimumab antibodies were measured in samples with trough concentrations ≤5mg/l. Disease activity was evaluated using the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score with 71 joint-count (cJADAS71). Response to adalimumab was defined according to recent international treat-to-target guidelines.

RESULTS

35 adalimumab trough samples were available from 34 paediatric patients with JIA. Although there was no significant difference in adalimumab dose, trough concentrations were significantly lower in patients with secondary failure (median 1.0 mg/l; IQR 1.0-5.3) compared with patients with primary failure (median 13.97 mg/l; IQR 11.81-16.67) or an adequate response (median 14.94 mg/l; IQR 10.31-16.19) to adalimumab.

CONCLUSION

Adalimumab trough concentrations were significantly lower in JIA patients with secondary failure compared with patients with primary failure or an adequate response to adalimumab. Results suggest that trough concentration measurements could identify JIA patients who require increased adalimumab doses to achieve or maintain therapeutic drug concentrations.

Dutch patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals generate first nationwide research agenda for juvenile idiopathic arthritis

BACKGROUND

Involving the end-users of scientific research (patients, carers and clinicians) in setting research priorities is important to formulate research questions that truly make a difference and are in tune with the needs of patients. We therefore aimed to generate a national research agenda for Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) together with patients, their caregivers and healthcare professionals through conducting a nationwide survey among these stakeholders.

METHODS

The James Lind Alliance method was used, tailored with additional focus groups held to involve younger patients. First, research questions were gathered through an online and hardcopy survey. The received questions that were in scope were summarised and a literature search was performed to verify that questions were unanswered. Questions were ranked in the interim survey, and the final top 10 was chosen during a prioritisation workshop.

RESULTS

Two hundred and seventy-eight respondents submitted 604 questions, of which 519 were in scope. Of these 604 questions, 81 were generated in the focus groups with younger children. The questions were summarised into 53 summary questions. An evidence checking process verified that all questions were unanswered. A total of 303 respondents prioritised the questions in the interim survey. Focus groups with children generated a top 5 of their most important questions. Combining this top 5 with the top 10s of patients, carers, and clinicians led to a top 21. Out of these, the top 10 research priorities were chosen during a final workshop. Research into pain and fatigue, personalised treatment strategies and aetiology were ranked high in the Top 10.

CONCLUSIONS

Through this study, the top 10 research priorities for JIA of patients, their caregivers and clinicians were identified to inform researchers and research funders of the research topics that matter most to them. The top priority involves the treatment and mechanisms behind persisting pain and fatigue when the disease is in remission.

Recommendations from a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership - a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

The James Lind Alliance (JLA) offers a method for research priority setting with patients, clinicians and carers. The method is increasingly used but publications primarily discuss the outcome of such projects, rather than reflecting on the JLA method itself. Scrutiny of the method is crucial in order to understand and correctly interpret its outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative interview study with people involved in a JLA project into Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) (n = 30) to better understand the mechanisms, procedures and decisional processes during such a project and to formulate recommendations for those who consider starting a JLA project in the future.

RESULTS

Four main themes were identified: 1) motivations, goals and expectations 2) inclusivity, roles and representation 3) procedures and decision-making 4) outcomes and future steps.

CONCLUSION

While the top 10 of 'evidence uncertainties' seems to take the centre stage in JLA projects, the ways in which these priorities are determined may be influenced by 'process uncertainties'. We have formulated ten specific recommendations for future JLA projects. Reflection on and reporting of these process uncertainties would contribute to the improvement of JLA projects and increase the validity of the outcome of such projects.

