Enhanced Patient Involvement and the Need to Revise the Core Set — Report from the Psoriatic Arthritis Working Group at OMERACT 2014

Comparative Effectiveness of Bimekizumab and Risankizumab in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis at 52 Weeks Assessed Using a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison

INTRODUCTION

The relative efficacy of bimekizumab and risankizumab in patients with PsA who were biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug naïve (bDMARD naïve) or with previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR) was assessed at 52 weeks (Wk52) using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC).

METHODS

Relevant trials were systematically identified. For patients who were bDMARD naïve, individual patient data (IPD) from BE OPTIMAL (NCT03895203; N = 431) were matched with summary data from KEEPsAKE-1 (NCT03675308; N = 483). For patients who were TNFi-IR, IPD from BE COMPLETE (NCT03896581; N = 267) were matched with summary data from the TNFi-IR patient subgroup in KEEPsAKE-2 (NCT03671148; N = 106). To adjust for cross-trial differences, patients from the bimekizumab trials were re-weighted to match the baseline characteristics of patients in the risankizumab trials. Adjustment variables were selected based on expert consensus (n = 5) and adherence to established MAIC guidelines. Recalculated bimekizumab Wk52 outcomes for American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response criteria and minimal disease activity (MDA) index (non-responder imputation) were compared with risankizumab outcomes via non-placebo-adjusted comparisons.

RESULTS

In patients who were bDMARD naïve, bimekizumab had a significantly greater likelihood of response than risankizumab at Wk52 for ACR50 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.52 [1.11, 2.09]) and ACR70 (1.80 [1.29, 2.51]). In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a significantly greater likelihood of response than risankizumab at Wk52 for ACR20 (1.78 [1.08, 2.96]), ACR50 (3.05 [1.74, 5.32]), ACR70 (3.69 [1.82, 7.46]), and MDA (2.43 [1.37, 4.32]).

CONCLUSIONS

Using MAIC, bimekizumab demonstrated a greater likelihood of efficacy in most ACR and MDA outcomes than risankizumab in patients with PsA who were bDMARD naïve and TNFi-IR at Wk52.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT03675308, NCT03671148.

Comparative Effectiveness of Bimekizumab and Ustekinumab in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis at 52 Weeks Assessed Using a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison

INTRODUCTION

A matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted to assess the relative efficacy at 52 weeks (Wk52) of bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) and ustekinumab 45 or 90 mg every 12 weeks (Q12W) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug naïve (bDMARD naïve) or who had a previous inadequate response or an intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR).

METHODS

Relevant trials were systematically identified. Individual patient data from the bimekizumab trials BE OPTIMAL (NCT03895203; N = 431) and BE COMPLETE (NCT03896581; N = 267) were matched with summary data on patients receiving ustekinumab in the PSUMMIT 1 trial (NCT01009086; 45 mg, N = 205; 90 mg; N = 204) and a subgroup of TNFi-IR patients receiving ustekinumab in the PSUMMIT 2 trial (NCT01077362; 45 mg, N = 60; 90 mg, N = 58), respectively. Patients from the bimekizumab trials were re-weighted using propensity scores to match the baseline characteristics of the ustekinumab trial patients. Adjustment variables were selected based on expert consensus (n = 5) and adherence to established MAIC guidelines. Non-placebo-adjusted comparisons of recalculated bimekizumab and ustekinumab outcomes for the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response criteria (non-responder imputation) were analyzed.

RESULTS

In patients who were bDMARD naïve, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of response than ustekinumab at Wk52 for ACR20 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 45 mg: 2.14 [1.35, 3.40]; 90 mg: 1.98 [1.24, 3.16]), ACR50 (45 mg: 2.74 [1.75, 4.29]; 90 mg: 2.29 [1.48, 3.55]), and ACR70 (45 mg: 3.33 [2.04, 5.46]; 90 mg: 3.05 [1.89, 4.91]). In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of response than ustekinumab at Wk52 for ACR20 (45 mg: 4.17 [2.13, 8.16]; 90 mg: 4.19 [2.07, 8.49]), ACR50 (45 mg: 5.00 [2.26, 11.05]; 90 mg: 3.86 [1.70, 8.79]), and ACR70 (45 mg: 9.85 [2.79, 34.79]; 90 mg: 6.29 [1.98, 20.04]).

CONCLUSIONS

Using MAIC, bimekizumab showed greater efficacy than ustekinumab in achieving all ACR responses in patients with PsA who were bDMARD naïve and TNFi-IR at Wk52.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT01009086, NCT01077362.

Comparative Effectiveness of Bimekizumab and Secukinumab in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis at 52 Weeks Using a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison

INTRODUCTION

Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were used to compare the efficacy of bimekizumab and secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg at 52 weeks for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients who were biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug-naïve (bDMARD-naïve) or with previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR).

METHODS

Relevant trials were systematically identified. Individual patient data from bimekizumab randomized controlled trials, BE OPTIMAL (N = 431) and BE COMPLETE (N = 267), were matched to aggregate data from bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-IR patient subgroups from FUTURE 2 using secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg doses (bDMARD-naïve: N = 63/37; TNFi-IR: N = 67/33). To adjust for cross-trial differences, patients from the bimekizumab trials were re-weighted using propensity scores to match the baseline characteristics of patients in the secukinumab trials. Unanchored comparisons of recalculated bimekizumab and secukinumab 52-week non-responder imputation outcomes for 20/50/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20/50/70) and minimal disease activity (MDA) index were analyzed.

