Qualitative and psychometric approaches to evaluate the PROMIS pain interference and sleep disturbance item banks for use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Anti-GM-CSF otilimab versus sarilumab or placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to targeted therapies: a phase III randomised trial (contRAst 3)

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy and safety of otilimab, an anti-granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor antibody, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to conventional synthetic (cs) and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and/or Janus kinase inhibitors.

METHODS

ContRAst 3 was a 24-week, phase III, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Patients received subcutaneous otilimab (90/150 mg once weekly), subcutaneous sarilumab (200 mg every 2 weeks) or placebo for 12 weeks, in addition to csDMARDs. Patients receiving placebo were switched to active interventions at week 12 and treatment continued to week 24. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology ≥20% response (ACR20) at week 12.

RESULTS

Overall, 549 patients received treatment. At week 12, there was no significant difference in the proportion of ACR20 responders with otilimab 90 mg and 150 mg versus placebo (45% (p=0.2868) and 51% (p=0.0596) vs 38%, respectively). There were no significant differences in Clinical Disease Activity Index, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, pain Visual Analogue Scale or Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scores with otilimab versus placebo at week 12. Sarilumab demonstrated superiority to otilimab in ACR20 response and secondary end points. The incidence of adverse or serious adverse events was similar across treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Otilimab demonstrated an acceptable safety profile but failed to achieve the primary end point of ACR20 and improve secondary end points versus placebo or demonstrate non-inferiority to sarilumab in this patient population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04134728.

Anti-GM-CSF otilimab versus tofacitinib or placebo in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to conventional or biologic DMARDs: two phase 3 randomised trials (contRAst 1 and contRAst 2)

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy and safety of otilimab, an antigranulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor antibody, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

Two phase 3, double-blind randomised controlled trials including patients with inadequate responses to methotrexate (contRAst 1) or conventional synthetic/biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cs/bDMARDs; contRAst 2). Patients received background csDMARDs. Through a testing hierarchy, subcutaneous otilimab (90/150 mg once weekly) was compared with placebo for week 12 endpoints (after which, patients receiving placebo switched to active interventions) or oral tofacitinib (5 mg two times per day) for week 24 endpoints.

PRIMARY ENDPOINT

proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology response ≥20% (ACR20) at week 12.

RESULTS

The intention-to-treat populations comprised 1537 (contRAst 1) and 1625 (contRAst 2) patients.

PRIMARY ENDPOINT

proportions of ACR20 responders were statistically significantly greater with otilimab 90 mg and 150 mg vs placebo in contRAst 1 (54.7% (p=0.0023) and 50.9% (p=0.0362) vs 41.7%) and contRAst 2 (54.9% (p<0.0001) and 54.5% (p<0.0001) vs 32.5%). Secondary endpoints: in both trials, compared with placebo, otilimab increased the proportion of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) low disease activity (LDA) responders (not significant for otilimab 150 mg in contRAst 1), and reduced Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores. Benefits with tofacitinib were consistently greater than with otilimab across multiple endpoints. Safety outcomes were similar across treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although otilimab demonstrated superiority to placebo in ACR20, CDAI LDA and HAQ-DI, improved symptoms, and had an acceptable safety profile, it was inferior to tofacitinib.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

NCT03980483, NCT03970837.

Patient-centric assessment of rheumatoid arthritis using a smartwatch and bespoke mobile app in a clinical setting

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a fluctuating progressive disease requiring frequent symptom assessment for appropriate management. Continuous tracking using digital technologies may provide greater insights of a patient's experience. This prospective study assessed the feasibility, reliability, and clinical utility of using novel digital technologies to remotely monitor participants with RA. Participants with moderate to severe RA and non-RA controls were monitored continuously for 14 days using an iPhone with an integrated bespoke application and an Apple Watch. Participants completed patient-reported outcome measures and objective guided tests designed to assess disease-related impact on physical function. The study was completed by 28 participants with RA, 28 matched controls, and 2 unmatched controls. Completion rates for all assessments were > 97% and were reproducible over time. Several guided tests distinguished between RA and control cohorts (e.g., mean lie-to-stand time [seconds]: RA: 4.77, control: 3.25; P < 0.001). Participants with RA reporting greater stiffness, pain, and fatigue had worse guided test performances (e.g., wrist movement [P < 0.001] and sit-to-stand transition time [P = 0.009]) compared with those reporting lower stiffness, pain, and fatigue. This study demonstrates that digital technologies can be used in a well-controlled, remote clinical setting to assess the daily impact of RA.

The use of PROMIS measures in clinical studies in patients with inflammatory arthritis: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Although the use of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures is widely advocated, little is known on their use in patients with inflammatory arthritis. We systematically describe the use and outcomes of PROMIS measures in clinical studies involving people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Through a systematic search of nine electronic databases, clinical studies including patients with RA or axSpA and reporting the use of PROMIS measure were selected. Study characteristics, details of PROMIS measures and their outcomes, if available, were extracted.

