Dialogue on Developing Consensus on Measurement and Presentation of Patient-important Outcomes, Using Pain Outcomes as an Exemplar, in Systematic Reviews: A Preconference Meeting at OMERACT 12

Impact of Nonpharmacologic Interventions Targeting Sleep Disturbances or Disorders in Patients With Inflammatory Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

OBJECTIVE

Patients with inflammatory arthritis have a high risk of sleep disturbances and disorders. The objective was to evaluate the evidence of nonpharmacologic interventions targeting sleep disturbances or disorders in patients with inflammatory arthritis.

METHODS

A systematic search was undertaken from inception to September 8, 2020. We included randomized trials concerning nonpharmacologic interventions applied in adults with inflammatory arthritis and concomitant sleep disturbances or disorders. The primary outcome was the sleep domain, while secondary outcomes were core outcome domains for inflammatory arthritis trials and harms. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was applied, and the overall quality of the evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria. Effect sizes for continuous outcomes were based on the standardized mean difference, combined using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Six trials (308 patients) were included in the quantitative synthesis; 3 of these reported improvement in sleep in favor of the nonpharmacologic interventions. The meta-analysis of the sleep domains indicated a large clinical effect of -0.80 (95% confidence interval -1.33, -0.28) in favor of nonpharmacologic interventions targeting sleep disturbances or disorders. The estimate was rated down twice for risk of bias and unexplained inconsistency; this risk was assessed as corresponding to low-quality evidence. None of the secondary core outcomes used in contemporary inflammatory arthritis trials indicated a clinical benefit in favor of nonpharmacologic interventions targeting sleep.

CONCLUSION

Nonpharmacologic interventions targeting sleep disturbances/disorders in patients with inflammatory arthritis indicated a promising effect on sleep outcomes, but not yet with convincing evidence.

Are there really only 2 kinds of people in the world? Evaluating the distribution of change from baseline in pain clinical trials

It is often assumed that there are 2 types of pain patients: those who respond well to efficacious pain therapies and those who do not respond at all, with few people in the middle. This assumption is based on research that claims that changes in pain intensity have a bimodal distribution. The claim of bimodality has led to calls for a change in how pain clinical trials are designed and analyzed, eg, performing "responder" analyses instead of comparing group mean values to evaluate the treatment effect. We analyzed data from 4 clinical trials, 2 each of duloxetine and pregabalin, for chronic musculoskeletal and neuropathic pain conditions to critically examine the claim of bimodality of the distribution of change in pain intensity. We found that the improper construction of histograms, using unequal bin widths, was the principal flaw leading to the bimodality claim, along with the use of the oft-criticized baseline observation carried forward method for imputing missing data also serving as a contributing factor. Properly constructed histograms of absolute change in pain intensity using equal bin widths, combined with more principled methods for handling missing data, resulted in distributions that had a more unimodal appearance. Although our findings neither support nor refute the hypothesis that distinct populations of "responders" and "nonresponders" to pain interventions exist, the analyses presented in earlier work do not provide support for this hypothesis, nor for the recommendation that pain clinical trials prioritize "responder" analyses, a less efficient analysis strategy.

Incorporating the patient's perspective in outcomes research

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Incorporation of the patients' perspective in clinical research is critical to ensure that outcomes measured reflect those, which matter most to patients. This review summarizes recent efforts to include the patients' perspective in the development of outcome measures and the importance of encouraging patient participation in decision-making and self-management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Since the inclusion of fatigue as a patient-endorsed core outcome measure in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) trials, OMERACT has been instrumental in advocating for patient involvement in the development of core domains and instruments; current endeavors include cultivating an understanding of remission through the eyes of patients and gaining a sense of how to measure features of pain and 'stiffness' deemed as important to patients. The concept of remission was further explored in RA patients, highlighting a common goal of returning to normality; additionally, various tools have been developed to assess for unmet needs in rheumatology patients. Advances have also been made in the development and revision of patient-centered core measures in rheumatologic diagnoses outside of RA.

SUMMARY

Incorporating the patients' perspective is now considered an essential feature in outcomes research. Future research should focus on how best to involve patients in specific research activities.

Patient-important outcomes in randomized controlled trials in critically ill patients: a systematic review

Background

Intensivists’ clinical decision making pursues two main goals for patients: to decrease mortality and to improve quality of life and functional status in survivors. Patient-important outcomes are gaining wide acceptance in most fields of clinical research. We sought to systematically review how well patient-important outcomes are reported in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in critically ill patients.

Methods

Literature search was conducted to identify eligible trials indexed from January to December 2013. Articles were eligible if they reported an RCT involving critically ill adult patients. We excluded phase II, pilot and physiological crossover studies. We assessed study characteristics. All primary and secondary outcomes were collected, described and classified using six categories of outcomes including patient-important outcomes (involving mortality at any time on the one hand and quality of life, functional/cognitive/neurological outcomes assessed after ICU discharge on the other).

