Filgotinib for Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Gilead) of filgotinib (Jyseleca^TM), as part of the single technology appraisal process, to submit evidence for its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarises the company submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review of the clinical- and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the NICE Appraisal Committee. The evidence for filgotinib was based on two good-quality international randomised controlled trials. In FINCH 1, filgotinib was compared with placebo, and in FINCH 2, filgotinib was compared with adalimumab and placebo. As there was no head-to-head evidence with most active comparators, the company performed two separate network meta-analyses (NMAs), one for the conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs-inadequate response population and one for the biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs-inadequate response population. The outcomes analysed were American College of Rheumatology response criteria at weeks 12 and 24, and European League Against Rheumatism response criteria at 24 weeks. The statistical methods used to perform the NMAs were valid and were in line with previous NICE appraisals. Results of the NMAs are confidential and cannot be reported here, but they were uncertain due to heterogeneity of the included studies. The economic analysis of the patient population with moderate RA suffered from limited evidence on the progression from moderate to severe health states. For the moderate RA population, the final analyses comparing filgotinib, with or without methotrexate, against standard of care resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of around £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained in the company's and ERG's base-case and scenario analyses. NICE recommended filgotinib in combination with methotrexate or as monotherapy when methotrexate is contraindicated, or if people cannot tolerate it, for patients with moderate RA whose disease had responded inadequately to two or more conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). For the severe RA population, in view of the higher or similar net health benefits that filgotinib provided versus its comparators, NICE recommended filgotinib with or without methotrexate for patients whose disease had responded inadequately to two or more conventional DMARDs, who had been treated with one or more biological DMARDs, if rituximab was not an option, or after treatment with rituximab.

Developing a group intervention to manage fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis through modifying physical activity

Background

Fatigue is a major symptom of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There is some evidence that physical activity (PA) may be effective in reducing RA fatigue. However, few PA interventions have been designed to manage fatigue and there is limited evidence of end-user input into intervention development. The aim of this research was to co-design an intervention to support self-management of RA fatigue through modifying PA.

Methods

A series of studies used mixed methodological approaches to co-design a fatigue management intervention focused on modifying PA based on UK Medical Research Council guidance, and informed by the Behaviour Change Wheel theoretical framework. Development was based on existing evidence, preferences of RA patients and rheumatology healthcare professionals, and practical issues regarding intervention format, content and implementation.

Results

The resulting group-based intervention consists of seven sessions delivered by a physiotherapist over 12 weeks. Each session includes an education and discussion session followed by supervised PA chosen by the participant. The intervention is designed to support modification and maintenance of PA as a means of managing fatigue. This is underpinned by evidence-based behaviour change techniques that might support changes in PA behaviour. Intervention delivery is interactive and aims to enhance capability, opportunity and motivation for PA.

Conclusion

This study outlines stages in the systematic development of a theory-based intervention designed through consultation with RA patients and healthcare professionals to reduce the impact of RA fatigue. The feasibility of future evaluation of the intervention should now be determined.

Development and testing of candidate items for inclusion in a new rheumatoid arthritis stiffness patient-reported outcome measure

Objective

To qualitatively develop and test a set of candidate items for a new RA stiffness patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that capture the patient perspective. This is an essential first step in PROM development, prior to quantitative development, assessment and validation.

Methods

Focus groups further examined the previously developed stiffness conceptual model and explored the patient perspective regarding stiffness assessment. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. An iterative process of item development was then performed by the expert study team of researchers, patients and clinicians, based on the two qualitative datasets and informed by measurement theory and guidelines. Finally, these candidate items were tested using formal cognitive interview methodology and subsequently refined.

Results

Sixteen RA patients from the UK participated in focus groups. Data confirmed the conceptual model of the RA patient experience of stiffness and provided insight into stiffness assessment, including suggestions regarding patient-relevant stiffness assessment categories such as impact, location and timing. These data informed the development of 77 candidate stiffness PROM items, including multiple formats for some. Eleven RA patients participated in cognitive interviews. Minor changes were made to items to enhance understanding and 32 items were removed, resulting in 45 candidate PROM items.