Four normative perspectives on public health policy-making and their preferences for bodies of evidence

Calls for evidence-informed public health policy-making often ignore that there are multiple, and often competing, bodies of potentially relevant evidence to which policy-makers have recourse in identifying policy priorities and taking decisions. In this paper, we illustrate how policy frames may favour the use of specific bodies of evidence. For the sixth Dutch Public Health Status and Foresight report (2014), possible future trends in population health and healthcare expenditure were used as a starting point for a deliberative dialogue with stakeholders to identify and formulate the most important societal challenges for the Dutch health system. Working with these stakeholders, we expanded these societal challenges into four normative perspectives on public health. These perspectives can be regarded as policy frames. In each of the perspectives, a specific body of evidence is favoured and other types of evidence are neglected. Crucial outcomes in one body may be regarded as irrelevant from other perspectives. Consequently, the results of research from a single body of evidence may not be helpful in the policy-making processes because policy-makers need to account for trade-offs between all competing interests and values. To support these policy processes, researchers need to combine qualitative and quantitative methodologies to address different outcomes from the start of their studies. We feel it is time for the research community to re-politicise the idea of evidence use and for policy-makers to demand research that helps them to account for all health-related policy goals. This is a prerequisite for real evidence-informed policy-making.

Rare musculoskeletal diseases in adults: a research priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance

BACKGROUND

Osteogenesis imperfecta, fibrous dysplasia/McCune-Albright syndrome and X-linked hypophosphatemia are three rare musculoskeletal diseases characterised by bone deformities, frequent fractures and pain. Little high-quality research exists on appropriate treatment and long-term management of these conditions in adults. This is further worsened by limited research funding in rare diseases and a general mismatch between the existing research priorities and those of the patients. This partnership adopted the James Lind Alliance approach to identify the top 10 research priorities for rare musculoskeletal diseases in adults through joint patient, carer and healthcare professional collaboration.

RESULTS

The initial survey for question collection recruited 198 respondents, submitting a total of 988 questions. 77% of the respondents were patients with a rare musculoskeletal disease. Following out-of-scope question exclusion, repeating query grouping and scientific literature check for answers, 39 questions on treatment and long-term management remained. In the second public survey, 220 respondents, of whom 85% were patients with a rare musculoskeletal disease, their carers, relatives or friends, prioritised these uncertainties, which allowed selection of the top 25. In the last stage, patients, carers and healthcare professionals gathered for a priority setting workshop to reach a consensus on the final top 10 research priorities. These focus on the uncertainties surrounding appropriate treatment and holistic long-term disease management, highlighting several aspects indirect to abnormal bone metabolism, such as extra-skeletal symptoms, psychological care of both patients and their families and disease course through ageing.

CONCLUSIONS

This James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership is the first to investigate rare bone diseases. The priorities identified here were developed jointly by patients, carers and healthcare professionals. We encourage researchers, funding bodies and other stakeholders to use these priorities in guiding future research for those affected by rare musculoskeletal disorders.

Treating juvenile idiopathic arthritis to target: what is the optimal target definition to reach all goals?

In 2018, an international Task Force formulated recommendations for treating Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) to target. The Task Force has not yet resolved three issues. The first issue is the lack of a single "best" target. The Task Force decided not to recommend the use of a specific instrument to assess inactive disease or remission. Recent studies underscore the use of a broad target definition. The second issue is the basic assumption that a treatment aggressively aimed at the target will have 'domino effects' on other treatment goals as well. Thus far, this assumption was not confirmed for pain, fatigue and stiffness. The third issue is shared decision-making, and the role of individual patient targets. Nowadays, patients and parents should have a more active role in choosing targets and their personal treatment goals. In our department the electronic medical records have been restructured in such a way that the patient's personal treatment goals with a target date appears on the front page. The visualization of their specific personal goals helps us to have meaningful discussions on the individualized treatment strategy and to share decisions. In conclusion, a joint treat to target (T2T) strategy is a promising approach for JIA. The Task Force formulated valuable overarching principles and a first version of recommendations. However, implementation of T2T needs to capture more than just inactive disease. Patients and parents should have an active role in choosing personal targets as well.

Identifying Research Priorities among Patients and Families of Children with Rheumatic Diseases Living in the United States

Objective

To improve the quality and participation in pediatric rheumatology research, patient-prioritized studies should be emphasized. We collaborated with United States–based pediatric rheumatology advocacy organizations to survey patients and caregivers of children with rheumatic diseases to identify what research topics were most important to them.