RESULTS

In patients who were bDMARD-naïve, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of ACR70 response than secukinumab 150 mg (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 2.39 [1.26, 4.53]; p = 0.008) and secukinumab 300 mg (2.03 [1.11, 3.72]; p = 0.021) at 52 weeks. In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of response compared to secukinumab 150 mg for ACR20 (3.50 [1.64-7.49]; p = 0.001), ACR50 (3.32 [1.41, 7.80]; p = 0.006), ACR70 (2.95 [1.08, 8.07]; p = 0.035) and MDA (3.52 [1.38, 8.99]; p = 0.009), and a greater likelihood of response compared to secukinumab 300 mg for ACR50 (2.44 [1.06, 5.65]; p = 0.037) and MDA (2.92 [1.20, 7.09]; p = 0.018) at 52 weeks.

CONCLUSION

In this MAIC analysis, the efficacy of bimekizumab, as demonstrated by the likelihood of ACR20/50/70 and MDA response at 52 weeks, was greater or comparable to secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg for patients with PsA who were bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-IR.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

NCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT04009499, NCT01752634, NCT01989468, NCT02294227, NCT02404350.

Comparative Effectiveness of Bimekizumab and Guselkumab in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis at 52 Weeks Assessed Using a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison

INTRODUCTION

Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) were used to assess the relative efficacy of bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) compared to guselkumab 100 mg Q4W or every 8 weeks (Q8W) at 48/52 weeks in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naïve (bDMARD-naïve) or with previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR).

METHODS

Relevant trials were identified as part of a systematic literature review. For patients who were bDMARD-naïve, individual patient data (IPD) from BE OPTIMAL (N = 431) was matched to summary data from DISCOVER-2 (Q4W, n = 245; Q8W, n = 248). For patients who were TNFi-IR, IPD from BE COMPLETE (n = 267) and summary data from COSMOS (Q8W, N = 189). Trial populations were re-weighted using propensity scores. Unanchored comparisons of recalculated bimekizumab and guselkumab 48- or 52-week non-responder imputation outcomes for 20/50/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20/50/70) and minimal disease activity (MDA) index were analyzed.

RESULTS

In patients who were bDMARD-naïve, bimekizumab was associated with a greater likelihood of ACR50 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.62 [1.07, 2.44]; p = 0.021), ACR70 (2.20 [1.43, 3.38]; p < 0.001), and MDA (1.82 [1.20, 2.76]; p = 0.005) compared to guselkumab Q4W at week 52. Bimekizumab also had a greater likelihood of ACR70 response (2.08 [1.34, 3.22]; p = 0.001) and MDA (2.07 [1.35, 3.17]; p < 0.001) compared to guselkumab Q8W at week 52. In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood in achieving all evaluated outcomes compared to guselkumab Q8W at week 48/52 (ACR20, 1.77 [1.15, 2.72]; p = 0.010; ACR50, 1.56 [1.03, 2.36]; p = 0.037; ACR70, 1.66 [1.05, 2.61]; p = 0.028; and MDA, 1.95 [1.27, 3.02]; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

According to MAICs, bimekizumab demonstrated greater or comparable efficacy on ACR50/70 and MDA outcomes than guselkumab in patients with PsA who were bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-IR at week 48/52. Bimekizumab had a more favorable likelihood than guselkumab in achieving more stringent treatment outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

NCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT04009499, NCT03158285, NCT03796858.

A core outcome domain set to assess cutaneous neurofibromas related to neurofibromatosis type 1 in clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Cutaneous neurofibromas (cNF) are considered one of the highest burdens of neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). To date, no medical treatment can cure cNF or prevent their development. In that context, there is an urgent need to prepare and standardize the methodology of future trials targeting cNF.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to develop a core outcome domain set suitable for all clinical trials targeting NF1-associated cNF.

METHODS

The validated approach of this work consisted of a three-phase methodology: (i) generating the domains [systematic literature review (SLR) and qualitative studies]; (ii) agreeing (three-round international e-Delphi consensus process and working groups); and (iii) voting.

RESULTS

(i) The SLR and the qualitative studies (three types of focus groups and a French e-survey with 234 participants) resulted in a preliminary list of 31 candidate items and their corresponding definitions. (ii) A total of 229 individuals from 29 countries participated in the first round of the e-Delphi process: 71 patients, relatives or representatives (31.0%), 130 healthcare professionals (HCPs, 56.8%) and 28 researchers, representatives of a drug regulatory authority, industry or pharmaceutical company representatives or journal editors (12.2%). The overall participation rate was 74%. After round 2, five candidate items were excluded. Between rounds 2 and 3, international workshops were held to better understand the disagreements among stakeholders. This phase led to the identification of 19 items as outcome subdomains. (iii) The items were fused to create four outcome domains ('clinical assessment', 'daily life impact', 'patient satisfaction' and 'perception of health') and prioritized. The seven items that did not reach consensus were marked for the research agenda. The final core outcome domain set reached 100% of the votes of the steering committee members.

CONCLUSIONS

Although numerous outcomes can be explored in studies related to cNF in NF1, the present study offers four outcome domains that should be reported in all trial studies, agreed on by international patients, relatives and representatives of patients; HCPs; researchers, representatives of drug regulatory authorities or pharmaceutical companies and journal editors. The next step will include the development of a set of core outcome measurement instruments to further standardize how these outcomes should be assessed.

Improved patient-reported outcomes in patients with psoriatic arthritis treated with risankizumab: analysis of the Phase 3 trial KEEPsAKE 2

OBJECTIVES

Determine the impact of 24-week risankizumab (RZB) versus placebo (PBO) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and inadequate response to one or two biologics (Bio-IR) and/or ≥1 conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD-IR).