RESULTS

In total, 29 studies described in 40 articles met the inclusion criteria, of which 25 studies included RA patients, three studies included axSpA patients and one study included both RA and axSpA patients. The use of two general PROMIS measures (PROMIS Global Health, PROMIS-29) and 13 different domain-specific PROMIS measures was reported, of which the PROMIS Pain Interference (n = 17), Physical Function (n = 14), Fatigue (n = 13), and Depression (n = 12) measures were most frequently used. Twenty-one studies reported their results in terms of T-scores. Most T-scores were worse than the general population mean, indicating impairments of health status. Eight studies did not report actual data but rather measurement properties of the PROMIS measures.

CONCLUSION

There was considerable variety regarding the different PROMIS measures used, with the PROMIS Pain interference, Physical function, Fatigue, and Depression measures being the most frequently used. In order to facilitate the comparisons across studies, more standardization of the selection of PROMIS measures is needed.

Patient-reported outcomes for people with diabetes: what and how to measure? A narrative review

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are valuable for shared decision making and research. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires used to measure PROs, such as health-related quality of life (HRQL). Although core outcome sets for trials and clinical practice have been developed separately, they, as well as other initiatives, recommend different PROs and PROMs. In research and clinical practice, different PROMs are used (some generic, some disease-specific), which measure many different things. This is a threat to the validity of research and clinical findings in the field of diabetes. In this narrative review, we aim to provide recommendations for the selection of relevant PROs and psychometrically sound PROMs for people with diabetes for use in clinical practice and research. Based on a general conceptual framework of PROs, we suggest that relevant PROs to measure in people with diabetes are: disease-specific symptoms (e.g. worries about hypoglycaemia and diabetes distress), general symptoms (e.g. fatigue and depression), functional status, general health perceptions and overall quality of life. Generic PROMs such as the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0), or Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures could be considered to measure commonly relevant PROs, supplemented with disease-specific PROMs where needed. However, none of the existing diabetes-specific PROM scales has been sufficiently validated, although the Diabetes Symptom Self-Care Inventory (DSSCI) for measuring diabetes-specific symptoms and the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS) and Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) for measuring distress showed sufficient content validity. Standardisation and use of relevant PROs and psychometrically sound PROMs can help inform people with diabetes about the expected course of disease and treatment, for shared decision making, to monitor outcomes and to improve healthcare. We recommend further validation studies of diabetes-specific PROMs that have sufficient content validity for measuring disease-specific symptoms and consider generic item banks developed based on item response theory for measuring commonly relevant PROs.

Qualitative concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews of symptoms, impacts and selected customized PROMIS® Short Forms: a study in patients with axial spondyloarthritis

BACKGROUND

Sleep disturbance, pain, and fatigue are key symptoms/impacts of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). Three customized Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS^®) Short Forms (Sleep Disturbance, Pain Interference, and Fatigue) have been proposed for use in axSpA to assess these key disease concepts. This study was designed to further understand the patient experience of axSpA and evaluate the content validity of the three customized PROMIS^® Short Forms to support their use in axSpA clinical trials.

METHODS

Non-interventional, cross-sectional, qualitative (concept elicitation [CE] and cognitive debriefing [CD]) study. Participants took part in 90-min telephone interviews. The CE section used open-ended questions to elicit information about axSpA symptoms and impacts. The CD section involved a 'think-aloud' exercise where participants read out each instruction, item, and response option for the customized PROMIS^® Short Forms and shared their feedback. Participants also discussed the relevance of the items, response options and recall period. Verbatim interview transcripts were subject to thematic and content analysis.

RESULTS

In total, there were 28 participants (non-radiographic axSpA, n = 12; ankylosing spondylitis, n = 16), from the US (n = 20) and Germany (n = 8). Mean age was 52.8 years, and 57% were male; mean time since diagnosis was 9.5 years. The CE section identified 12 distinct symptoms that characterized axSpA: pain, sleep problems, fatigue/tiredness, stiffness, swelling, vision/eye issues, restricted body movements, headache/migraine, spasms, change in posture/stature, balance/coordination problems, and numbness. Pain, sleep problems, and fatigue/tiredness were experienced by ≥ 90% of participants, occurring simultaneously and exacerbating one another. Participants reported axSpA impacted their lives across six domains of health-related quality of life (HRQoL): physical functioning (100%), emotional wellbeing (89%), work/volunteering (79%), social functioning (75%), activities of daily living (61%) and cognitive functioning (54%). Impacts were most frequently associated with pain, stiffness, and fatigue. CD showed the PROMIS^® instruments were conceptually comprehensive and well understood, with all items relevant to ≥ 50% of participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain, sleep problems and fatigue are pivotal symptoms of axSpA and associated with HRQoL impacts. These results were used to update a conceptual model of axSpA which was originally developed based on a targeted literature review. Interpretability and content validity of the customized PROMIS^® Short Forms were confirmed, with each deemed to adequately assess key impacts associated with axSpA, making them suitable for use in axSpA clinical trials.