Conclusion

Rigorous qualitative methodology and considerable patient involvement has underpinned items for a new RA stiffness PROM with strong content validity. Crucially, patient involvement broadened assessment beyond early morning stiffness duration, which may address existing PROM limitations. Items are now suitable for quantitative item reduction, structural development of the final PROM and validation.

Coping Strategies, Psychological Impact, and Support Preferences of Men With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Multicenter Survey

Objective

To investigate the existence and distribution of 2 typologies (termed “factors”) of men with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) identified through our previous Q‐methodology study (n = 30) in a larger sample of men with RA, and whether differences in psychosocial impact or support preferences exist between the 2 factors, and between men and women with RA.

Methods

A postal survey was sent to 620 men with RA from 6 rheumatology units across England, and the support preferences section of the survey was given to 232 women with RA.

Results

A total of 295 male patients (47.6%) and 103 female patients (44.4%) responded; 15 male participants had missing data, and thus 280 were included in the analysis. Of these, 61 (22%) were assigned to factor A (“accept and adapt”), 120 (35%) were assigned to factor B (“struggling to match up”), and 99 (35%) were unassigned. The two factors differed significantly, with factor B reporting more severe disease, less effective coping strategies, and poorer psychological status. For support, men favored a question and answer session with a consultant (54%) or specialist nurse (50%), a website for information (69%), a talk by researchers (54%), or a symptom management session (54%). Overall, women reported more interest in support sessions than men, with ≥50% of women reporting interest in nearly every option provided.

Conclusion

Some men accept and adapt to their RA, but others (43%) report severe disease, less effective coping, and poor psychological status. Men's preferences for support are practical, with a focus on expanding their knowledge.

Successful Stepwise Development of Patient Research Partnership: 14 Years' Experience of Actions and Consequences in Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT)

There is increasing interest in making patient participation an integral component of medical research. However, practical guidance on optimizing this engagement in healthcare is scarce. Since 2002, patient involvement has been one of the key features of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) international consensus effort. Based on a review of cumulative data from qualitative studies and internal surveys among OMERACT participants, we explored the potential benefits and challenges of involving patient research partners in conferences and working group activities. We supplemented our review with personal experiences and reflections regarding patient participation in the OMERACT process. We found that between 2002 and 2016, 67 patients have attended OMERACT conferences, of whom 28 had sustained involvement; many other patients contributed to OMERACT working groups. Their participation provided face validity to the OMERACT process and expanded the research agenda. Essential facilitators have been the financial commitment to guarantee sustainable involvement of patients at these conferences, procedures for recruitment, selection and support, and dedicated time allocated in the program for patient issues. Current challenges include the representativeness of the patient panel, risk of pseudo-professionalization, and disparity in patients’ and researchers’ perception of involvement. In conclusion, OMERACT has embedded long-term patient involvement in the consensus-building process on the measurement of core health outcomes. This integrative process continues to evolve iteratively. We believe that the practical points raised here can improve participatory research implementation.

Drivers of patient global assessment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who are close to remission: an analysis of 1588 patients

Objectives

ACR/EULAR Boolean remission in RA is frequently not obtained solely due to a patient global assessment (PGA) >1/10 (a condition often designated as near-remission). This study aimed to assess which domains of impact could explain an elevated PGA in near-remission patients.

Methods

We performed an ancillary analysis of data from three cross-sectional studies in patients with established RA. Three disease activity states were defined: remission (tender and swollen joint counts, CRP and PGA all ⩽1), near-remission (tender and swollen joint counts, and CRP are all ≤1 but PGA >1) and non-remission. Physical and psychological domains were assessed using the RA Impact of Disease 0-10 (numeric rating scale) as explanatory factors of PGA. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to explain PGA.

Results

A total of 1588 patients (79.1% females) were analysed. The mean disease duration was 13.0 years (s.d. 9.8) and the 28-joint DAS with four variables was 3.2 (s.d. 1.4). Near-remission [mean PGA 3.6 (s.d. 1.9)] was more frequent (19.1%) than remission (12.3%). Scores of RA Impact of Disease domains were similar in near-remission and non-remission patients. In near-remission, PGA was explained (R2adjusted = 0.55) by pain (β = 0.29), function (β = 0.23), physical well-being (β = 0.19) and fatigue (β = 0.15).