METHODS

Patients in the Phase 3 trial, KEEPsAKE 2, were randomised (1:1) to RZB 150 mg or PBO by subcutaneous injection. PROs assessed: 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue), Patient's Assessment of Pain by visual analogue scale (VAS), Patient's global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), EuroQoL-5 Dimension-5 Level (EQ-5D-5L) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-PsA (WPAI-PsA). Least squares mean change from baseline at week 24 was compared between RZB versus PBO by mixed-effects repeated regression modelling.

RESULTS

At week 24, RZB versus PBO treatment resulted in significant differences (95% CIs) in mean change from baseline in ranked secondary endpoints SF-36 physical component summary score (3.9 (2.4 to 5.3); p<0.001) and FACIT-Fatigue (2.2 (0.6 to 3.9); p=0.009) and improvements in pain (-8.1 (-12.8 to -3.5)), PtGA (-8.8 (-13.5 to -4.2)) and EQ-5D-5L index (0.08 (0.04 to 0.11)) and VAS (5.9 (1.9 to 9.8)) (all nominal p<0.01). More RZB-treated versus PBO-treated patients reported improvements from baseline at week 24 in 7 of 8 SF-36 subdomains (nominal p<0.05). At week 24, more RZB-treated versus PBO-treated patients reported improvements in 3 of 4 WPAI-PsA domains (nominal p≤0.01).

CONCLUSION

Overall, RBZ treatment resulted in improvements in pain, fatigue, health-related quality of life and ability to perform work in Bio-IR and/or csDMARD-IR patients with PsA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03671148.

Outcome selection for tissue-agnostic drug trials for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: a systematic review of core outcome sets and regulatory guidance

Background

Tissue-agnostic drug development provides a paradigm shift in precision medicine and requires innovative trial designs. However, outcome selection for such trials can prove challenging. The objectives of this review were to: (i)

Identify and map core outcome sets (COS), across 11 immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) in order to facilitate the selection of relevant outcomes across the conditions for innovative trials of tissue-agnostic drug therapies.

(ii)

Compare outcomes or endpoints recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) to identify and highlight similarities and differences.

Methods

The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET), International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), FDA and EMA databases were searched from inception to 28th December 2019. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts of retrieved entries and conducted the subsequent full text screening. Hand searching of the reference lists and citation searching of the selected publications was conducted. The methodological quality of the included peer-reviewed articles was independently assessed by the reviewers based on the items of the COS–Standards for Development recommendations (COS–STAD) checklist. Core outcomes from the included publications were extracted and mapped across studies and conditions. Regulatory guidance from FDA and EMA, where available for clinical trials for the IMIDs, were obtained from their databases and recommendations on outcomes to measure directly compared.

Results

Forty-four COS publications were included in the final analysis. Outcomes such as disease activity, pain, fatigue, quality of life, physical function, work limitation/productivity, steroid use and biomarkers were recommended across majority of the conditions. There were significant similarities and differences in FDA and EMA recommendations. The only instance where either regulatory body directly referenced a COS was for jSLE—both referenced the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organization (PRINTO) COS.

Conclusions

The findings from this systematic review provide valuable information to inform outcome selection in tissue-agnostic trials for IMIDs. There is a need for increased collaboration between regulators and COS developers and inclusion of regulators as key stakeholders in COS development to enhance the quality of COS.

Trial registration

Not registered.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06000-w.

Core Outcome Set for Actinic Keratosis Clinical Trials

Importance

Although various treatments have been found in clinical trials to be effective in treating actinic keratosis (AK), researchers often report different outcomes. Heterogeneous outcome reporting precludes the comparison of results across studies and impedes the synthesis of treatment effectiveness in systematic reviews.

Objective

To establish an international core outcome set for all clinical studies on AK treatment using systematic literature review and a Delphi consensus process.

Evidence Review

Survey study with a formal consensus process. The keywords actinic keratosis and treatment were searched in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library to identify English-language studies investigating AK treatments published between January 1, 1980, and July 13, 2015. Physician and patient stakeholders were nominated to participate in Delphi surveys by the Measurement of Priority Outcome Variables in Dermatologic Surgery Steering Committee members. All participants from the first round were invited to participate in the second round. Outcomes reported in randomized controlled clinical trials on AK treatment were rated via web-based e-Delphi consensus surveys. Stakeholders were asked to assess the relative importance of each outcome in 2 Delphi survey rounds. Outcomes were provisionally included, pending the final consensus conference, if at least 70% of patient or physician stakeholders rated the outcome as critically important in 1 or both Delphi rounds and the outcome received a mean score of 7.5 from either stakeholder group. Data analysis was performed from November 5, 2018, to February 27, 2019.

Findings

A total of 516 outcomes were identified by reviewing the literature and surveying key stakeholder groups. After deduplication and combination of similar outcomes, 137 of the 516 outcomes were included in the Delphi surveys. Twenty-one physicians and 12 patients participated in round 1 of the eDelphi survey, with 17 physicians (81%) retained and 12 patients (100%) retained in round 2. Of the 137 candidate outcomes, 9 met a priori Delphi consensus criteria, and 6 were included in the final outcomes set after a consensus meeting: complete clearance of AKs, percentage of AKs cleared, severity of adverse events, patient perspective on effectiveness, patient-reported future treatment preference, and recurrence rate. It was recommended that treatment response be assessed at 2 to 4 months and recurrence at 6 to 12 months, with the AK rate of progression to cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma reported whenever long-term follow-up was possible.

Conclusions and Relevance

Consensus was reached regarding a core outcome set for AK trials. Further research may help determine the specific outcome measures used to assess each of these outcomes.