Methods

We conducted Web-based surveys and focus groups (FG) of patients and caregivers of children with juvenile myositis (JM), juvenile arthritis (JA), and childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (cSLE). Surveys were emailed to listservs and posted to social media sites of JM, JA, and cSLE patient advocacy organizations. An initial survey asked open-ended questions about patient/caregiver research preferences. Responses were further characterized through FG. A final ranking survey asked respondents to rank from a list of research themes the 7 most important to them.

Results

There were 365 JM respondents, 44 JA respondents, and 32 cSLE respondents to the final ranking survey. The top research priority for JM was finding new treatments, and for JA and cSLE, the priority was understanding genetic/environmental etiology. The 3 prioritized research themes common across all disease groups were medication side effects, disease flare, and disease etiology.

Conclusion

Patient-centered research prioritization is recognized as valuable in conducting high-quality research, yet there is a paucity of data describing patient/family preferences, especially in pediatrics. We used multimodal methodologies to assess current patient/caregiver research priorities to help frame the agenda for the pediatric rheumatology research community. Patients and caregivers from all surveyed disease groups prioritized the study of medication side effects, disease flares, and disease etiology.

Improving the Translational Medicine Process: Moving Patients From "End-Users" to "Engaged Collaborators"

Translational medicine works through the definition of unmet medical needs, their understanding and final resolution. In this complex and multi-disciplinary process patients have always been regarded as “end-users” or no more than “data provider.” Considering that the translational practice is nowadays highly inefficient (i.e., large intellectual and economical resources are wasted with limited impact on people health) here we propose to reverse the process: start from patients, engage them, and keep them at the center. A new partnership needs to be formed between the patients and the health care professionals, as well as the treating physicians, to make the most out of the current “health resources.” New patient-centric approaches are emerging but they remain isolated phenomena often difficult to implement. Here—with this perspective—we aim at thinking differently and learning from new experiences. We will provide some successful examples of change, and we will discuss new approaches to create a radical change in the way translational medicine is managed and how this would significantly impact people health and health care systems.

Participation in a single-blinded pediatric therapeutic strategy study for juvenile idiopathic arthritis: are parents and patient-participants in equipoise?

BACKGROUND

Genuine uncertainty on superiority of one intervention over the other is called equipoise. Physician-investigators in randomized controlled trials (RCT) need equipoise at least in studies with more than minimal risks. Ideally, this equipoise is also present in patient-participants. In pediatrics, data on equipoise are lacking. We hypothesize that 1) lack of equipoise at enrolment among parents may reduce recruitment; 2) lack of equipoise during participation may reduce retention in patients assigned to a less favoured treatment-strategy.

METHODS

We compared preferences of parents/patients at enrolment, documented by a questionnaire (phase 1), with preferences developed during follow-up by an interview-study (phase 2) to investigate equipoise of child-participants and parents in the BeSt-for-Kids-study (NTR 1574). This trial in new-onset Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis-patients consists of three strategies. One strategy comprises initial treatment with a biological disease-modifying-antirheumatic-drug (DMARD), currently not standard-of-care. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 parents and 7 patients, median 11 months after enrolment.

RESULTS

Initially most parents and children were not in equipoise. Parents/patients who refused participation, regularly declined due to specific preferences. Many participating families preferred the biological-first-strategy. They participated to have a chance for this initial treatment, and would even consider stopping trial-participation when not randomized for it. Their conviction of superiority of the biological-first strategy was based on knowledge from internet and close relations. According to four parents, the physician-investigator preferred the biological-first-strategy, but the majority (n = 19) stated that she had no preferred strategy. In phase 2, preferences tended to change to the treatment actually received.

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of equipoise during enrolment did not reduce study recruitment, mainly due to the fact that preferred treatment was only available within the study. Still, when developing a trial it is important to evaluate whether the physicians' research question is in line with preferences of the patient-group. By exploring so-called 'informed patient-group'-equipoise, successful recruitment may be enhanced and bias avoided. In our study, lack of equipoise during trial-participation did not reduce retention in those assigned to a less favoured option. We observed a change for preference towards treatment actually received, possibly explained by comparable outcomes in all three arms.