An OMERACT Initiative Toward Consensus to Identify and Characterize Candidate Contextual Factors: Report from the Contextual Factors Working Group

The Application of Preference Elicitation Methods in Clinical Trial Design to Quantify Trade-Offs: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Patients can express preferences for different treatment options in a healthcare context, and these can be measured with quantitative preference elicitation methods.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to conduct a scoping review to determine how preference elicitation methods have been used in the design of clinical trials.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review to identify primary research studies, involving any health condition, that used quantitative preference elicitation methods, including direct utility-based approaches, and stated preference studies, to value health trade-offs in the context of clinical trial design. Studies were identified by screening existing systematic and scoping reviews and with a primary literature search in MEDLINE from 2010 to the present. We extracted study characteristics and the application of preference elicitation methods to clinical trial design according to the SPIRIT checklist from primary studies and summarized the findings descriptively.

RESULTS

We identified 18 eligible studies. The included studies applied patient preferences to five areas of clinical trial design: intervention selection (n = 1), designing N-of-1 trials (n = 1), outcome selection and weighting composite and ordinal outcomes (n = 12), sample size calculations (n = 2), and recruitment (n = 2). Using preference elicitation methods led to different decisions being made, such as using preference-weighted composite outcomes instead of equally weighted composite outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Preference elicitation methods are infrequently used to design clinical trials but may lead to changes throughout the trial that could affect the evidence generated. Future work should consider measurement challenges and explore stakeholder perceptions.

Development of an environmental contextual factor item set relevant to global functioning and health in patients with axial Spondyloarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To describe the development of an Environmental contextual factors (EF) Item Set (EFIS) accompanying the disease specific Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society Health Index (ASAS HI).

METHOD

First, a candidate item pool was developed by linking items from existing questionnaires to 13 EF previously selected for the ICF/ASAS Core Set. Second, using data from two international surveys, which contained the EF item pool as well as the items from the ASAS HI, the number of EF-items was reduced based on the correlation between the item and the ASAS HI sum score combined with expert opinion. Third, the final English EFIS was translated into 15 languages and cross-culturally validated.

RESULTS

The initial item pool contained 53 EF addressing 4 ICF EF-chapters: products and technology (e1), support and relationship (e3), attitudes (e4) and health services (e5). Based on 1754 responses of axial spondyloarthritis patients in an international survey, 44 of 53 initial items were removed based on low correlations to the ASAS HI or redundancy combined with expert opinion. 9 items of the initial item pool (range correlation 0.21-0.49) form the final EFIS. The EFIS was translated into 15 languages and field tested in 24 countries.

CONCLUSIONS

An EFIS is available complementing the ASAS HI and helps to interpret the ASAS HI results by gaining an understanding of the interaction between a health condition and contextual factors. The EFIS emphasizes the importance of support and relationships, as well as attitudes of the patient and health services in relation to self-reported health.

Risk of harm in synthetic and biological intervention trials in patients with inflammatory arthritis: protocol for a metaepidemiological study focusing on contextual factors

INTRODUCTION

Inflammatory arthritis (IA) conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis, are characterised by inflammatory infiltration of the joints. Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tsDMARDs), respectively, reduce the effects of proinflammatory cytokines and immune cells to ameliorate disease. However, immunosuppression can be associated with high rates of serious adverse events (SAEs), including serious infections, and maybe an increased risk of malignancies and cardiovascular events. Currently, there is no empirical evidence on the extent to which contextual factors and risk of bias (RoB) domains may modify these harm signals in randomised trials.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search MEDLINE (via PubMed) for systematic reviews published since April 2015 and all Cochrane reviews. From these reviews, randomised trials will be eligible if they include patients with an IA condition with at least one group randomly allocated to bDMARD and/or tsDMARD treatments. A predefined form will be used for extracting data on population characteristics (eg, baseline characteristics or eligibility criteria, such as medication background) and specific harm outcome measures, such as number of withdrawals, numbers of patients discontinuing due to adverse events and number of patients having SAEs. RoB in individual trials will be assessed using a modified Cochrane RoB tool. We will estimate the potentially causal harm effects related to the experimental intervention compared with control comparator as risk ratios, and heterogeneity across randomised comparisons will be assessed statistically and evaluated as inconsistency using the I² Index. Our metaregression analyses will designate population and trial characteristics and each RoB domain as independent variables, whereas the three harm domains will serve as dependent variables.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required for this study. Results will be disseminated through publication in international peer-reviewed journals.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020171124.

OMERACT consensus-based operational definition of contextual factors in rheumatology clinical trials: A mixed methods study

OBJECTIVES

To develop an operational definition of contextual factors (CF) [1].

METHODS

Based on previously conducted interviews, we presented three CF types in a Delphi survey; Effect Modifying -, Outcome Influencing - and Measurement Affecting CFs. Subsequently, a virtual Special Interest Group (SIG) session was held for in depth discussion of Effect Modifying CFs.

RESULTS

Of 161 Delphi participants, 129 (80%) completed both rounds. After two rounds, we reached consensus (≥70% agreeing) for all but two statements. The 45 SIG participants were broadly supportive.

CONCLUSION

Through consensus we developed an operational definition of CFs, which was well received by OMERACT members.

Towards consensus in defining and handling contextual factors within rheumatology trials: an initial qualitative study from an OMERACT working group

OBJECTIVES

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Initiative established the Contextual Factors Working Group to guide the understanding, identification and handling of contextual factors for clinical trials. In clinical research, different uses of the term 'contextual factors' exist. This study explores the perspectives of researchers (including clinicians) and patients in defining 'contextual factor' and its related terminology, identifying such factors and accounting for them in trials across rheumatology.