Linking the effect of psoriatic arthritis-related foot involvement to the Leeds Foot Impact Scale using the International Classification for Functioning, Disability and Health: a study to assess content validity

BACKGROUND

Previous research to describe the impact of foot involvement in psoriatic arthritis has used the Leeds Foot Impact Scale in Rheumatoid Arthritis (LFIS-RA) in the current absence of any psoriatic arthritis foot-specific tools. However, the LFIS-RA is a rheumatoid arthritis disease-specific outcome measure and its content validity for evaluating the experiences of people with psoriatic arthritis-related foot involvement is unknown. The study objective was to determine the content validity of the LFIS-RA for assessing people with psoriatic arthritis, using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as the frame of reference.

METHOD

Concepts within each item of the LFIS-RA were linked to the best-matched ICF categories using established linking rules, which enable a systematic and standardised linking process. All concepts were independently linked to the ICF by 2 investigators with different professional backgrounds, which included occupational therapy and podiatry. The list of ICF categories derived from previous research that pertained to the foot in psoriatic arthritis was then compared with the ICF categories linked to the LFIS-RA. The comparison was undertaken in order to determine the extent to which concepts important and relevant to people with psoriatic arthritis-related foot involvement were addressed.

RESULTS

Thirty-five distinct ICF categories were linked to the LFIS-RA, which related to body functions (44%), activities and participation (35%), environmental factors (16%) and body structure (5%). In comparison with the ICF categories derived from concepts of the foot in psoriatic arthritis previously defined, the LFIS-RA provided coverage of key constructs including pain, functioning, daily activities, footwear restrictions and psychological impact. Other concepts of importance in psoriatic arthritis such as skin and toenail involvement, self-management and paid employment were not addressed in the LFIS-RA.

CONCLUSION

Content validity of the LFIS-RA to determine the impact of foot functional impairments and disability in people with psoriatic arthritis was not supported by the results of this study. Future work should consider the development of a psoriatic arthritis foot-specific patient reported outcome measure, using the LFIS-RA as an important foundation.

Comparative effectiveness of secukinumab and etanercept in biologic-naïve patients with psoriatic arthritis assessed by matching-adjusted indirect comparison

OBJECTIVE

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) can be used to assess the comparative effectiveness of two treatments indirectly using data from randomized placebo-controlled trials. This MAIC assessed the comparative effectiveness of secukinumab (an anti-interleukin-17A) and etanercept (a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor) in a target population of biologic-naïve patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

METHODS

Individual patient data pooled from FUTURE 2 (NCT01752634), FUTURE 3 (NCT01989468), and FUTURE 5 (NCT02404350) (secukinumab: 150 mg, n=458 and 300 mg, n=461) were matched to data from the population in the NCT00317499 trial (etanercept 25 mg, n=101) using MAIC methodology, by adjusting for clinical and demographic baseline characteristics. Recalculated outcomes from FUTURE 2, 3, and 5 (150 mg, effective sample size (ESS) post-matching=104; 300 mg, ESS=75; and placebo, ESS=159) were compared with the NCT00317499 trial. Pairwise comparisons using odds ratios (ORs) were performed for the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, 50, and 70 response criteria at week 12 (placebo-adjusted) and week 24 (non-placebo-adjusted).

RESULTS

At week 12, there were no significant differences in ACR responses between secukinumab and etanercept. There was no significant difference between secukinumab 150 mg and etanercept at week 24 with respect to ACR 20 and 50 response rates; however, ACR 70 response rates were higher for secukinumab 150 mg (OR (95% confidence interval (CI)): 4.48 (2.01-9.99), p<0.001). ACR 20, 50, and 70 response rates were higher with secukinumab 300 mg than with etanercept at this time point (OR (95% CI): ACR 20, 3.28 (1.69-6.38), p<0.001; ACR 50, 1.90 (1.04-3.50), p=0.038; and ACR 70, 3.56 (1.51-8.40), p=0.004).

CONCLUSION

In this MAIC, secukinumab was associated with higher ACR 20 and 50 (secukinumab 300 mg) and 70 (secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg) response rates at week 24 than etanercept in biologic-naïve patients with active PsA, whereas no significant difference was observed in the short-term at week 12.

Practical guidance for engaging patients in health research, treatment guidelines and regulatory processes: results of an expert group meeting organized by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO)

There is increasing emphasis on patient-centred research to support the development, approval and reimbursement of health interventions that best meet patients' needs. However, there is currently little guidance on how meaningful patient engagement may be achieved. An expert working group, representing a wide range of stakeholders and disciplines, was convened by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Through a structured, collaborative process the group generated practical guidance to facilitate optimal patient engagement in clinical development and regulatory decisions. Patient engagement is a relational process. The principles outlined in this report were based on lessons learned through applied experience and on an extensive dialogue among the expert participants. This practice guidance forms a starting point from which tailoring of the approach to suit different chronic diseases may be undertaken.

A modified Delphi and cross-sectional survey to facilitate selection of optimal outcomes and measures for a systematic review on geriatrician-led care models

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to identify relevant outcomes and measures to inform a systematic review (SR) on the comparative effectiveness of geriatrician-led care models.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

In the modified Delphi to select outcomes for inclusion in the SR, knowledge users (KUs) from Ontario, Alberta, and Saskatchewan rated outcome importance using a Likert scale. A survey was then completed by geriatricians to determine optimal measures for selected outcomes. Findings were analyzed using frequencies, means, and standard deviations (SDs).