Conclusion

Near-remission was more frequent than remission. These patients, despite having no signs of significant inflammation, report an impact of disease similar to the non-remission patients. PGA in near-remission seems to be driven by physical rather than psychological domains. Selecting the best therapy for these patients requires a better understanding of the meaning of PGA, both globally and in individual patients.

"You Obviously Just Have to Put on a Brave Face": A Qualitative Study of the Experiences and Coping Styles of Men With Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective

To explore the experiences, coping styles, and support preferences of male rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

Methods

Six focus groups comprised 22 men with RA. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.

Results

Three overarching themes describe the experiences, coping styles, and support preferences of men with RA. In “challenges to masculinity,” the men described a “reduction in strength and abilities,” which can lead to loss of independence, “challenges to masculine identity and role,” and “loss of power and control.” Coping by “getting through life with RA” meant dealing with RA by “just getting on with it,” “information seeking,” engaging in “destructive behaviors,” and “withdrawing socially.” Preferred “sources of support” tended not to include friends, as they were perceived to lack understanding or support. For acceptable support the men reported a preference for information‐giving sessions rather than a discussion group, but there was no agreement on whether these should be mixed‐sex or men only, or who should run the sessions.

Conclusion

Male patients reported a range of coping styles and support preferences to address their experiences of living with RA, many of which may not be shared with women. Further research is needed to investigate whether these findings exist in a larger sample and whether the support preferences of men with RA are broadly different from those of women with RA to decide whether there is a clinical need to design a service for the potentially different needs of men.

Emerging Guidelines for Patient Engagement in Research

There is growing recognition that involving patients in the development of new patient-reported outcome measures helps ensure that the outcomes that matter most to people living with health conditions are captured. Here, we describe and discuss different experiences of integrating patients as full patient research partners (PRPs) in outcomes research from multiple perspectives (e.g., researcher, patient, and funder), drawing from three real-world examples. These diverse experiences highlight the strengths, challenges, and impact of partnering with patients to conceptualize, design, and conduct research and disseminate findings. On the basis of our experiences, we suggest basic guidelines for outcomes researchers on establishing research partnerships with patients, including: 1) establishing supportive organizational/institutional policies; 2) cultivating supportive attitudes of researchers and PRPs with recognition that partnerships evolve over time, are grounded in strong communication, and have shared goals; 3) adhering to principles of respect, trust, reciprocity, and co-learning; 4) addressing training needs of all team members to ensure communications and that PRPs are conversant in and familiar with the language and process of research; 5) identifying the resources and advanced planning required for successful patient engagement; and 6) recognizing the value of partnerships across all stages of research. The three experiences presented explore different approaches to partnering; demonstrate how this can fundamentally change the way research work is conceptualized, conducted, and disseminated; and can serve as exemplars for other forms of patient-centered outcomes research. Further work is needed to identify the skills, qualities, and approaches that best support effective patient-researcher partnerships.

Stiffness Is the Cardinal Symptom of Inflammatory Musculoskeletal Diseases, Yet Still Variably Measured: Report from the OMERACT 2016 Stiffness Special Interest Group

Objective.

The objectives of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Stiffness special interest group (SIG) are to characterize stiffness as an outcome in rheumatic disease and to identify and validate a stiffness patient-reported outcome (PRO) in rheumatology.

Methods.

At OMERACT 2016, international groups presented and discussed results of several concurrent research projects on stiffness: a literature review of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) stiffness PRO measures, a qualitative investigation into the RA and polymyalgia rheumatica patient perspective of stiffness, data-driven stiffness conceptual model development, development and testing of an RA stiffness PRO measure, and a quantitative work testing stiffness items in patients with RA and psoriatic arthritis.

Results.

The literature review identified 52 individual stiffness PRO measures assessing morning or early morning stiffness severity/intensity or duration. Items were heterogeneous, had little or inconsistent psychometric property evidence, and did not appear to have been developed according to the PRO development guidelines. A poor match between current stiffness PRO and the conceptual model identifying the RA patient experience of stiffness was identified, highlighting a major flaw in PRO selection according to the OMERACT filter 2.0.