METHODS

We conducted individual semistructured interviews with researchers (including clinicians) who have experience within the field of contextual factors in clinical trials or other potentially relevant areas, and small focus group interviews with patients with rheumatic conditions. We transcribed the interviews and applied qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

We interviewed 12 researchers and 7 patients. Researcher's and patient's descriptions of contextual factors were categorised into two broad themes, each comprising two contextual factors types. The 'treatment effect' theme focused on factors explaining variations in treatment effects (A) among patients and (B) among studies. The 'outcome measurement' theme focused on factors that explain (C) variations in the measurement result itself (apart from actual changes/differences in the outcome) and (D) variations in the outcome itself (beside treatment of interest). Methods for identifying and handling contextual factors differed among these themes and types.

CONCLUSIONS

Two main themes for contextual factors with four types of contextual factors were identified based on input from researchers and patients. This will guide operationalisation of contextual factors. Further research should refine our findings and establish consensus among relevant stakeholders.

Updating OMERACT Core Set of Domains for ANCA-associated Vasculitis: Patient Perspective Using the International Classification of Function, Disability, and Health

OBJECTIVE

Aspects of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies-associated vasculitis (AAV) prioritized by patients with AAV were described using the International Classification of Function, Disability, and Health (ICF).

METHODS

Items identified during 14 individual interviews were incorporated into an ICF-based questionnaire administered to participants of 2 vasculitis patient symposia: 36 in the United Kingdom and 63 in the United States.

RESULTS

Categories identified as at least "moderately relevant" by ≥ 5% of subjects included 44 body functions, 14 body structures, 35 activities and participation, 31 environmental factors, and 38 personal factors.

CONCLUSION

Identified categories differ from those identified by the current Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core set and those prioritized by vasculitis experts.

Individual-level and country-level socioeconomic determinants of disease outcomes in SpA: multinational, cross-sectional study (ASAS-COMOSPA)

OBJECTIVE

To explore the independent contribution of individual-level and country level socioeconomic status (SES) determinants to disease activity and physical function in patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA).

METHODS

Data from the cross-sectional, multinational (n=22 countries worldwide) COMOSPA (COMOrbidities in SpA) study were used. Contribution of individual SES factors (gender, education) and country of residence to Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) was explored in multilevel regression models, adjusting for clinical and demographic confounders. Next, the additional effects of national macroeconomic indicators (gross domestic product [GDP], Human Development Index, healthcare expenditure and Gini index) were explored. The mediating role of uptake of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs between education or GDP and ASDAS was explored by testing indirect effects.

RESULTS

In total, 3370 patients with SpA were included: 65% were male, with a mean age of 43 (SD 14), ASDAS of 2.0 (SD 1.1) and BASFI score of 3.1 (SD 2.7). In adjusted models, patients with low education and female patients had an OR of 1.7 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.2) and an OR of 1.7 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.0), respectively, of having ASDAS ≥2.1. They also reported slightly worse function. Large country differences were observed independent of individual SES and clinical confounders. Patients from less SES developed countries have worse ASDAS, while patterns for BASFI were insignificant. Uptake of biologicals did not mediate the relationship between individual-level or country-level SES and disease activity.

CONCLUSIONS

Individual-level and country-level health inequalities exist also among patients with SpA. Women and lower educated persons had worse disease activity and somewhat worse physical function. While patients in less socioeconomically developed countries had higher disease activity, they reported similar physical function.

Identifying Provisional Generic Contextual Factor Domains for Clinical Trials in Rheumatology: Results from an OMERACT Initiative

Objective.

The Contextual Factors Working Group aims to provide guidance on addressing contextual factors in rheumatology trials within OMERACT.

Methods.

During the Special Interest Group session at OMERACT 2018, preliminary results were presented from a case scenario survey and semistructured interviews, including contextual factors mentioned in these. A group-based exercise sought to identify and rank important generic contextual factors.

Results.

A total of 79 candidate factors were listed. Across the 3 groups, gender/sex, comorbidities, and the healthcare system were ranked as most important.

Conclusion.

The identified important contextual factor domains may be considered a provisional list pending further research.

Physical therapists' perceptions and experiences about barriers and facilitators of therapeutic patient-centred relationships during outpatient rehabilitation: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Over recent years there has been a paradigm shift towards a patient-centred biopsychosocial care model in physical therapy. This new paradigm features a growing interest in understanding the contextual factors that influence the patient's experience of disease, pain and recovery. This includes generalized consensus regarding the importance of establishing a therapeutic relationship that is centred on the patient.

OBJECTIVE

To explore physical therapists' perceptions and experiences regarding barriers and facilitators of therapeutic patient-centred relationships in outpatient rehabilitation settings.

METHODS

This is a qualitative study with four focus groups including twenty-one physical therapists. Two researchers conducted the focus groups, using a topic guide with predetermined questions. The focus group discussions were audiotaped and videotaped, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using a modified grounded theory approach.

RESULTS

Physical therapists perceived that the therapeutic patient-centred relationship not only depends on the personal qualities of the professional, but also on the patient's attitudes and the characteristics of the context, including the organization and team coordination.

CONCLUSIONS

Although being more linked towards the patients' contextual factors and needs than towards the practice of the profession, a therapeutic relationship is worth considering by physical therapists. Furthermore this study highlights the need for physical therapists and administrators to rethink the situation and propose strategies for improvement.