RESULTS

Thirty-three KUs (patients, caregivers, policymakers and geriatricians) rated 27 outcomes in round 1 of the modified Delphi. Top-rated outcomes included function (mean 6.85 ± SD 0.36), cognition (6.47 ± SD 0.72), and quality of life (6.38 ± SD 0.91). Twenty-three KUs participated in round 2 and rated 24 outcomes. Top-rated outcomes in round 2 were function (6.87 ± SD 0.34), quality of life (6.45 ± SD 1.10), and cognition (6.43 ± SD 0.73). The survey was completed by 22 geriatricians and the highest ranked measures were Activities of Daily Living (function), Mini-Mental State Examination (cognition), and the Medical Outcomes Study SF-36 (quality of life).

CONCLUSION

We identified the most relevant outcomes and measures for patients, caregivers, policymakers, and geriatricians, allowing us to tailor the SR to KU needs.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison: secukinumab versus infliximab in biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis

Aim: To compare secukinumab with infliximab in biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis using matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Patients & methods: Individual patient baseline data for secukinumab were matched to published aggregate data for infliximab by key baseline characteristics, with matching weights determined by logistic regression, and used to recalculate American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses for secukinumab, for comparison with infliximab. Results: There were no differences in outcomes between secukinumab and infliximab at weeks 6/8 and 14/16. At weeks 24 and 54/52, ACR 20 responses were higher with secukinumab 150 mg than infliximab. At week 54/52, ACR 20/50 responses were higher for secukinumab 300 mg than infliximab. Conclusion: In the mid to long term, patients receiving secukinumab were more likely to achieve ACR 20/50 responses than those receiving infliximab.

Classification and Outcome Measures for Psoriatic Arthritis

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is an inflammatory arthritis with multiple manifestations: peripheral/axial arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, psoriasis, and nail involvement. From having an agreed upon classification criteria in 2006, the assessment of PsA has advanced from uncertainties to development and validation of numerous specific outcome measures. The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic arthritis (GRAPPA) has spearheaded the development of a core domain set and is now working on a core outcome measurement set to standardize outcome measures for PsA, that will provide guidance for use of instruments in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal observational studies (LOS). This article summarizes and updates these work processes to improve assessment of this multisystem complex rheumatologic disease.

Secukinumab Versus Adalimumab for Psoriatic Arthritis: Comparative Effectiveness up to 48 Weeks Using a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison

INTRODUCTION

Secukinumab and adalimumab are approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA). In the absence of direct randomized controlled trial (RCT) data, matching-adjusted indirect comparison can estimate the comparative effectiveness in anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-naïve populations.

METHODS

Individual patient data from the FUTURE 2 RCT (secukinumab vs. placebo; N = 299) were adjusted to match baseline characteristics of the ADEPT RCT (adalimumab vs. placebo; N = 313). Logistic regression determined adjustment weights for age, body weight, sex, race, methotrexate use, psoriasis affecting ≥ 3% of body surface area, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index score, presence of dactylitis and enthesitis, and previous anti-TNF therapy. Recalculated secukinumab outcomes were compared with adalimumab outcomes at weeks 12 (placebo-adjusted), 16, 24, and 48 (nonplacebo-adjusted).

RESULTS

After matching, the effective sample size for FUTURE 2 was 101. Week 12 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates were not significantly different between secukinumab and adalimumab. Week 16 ACR 20 and 50 response rates were higher for secukinumab 150 mg than for adalimumab (P = 0.017, P = 0.033), as was ACR 50 for secukinumab 300 mg (P = 0.030). Week 24 ACR 20 and 50 were higher for secukinumab 150 mg than for adalimumab (P = 0.001, P = 0.019), as was ACR 20 for secukinumab 300 mg (P = 0.048). Week 48 ACR 20 was higher for secukinumab 150 and 300 mg than for adalimumab (P = 0.002, P = 0.027), as was ACR 50 for secukinumab 300 mg (P = 0.032).

CONCLUSIONS

In our analysis, patients with PsA receiving secukinumab were more likely to achieve higher ACR responses through 1 year (weeks 16-48) than those treated with adalimumab. Although informative, these observations rely on a subgroup of patients from FUTURE 2 and thus should be considered interim until the ongoing head-to-head RCT EXCEED can validate these findings.

FUNDING

Novartis Pharma AG.

Defining Outcome Measures for Psoriatic Arthritis: A Report from the GRAPPA-OMERACT Working Group

The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA)-Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) Core Set working group recently published the updated 2016 psoriatic arthritis (PsA) core domain set, a set of disease features that should be measured in all clinical trials. At the GRAPPA annual meeting in July 2016, the PsA working group presented the updated PsA core domain set endorsed by 90% of participants at OMERACT in May 2016 and drafted a roadmap for the development of the PsA core outcome measurement set. In this manuscript, we review the development process of the PsA core domain set and the ongoing and proposed work streams for development of a PsA core measurement set.

Report of the GRAPPA-OMERACT Psoriatic Arthritis Working Group from the GRAPPA 2015 Annual Meeting

The GRAPPA-OMERACT psoriatic arthritis (PsA) working group is in the process of updating the PsA core domain set to improve and standardize the measurement of PsA outcomes. Work streams comprise literature reviews of domains and outcome measurement instruments, an international qualitative research project with PsA patients to generate domains important to patients, outcome measurement instrument assessment, conduct of domain consensus panels with patients and physicians, and evidence-based selection of instruments. Patient research partners are involved in each of the projects. The working group will present findings and seek endorsement for the new PsA core domain set, outcome measurement set, and research agenda at the OMERACT meeting in May 2016.

Let's Talk about Inclusion: A Report on Patient Research Partner Involvement in the GRAPPA 2015 Annual Meeting

Members of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) have worked since 2012 to include the patient perspective in their psoriatic arthritis (PsA) research as well as in their annual meetings. Herein, patient research partners (PRP) report the progress made in their experience at these GRAPPA meetings and discuss their perception of the challenges that remain in ensuring that patients have a voice in PsA outcome research.