Systematic Review of the Effect of a One-Day Versus Seven-Day Recall Duration on Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)

BACKGROUND

There is ongoing uncertainty around the most suitable recall period for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHOD

This systematic review integrates quantitative and qualitative literature across health, economics, and psychology to explore the effect of a one-day (or '24-h') versus seven-day (or 'one week') recall period. The following databases were searched from database inception to 30 November 2021: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EconLit, CINAHL Complete, Cochrane Library, and Sociological Abstracts. Studies were included that compared a one-day (or '24-h') versus seven-day (or weekly) recall period condition on patient-reported scores for PROM and Health-Related Quality-of-Life (HRQoL) instrument scores in adult populations (aged 18 and above) or combined paediatric and adult populations with a majority of respondents aged over 18 years. Studies were excluded if they assessed health behaviours only, used ecological momentary assessment to derive an index of daily recall, or incorporated clinician reports of patient symptoms. We extracted results relevant to six domains with generic health relevance: physical functioning, pain, cognition, psychosocial wellbeing, sleep-related symptoms and aggregated disease-specific signs and symptoms. Quantitative studies compared weekly recall scores with the mean or maximum score over the last seven days or with the same-day recall score.

RESULTS

Overall, across the 24 quantitative studies identified, 158 unique results were identified. Symptoms tended to be reported as more severe and HRQoL lower when assessed with a weekly recall than a one-day recall. A narrative synthesis of 33 qualitative studies integrated patient perspectives on the suitability of a one-day versus seven-day recall period for assessing health state or quality of life. Participants had mixed preferences, some noted the accuracy of recall for the one-day period but others preferred the seven-day recall for conditions characterised by high symptom variability, or where PROMs concepts required integration of infrequent experiences or functioning over time.

CONCLUSION

This review identified a clear trend toward higher symptom scores and worse quality of life being reported for a seven-day compared to a one-day recall. The review also identified anomalies in this pattern for some wellbeing items and a need for further research on positively framed items. A better understanding of the impact of using different recall periods within PROMs and HRQoL instruments will help contextualise future comparisons between instruments. Questionnaires ask patients about their health over different time periods (e.g., "what were your symptoms like over the last week?" versus "what were your symptoms like today?"). Studies find that people may report their symptoms as more severe when they are asked to think about their symptoms over the last week compared to the last day. Understanding how different time periods influence patient responses will allow researchers to compare and develop new questionnaires and may help clinicians to choose the best questionnaire to understand their patient's condition. We conducted a systematic literature review on studies which had looked at the impact of using different recall periods on patient responses. We found 24 studies that compared patient scores from questionnaires asking their health "over the last day" compared to "over the last week". Overall, symptoms tended to be reported as more severe and health as poorer when they were reported over the last week compared to the last day on average. We also found 33 studies that asked patients to describe which recall period they preferred. Patients had mixed preferences with more preferring a seven-day recall where symptoms and health impacts varied a lot.

Assessing sleep and pain among adults with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: psychometric evaluation of the PROMIS® sleep and pain short forms

PURPOSE

To evaluate the psychometric properties of the patient-reported outcome measurement information system® (PROMIS) short forms for assessing sleep disturbance, sleep-related impairment, pain interference, and pain behavior, among adults with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS).

METHODS

Data came from the Multi-Site ME/CFS study conducted between 2012 and 2020 at seven ME/CFS specialty clinics across the USA. Baseline and follow-up data from ME/CFS and healthy control (HC) groups were used to examine ceiling/floor effects, internal consistency reliability, differential item functioning (DIF), known-groups validity, and responsiveness.

RESULTS

A total of 945 participants completed the baseline assessment (602 ME/CFS and 338 HC) and 441 ME/CFS also completed the follow-up. The baseline mean T-scores of PROMIS sleep and pain measures ranged from 57.68 to 62.40, about one standard deviation above the national norm (T-score = 50). All four measures showed high internal consistency (ω = 0.92 to 0.97) and no substantial floor/ceiling effects. No DIF was detected by age or sex. Known-groups comparisons among ME/CFS groups with low, medium, and high functional impairment showed significant small-sized differences in scores (η² = 0.01 to 0.05) for the two sleep measures and small-to-medium-sized differences (η² = 0.01 to 0.15) for the two pain measures. ME/CFS participants had significantly worse scores than HC (η² = 0.35 to 0.45) for all four measures. Given the non-interventional nature of the study, responsiveness was evaluated as sensitivity to change over time and the pain interference measure showed an acceptable sensitivity.

CONCLUSION

The PROMIS sleep and pain measures demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties supporting their use in ME/CFS research and clinical practice.