Results

Of the 716 articles retrieved in 2013, 112 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Most common topics were mechanical ventilation (27%), sepsis (19%) and nutrition (17%). Among the 112 primary outcomes, 27 (24%) were patient-important outcomes (mainly mortality, 21/27) but only six (5%) were patient-important outcomes besides mortality assessed after ICU discharge (functional disability = 4; quality of life = 2). Among the 598 secondary outcomes, 133 (22%) were patient-important outcomes (mainly mortality, 92/133) but only 41 (7%) were patient-important outcomes besides mortality assessed after ICU discharge (quality of life = 20, functional disability = 14; neurological/cognitive performance = 5; handicap = 1; post-traumatic stress = 1). Seventy-three RCTs (65%) reported at least one patient-important outcome but only 11 (10%) reported at least one patient-important outcome besides mortality assessed after ICU discharge.

Conclusion

Patient-important outcomes are rarely primary outcomes in RCTs in critically ill patients published in 2013. Among them, mortality accounted for the majority. We promote the use of patient-important outcomes in critical care trials.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13613-017-0243-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Incorporating the patient's perspective in outcomes research

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Incorporation of the patients' perspective in clinical research is critical to ensure that outcomes measured reflect those, which matter most to patients. This review summarizes recent efforts to include the patients' perspective in the development of outcome measures and the importance of encouraging patient participation in decision-making and self-management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Since the inclusion of fatigue as a patient-endorsed core outcome measure in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) trials, OMERACT has been instrumental in advocating for patient involvement in the development of core domains and instruments; current endeavors include cultivating an understanding of remission through the eyes of patients and gaining a sense of how to measure features of pain and 'stiffness' deemed as important to patients. The concept of remission was further explored in RA patients, highlighting a common goal of returning to normality; additionally, various tools have been developed to assess for unmet needs in rheumatology patients. Advances have also been made in the development and revision of patient-centered core measures in rheumatologic diagnoses outside of RA.

SUMMARY

Incorporating the patients' perspective is now considered an essential feature in outcomes research. Future research should focus on how best to involve patients in specific research activities.

Marine Oil Supplements for Arthritis Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Arthritis patients often take fish oil supplements to alleviate symptoms, but limited evidence exists regarding their efficacy. The objective was to evaluate whether marine oil supplements reduce pain and/or improve other clinical outcomes in patients with arthritis. Six databases were searched systematically (24 February 2015). We included randomized trials of oral supplements of all marine oils compared with a control in arthritis patients. The internal validity was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and heterogeneity was explored using restricted maximum of likelihood (REML)-based meta-regression analysis. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to rate the overall quality of the evidence. Forty-two trials were included; 30 trials reported complete data on pain. The standardized mean difference (SMD) suggested a favorable effect (-0.24; 95% confidence interval, CI, -0.42 to -0.07; heterogeneity, I² = 63%. A significant effect was found in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (22 trials; -0.21; 95% CI, -0.42 to -0.004) and other or mixed diagnoses (3 trials; -0.63; 95% CI, -1.20 to -0.06), but not in osteoarthritis patients (5 trials; -0.17; 95% CI, -0.57-0.24). The evidence for using marine oil to alleviate pain in arthritis patients was overall of low quality, but of moderate quality in rheumatoid arthritis patients.

Sensitivity to Change of Patient-Preference Measures for Pain in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: Data From Two Trials

Objective

In osteoarthritis (OA) clinical trials, a pain measure that is most sensitive to change is considered optimal. We compared sensitivity to change of patient‐reported pain outcomes, including a patient‐preference measure (where the patient nominates an activity that aggravates their pain).

Methods

We used data from 2 trials of patients with confirmed (American College of Rheumatology criteria) knee OA: a trial of brace treatment for patellofemoral OA, and a trial of intraarticular steroids in knee OA. Both trials reported an improvement in pain following treatment. Participants rated pain on a 100‐mm visual analog scale (VAS), in the activity that caused them the most knee pain (VAS_NA), as well as completing questions on overall knee pain and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) questionnaire. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores were also calculated from the KOOS. Standardized changes in each outcome were generated between treatment and control after 6 weeks intervention in the BRACE trial, and 1–2 weeks following intervention in the steroid trial.

Results

The VAS_NA produced standardized changes following treatment that were at least as large as other pain outcomes. In the BRACE trial, the between‐groups standardized change with the VAS_NA was −0.63, compared with the KOOS pain subscale change of −0.33, and pain in the last week VAS change of −0.56. In the steroid study, within‐group change following treatment in the VAS_NA was −0.60, compared to the last week VAS change of −0.51, and KOOS pain subscale change of −0.58.

Conclusion

Pain on nominated activity appears to be at least as, and in some cases more, sensitive to change than the KOOS/WOMAC questionnaire.

Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who's listening?

The biomedical research complex has been estimated to consume almost a quarter of a trillion US dollars every year. Unfortunately, evidence suggests that a high proportion of this sum is avoidably wasted. In 2014, The Lancet published a series of five reviews showing how dividends from the investment in research might be increased from the relevance and priorities of the questions being asked, to how the research is designed, conducted, and reported. 17 recommendations were addressed to five main stakeholders-funders, regulators, journals, academic institutions, and researchers. This Review provides some initial observations on the possible effects of the Series, which seems to have provoked several important discussions and is on the agendas of several key players. Some examples of individual initiatives show ways to reduce waste and increase value in biomedical research. This momentum will probably move strongly across stakeholder groups, if collaborative relationships evolve between key players; further important work is needed to increase research value. A forthcoming meeting in Edinburgh, UK, will provide an initial forum within which to foster the collaboration needed.