Recommendations of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on treatment and use of systemic biological and non-biological therapies in psoriatic arthritis

OBJECTIVE

The main purpose of this recommendation statement is to provide clinicians with the best available evidence and the best opinion agreed upon by the panelists for a rational use of synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologicals in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients. The present document also focuses on important aspects in the management of PsA, such as early diagnosis, therapeutic objectives, comorbidities and optimization of treatment.

METHODS

The recommendations were agreed by consensus by a panel of 8 expert rheumatologists, previously selected by the Spanish Society of Rheumatology (SER) through an open call. The phases of the work were: identification of key areas for updating the previous consensus, analysis and synthesis of scientific evidence (modified Oxford system, Centre for Evidence-based Medicine, 2009) and formulation of recommendations based on this evidence and by consensus techniques.

RESULTS

Seventeen recommendations were issued for the treatment of PsA patients. Six of them were of general nature, ranging from the early diagnosis and treatment to the importance of assessing comorbidities. The other 11 were focused on the indications for DMARDs and biological therapy in the distinct clinical forms of the disease. Likewise, the situation of failure of the first biological is addressed and treatment algorithms and a table with the different biological therapies are also included.

CONCLUSIONS

We present the update of SER recommendations for the treatment of PsA with DMARDs and biologics.

Updating the Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) Core Domain Set: A Report from the PsA Workshop at OMERACT 2016

OBJECTIVE

To include the patient perspective in accordance with the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.0 in the updated Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) Core Domain Set for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and longitudinal observational studies (LOS).

METHODS

At OMERACT 2016, research conducted to update the PsA Core Domain Set was presented and discussed in breakout groups. The updated PsA Core Domain Set was voted on and endorsed by OMERACT participants.

RESULTS

We conducted a systematic literature review of domains measured in PsA RCT and LOS, and identified 24 domains. We conducted 24 focus groups with 130 patients from 7 countries representing 5 continents to identify patient domains. We achieved consensus through 2 rounds of separate surveys with 50 patients and 75 physicians, and a nominal group technique meeting with 12 patients and 12 physicians. We conducted a workshop and breakout groups at OMERACT 2016 in which findings were presented and discussed. The updated PsA Core Domain Set endorsed with 90% agreement by OMERACT 2016 participants included musculoskeletal disease activity, skin disease activity, fatigue, pain, patient's global assessment, physical function, health-related quality of life, and systemic inflammation, which were recommended for all RCT and LOS. These were important, but not required in all RCT and LOS: economic cost, emotional well-being, participation, and structural damage. Independence, sleep, stiffness, and treatment burden were on the research agenda.

CONCLUSION

The updated PsA Core Domain Set was endorsed at OMERACT 2016. Next steps for the PsA working group include evaluation of PsA outcome measures and development of a PsA Core Outcome Measurement Set.

Important Treatment Outcomes for Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis: A Multisite Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a variable and complex inflammatory condition. Symptoms can compromise physical function, reduce quality of life, and accrue significant health costs. Commonly used patient-reported outcomes largely reflect the professionals' perspective, however it is not known whether they capture what is important to patients.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study was to identify treatment outcomes important to patients with PsA.

METHODS

Eight focus groups that were audio recorded, transcribed, anonymised and analysed using inductive thematic analysis were conducted at five hospital sites. The full data set was analysed by the lead researcher, and subsets analysed by three team members (including patient partners).

RESULTS

Overall, 41 patients sampled for a range of phenotypes and domains of disease activity participated in the study: 20 males; mean age 58 years (range 28-75, standard deviation [SD] 11.4); mean disease duration 9 years (range 0.5-39, SD 8.3); and mean Health Assessment Questionnaire score of 1 (range 0.0-2.5, SD 0.7). Over 60 outcomes were identified and grouped into four themes: (i) symptom alleviation (e.g. pain, fatigue, itchy skin, swelling, and reducing variability); (ii) reduction of disease impact (e.g. tiredness and pain, mobility and dexterity, deteriorating physical fitness, negative emotional responses, and strained relationships and social interactions); (iii) improved prognosis (e.g. slowing down disease progression, maintaining independence, and enhancing quality of life); and (iv) minimisation of treatment harm and burden (e.g. nausea, long-term effects, and administration and monitoring of treatments).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes from treatments that are important to patients, which relate to impacts from PsA and its treatment that range beyond those outcomes commonly measured, were identified. These patient perspectives need to be considered when evaluating treatments.

Improving inflammatory arthritis management through tighter monitoring of patients and the use of innovative electronic tools

Treating to target by monitoring disease activity and adjusting therapy to attain remission or low disease activity has been shown to lead to improved outcomes in chronic rheumatic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritis. Patient-reported outcomes, used in conjunction with clinical measures, add an important perspective of disease activity as perceived by the patient. Several validated PROs are available for inflammatory arthritis, and advances in electronic patient monitoring tools are helping patients with chronic diseases to self-monitor and assess their symptoms and health. Frequent patient monitoring could potentially lead to the early identification of disease flares or adverse events, early intervention for patients who may require treatment adaptation, and possibly reduced appointment frequency for those with stable disease. A literature search was conducted to evaluate the potential role of patient self-monitoring and innovative monitoring of tools in optimising disease control in inflammatory arthritis. Experience from the treatment of congestive heart failure, diabetes and hypertension shows improved outcomes with remote electronic self-monitoring by patients. In inflammatory arthritis, electronic self-monitoring has been shown to be feasible in patients despite manual disability and to be acceptable to older patients. Patients' self-assessment of disease activity using such methods correlates well with disease activity assessed by rheumatologists. This review also describes several remote monitoring tools that are being developed and used in inflammatory arthritis, offering the potential to improve disease management and reduce pressure on specialists.

Discordance between tender and swollen joint count as well as patient's and evaluator's global assessment may reduce likelihood of remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis: data from the prospective multicentre NOR-DMARD study

Objective

To investigate the predictive value of discordance between (1) tender and swollen joint count and (2) patient's and evaluator's global assessment on remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Methods

From the prospective, multicentre Norwegian-Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug study, we included patients with RA and PsA starting first-time tumour necrosis factor inhibitors and DMARD-naïve patients starting methotrexate between 2000 and 2012. The predictive value of ΔTSJ (tender minus swollen joint counts) and ΔPEG (patient's minus evaluator's global assessment) on remission was explored in prespecified logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, disease duration and smoking.

Results

A total of 2735 patients with RA and 1236 patients with PsA were included (mean (SD) age 55.0 (13.5)/48.3 (12.4) years, median(range) disease duration 0.7 (0.0–58.0)/1.3 (0.0–48.3) years, 69.7/48.4% females). Baseline ΔTSJ/ΔPEG reduced the likelihood of achieving DAS28<2.6, SDAI≤3.3, CDAI≤2.8, ACR/EULAR Boolean and DAPSA<4 remission after 3 and 6 months in RA (OR 0.95–0.97, p<0.001/OR 0.96–0.99, p≤0.01) and PsA (OR 0.91–0.94, p≤0.004/OR 0.89–0.99, p≤0.002), except for ΔPEG and 6-month DAS28 remission in PsA.

Conclusions

Discordance between patient's and physician's evaluation of disease activity reflected through ΔTSJ and partly ΔPEG may reduce likelihood of remission in RA and PsA. The findings are relevant for use of the treat-to-target strategy in individual patients.

International patient and physician consensus on a psoriatic arthritis core outcome set for clinical trials

Objective

To identify a core set of domains (outcomes) to be measured in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) clinical trials that represent both patients' and physicians' priorities.

Methods

We conducted (1) a systematic literature review (SLR) of domains assessed in PsA; (2) international focus groups to identify domains important to people with PsA; (3) two international surveys with patients and physicians to prioritise domains; (4) an international face-to-face meeting with patients and physicians using the nominal group technique method to agree on the most important domains; and (5) presentation and votes at the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) conference in May 2016. All phases were performed in collaboration with patient research partners.

Results

We identified 39 unique domains through the SLR (24 domains) and international focus groups (34 domains). 50 patients and 75 physicians rated domain importance. During the March 2016 consensus meeting, 12 patients and 12 physicians agreed on 10 candidate domains. Then, 49 patients and 71 physicians rated these domains' importance. Five were important to >70% of both groups: musculoskeletal disease activity, skin disease activity, structural damage, pain and physical function. Fatigue and participation were important to >70% of patients. Patient global and systemic inflammation were important to >70% of physicians. The updated PsA core domain set endorsed by 90% of OMERACT 2016 participants includes musculoskeletal disease activity, skin disease activity, pain, patient global, physical function, health-related quality of life, fatigue and systemic inflammation.

Conclusions

The updated PsA core domain set incorporates patients' and physicians' priorities and evolving PsA research. Next steps include identifying outcome measures that adequately assess these domains.

Presidential Round Table: A Report from the GRAPPA Annual Meeting

In preparation for strategic planning of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA), a special session titled the Presidential Round Table took place during the GRAPPA annual meeting in Stockholm, Sweden, in July 2015. During this session, past, current, and incoming presidents of GRAPPA reflected on GRAPPA's history and provided insights about GRAPPA's future, followed by general discussion by the membership.

Pain mechanisms and ultrasonic inflammatory activity as prognostic factors in patients with psoriatic arthritis: protocol for a prospective, exploratory cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Persistent pain is a major concern for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Pain may be due to inflammatory activity or augmented central pain processing. Unawareness of the origin and mechanisms of pain can lead to misinterpretation of disease activity (by composite scores) and erroneous treatments. Ultrasonography (US) is a highly sensitive method to detect tissue inflammation. Evaluating pain mechanisms in relation to US measures may prove valuable in predicting response to treatment in PsA.

AIMS

To study the association and prognostic value of pain mechanisms, ultrasonic activity and clinical outcomes in patients with PsA who intensify antirheumatic treatment.

METHODS AND ANALYSES

100 participants >18 years of age with PsA who initiate or switch antirheumatic treatment (biologicals and/or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs)) will be prospectively recruited from outpatient clinics in Copenhagen. All data (demographics, clinical, imaging, blood samples and patient-reported outcomes) will be collected at baseline and after 4 months. Pain is assessed by the PainDETECT Questionnaire, Visual Analogue Scale for pain, Swollen to Tender Joint Count Ratio, Widespread Pain Index and tender point examination. The association between pain variables and clinical/US characteristics will be described by correlation analyses. The predictive value of pain measures and baseline US scores on treatment response will be analysed with regression models. Outcomes are composite and clinical, as well as patient reported.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study is approved by the ethics committee of the Capital Region of Denmark (H-15009080) and has been designed in cooperation with patient research partners. The study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (number NCT02572700). Results will be disseminated through publication in international peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02572700, Pre-results.

Systematic literature review of domains assessed in psoriatic arthritis to inform the update of the psoriatic arthritis core domain set

The objectives of this systematic literature review (SLR) were to identify domains and outcome measures used in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) studies in the past 5 years, and to compare the measurement of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 2006 PsA Core Domain Set in studies published in 2010–2015 vs those published in 2006–2010. We performed a systematic literature search in two databases, PubMed and Embase, to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in PsA. We also identified PsA longitudinal observational studies (LOS). Three patient research partners provided input into study conception, and data collection and interpretation. We identified 41 studies representing 22 unique RCTs, 27 LOS and 12 registries. Across all studies, we identified 24 domains and 169 outcome measures. In addition to the PsA Core Domain Set (6 domains), the following domains were also assessed in more than 30% of RCTs: acute phase reactants, dactylitis, enthesitis, fatigue and work productivity. We identified a range of 1–15 outcome measures per domain with a mean (SD) of 7 (4.7) per domain. The complete PsA Core Domain Set was assessed in 59% of RCTs in 2010–2015 compared to 23.5% RCTs in 2006–2010. There has been increased measurement of the PsA Core Domain Set in RCTs and LOS in the past 5 years. Numerous additional outcomes were also measured. The PsA Core Domain Set needs an update to standardise PsA outcome assessments. This SLR will inform the development of an updated PsA Core Domain Set with patient research partner input.

Pharmacological treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature review for the 2015 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To update the evidence on the efficacy and safety of pharmacological agents in psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

METHODS

Systematic literature review of randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological interventions in PsA: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, glucocorticoid, synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs) either conventional or targeted, biologicals (bDMARDs), placebo or any combination. Main outcomes were American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20-50, Psoriasis Area Severity Index 75, radiographic progression, and withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs). Multiple studies of the same intervention were meta-analysed using random effects.

RESULTS

In total, 25 papers and 12 abstracts were included. The efficacy of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (including the recently added golimumab and certolizumab pegol) was confirmed and 16 articles/abstracts focused on 3 drugs with new modes of action: ustekinumab (UST), secukinumab (SEC) and apremilast (APR). All were placebo-compared trials and met their primary end point, ACR20. In 2 studies with UST ACR20 was met by 50% and 44% of patients with UST 90 mg, 42% and 44% with UST 45 mg vs 23% and 20% with placebo, respectively. In two studies with SEC ACR20 ranged 54% (SEC 300 mg), 50-51% (SEC 150 mg), 29-51% (SEC 75 mg) and 15-17% (placebo). In four studies with APR, ACR20 ranged 32-43% (APR 30 mg), 29-38% (APR 20 mg) and 17-20% (placebo). For all three drugs, no more withdrawals due to AEs than placebo were seen and, in general, safety appeared satisfactory. A strategy trial, TIght COntrol of Psoriatic Arthritis (TICOPA), showed better ACR responses with treatment adaptations upon tight control compared with standard care.

CONCLUSIONS

UST, SEC and APR are new drugs with efficacy demonstrated for the treatment of PsA. No major safety signals arise, but long-term studies are needed. This review informed about the European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for management of PsA.

European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with pharmacological therapies: 2015 update

BACKGROUND

Since the publication of the European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in 2012, new evidence and new therapeutic agents have emerged. The objective was to update these recommendations.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed regarding pharmacological treatment in PsA. Subsequently, recommendations were formulated based on the evidence and the expert opinion of the 34 Task Force members. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendations were allocated.

RESULTS

The updated recommendations comprise 5 overarching principles and 10 recommendations, covering pharmacological therapies for PsA from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), to conventional synthetic (csDMARD) and biological (bDMARD) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, whatever their mode of action, taking articular and extra-articular manifestations of PsA into account, but focusing on musculoskeletal involvement. The overarching principles address the need for shared decision-making and treatment objectives. The recommendations address csDMARDs as an initial therapy after failure of NSAIDs and local therapy for active disease, followed, if necessary, by a bDMARD or a targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD). The first bDMARD would usually be a tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. bDMARDs targeting interleukin (IL)12/23 (ustekinumab) or IL-17 pathways (secukinumab) may be used in patients for whom TNF inhibitors are inappropriate and a tsDMARD such as a phosphodiesterase 4-inhibitor (apremilast) if bDMARDs are inappropriate. If the first bDMARD strategy fails, any other bDMARD or tsDMARD may be used.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations provide stakeholders with an updated consensus on the pharmacological treatment of PsA and strategies to reach optimal outcomes in PsA, based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion.

Review of the Psoriatic Arthritis Working Group at OMERACT 12: A Report from the GRAPPA 2014 Annual Meeting

At the 2014 annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA), the psoriatic arthritis (PsA) working group of OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) presented a review of the progress made at the OMERACT 12 meeting, held in 2014. Members of the PsA OMERACT working group presented work from the Patient Involvement in Outcome Measures for PsA initiative to improve the incorporation of patient research partners in PsA outcomes research, the results of discussions within the OMERACT breakout groups, and finally the voting results. The OMERACT 12 participants had endorsed the need to update the PsA core set according to the Filter 2.0 framework. The breakout group discussions identified potential opportunities for revising the core set, including consolidating existing redundancy within the core set, improving incorporation of the patient perspective, and including disease effects such as fatigue as a core criterion. GRAPPA members of the OMERACT working group now have a program of research to update the core set with the goal of seeking endorsement at OMERACT 13, to be held in 2016.

Building Bridges between Researchers and Patient Research Partners: A Report from the GRAPPA 2014 Annual Meeting

Concurring with a worldwide trend to include the patient perspective in outcomes research, the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) recently engaged patients as collaborative partners in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) research. We summarize Building Bridges, a session held at the GRAPPA 2014 annual meeting, where interactive dialogue was encouraged between all participants regarding GRAPPA’s vision for patient research partner (PRP) involvement, including the mutual understanding of the roles and responsibilities of PRP and researchers in GRAPPA’s working groups, meetings, and governance arrangements. We conclude that involving PRP in GRAPPA projects is pivotal to optimizing incorporation of the patient perspective in psoriasis and PsA research.