Conclusion.

Discussions within the Stiffness SIG highlighted the importance of further research on stiffness and defined a research agenda.

Identifying different typologies of experiences and coping strategies in men with rheumatoid arthritis: a Q-methodology study

OBJECTIVE

To identify typologies of experiences and coping strategies of men with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

DESIGN

Q-methodology (a qualitative and quantitative approach to grouping people according to their subjective opinion). Men with RA sorted 64 statements relating to their experience of living with RA according to level of agreement across a normal distribution grid. Data were examined using Q-factor analysis.

SETTING

Rheumatology outpatient departments in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

30 of 65 invited men with RA participated in this study (46%).

RESULTS

All participants ranked highly the need to be well informed about their medication and the importance of keeping a positive attitude. 2 factors describing the experiences and coping strategies of male patients living with RA were identified: factor A: 'acknowledge, accept and adapt' (n=14) take a proactive approach to managing the impact of RA and find different ways of doing things; while factor B: 'trying to match up to a macho ideal' (n=8) are determined to continue with their pre-RA lives, and therefore push themselves to carry on even if this causes them pain. They are frustrated and angry due to the impact of RA but they internalise this rather than directing it at others.

CONCLUSIONS

While some men adapt to their RA by renegotiating their masculine identity, others struggle to relinquish their traditional masculine roles. Further research is needed to identify whether the finding that there are 2 distinct groups of men with RA can be generalised, and if so whether the differences can be explained by clinical, social or psychological factors, which may inform different therapeutic approaches.

Rheumatoid arthritis: previously untreated early disease

INTRODUCTION

Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic autoimmune disease, which most often presents as a symmetrical polyarthritis of the hands and feet. Pharmacological treatments include non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), glucocorticoids (GCs) and other disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drugs (DMARDs), which may be synthetic (either conventional [csDMARDs] or targeted [tsDMARDs]) or biological (bDMARDs).

METHODS AND OUTCOMES

We conducted a systematic overview, aiming to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of methotrexate in combination with other csDMARDs versus methotrexate monotherapy in people with rheumatoid arthritis who have not previously received any DMARD treatment (first-line treatment)? What are the effects of bDMARDs as monotherapy versus methotrexate or other csDMARDs in people with rheumatoid arthritis who have not previously received any DMARD treatment (first-line treatment)? What are the effects of bDMARDs in combination with methotrexate versus methotrexate monotherapy or other csDMARDs in people with rheumatoid arthritis who have not previously received any DMARD treatment (first-line treatment)? What are the effects of glucocorticoids in combination with methotrexate or with other csDMARDs versus methotrexate or other csDMARDs in people with rheumatoid arthritis who have not previously received any DMARD treatment (first-line treatment)? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to December 2014 (Clinical Evidence overviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this overview).

RESULTS

At this update, searching of electronic databases retrieved 2058 studies. Of the full articles evaluated, 10 systematic reviews, 22 RCTs, and one follow-up report were added at this update. We performed a GRADE evaluation for 18 PICO combinations.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic overview, we categorised the efficacy for 22 comparisons based on information about the effectiveness and safety of bDMARDs (monotherapy or combined with csDMARDs), csDMARDs (monotherapy or combined with other csDMARDs), glucocorticoids combined with methotrexate or other csDMARDs, and methotrexate (monotherapy or combined with other csDMARDs), identifying interventions which were likely or unlikely to be beneficial.

Biologic interventions for fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Fatigue is a common and potentially distressing symptom for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with no accepted evidence-based management guidelines. Evidence suggests that biologic interventions improve symptoms and signs in RA as well as reducing joint damage.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of biologic interventions on fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases up to 1 April 2014: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Current Controlled Trials Register, the National Research Register Archive, The UKCRN Portfolio Database, AMED, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Science Citation Index, Web of Science, and Dissertation Abstracts International. In addition, we checked the reference lists of articles identified for inclusion for additional studies and contacted key authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials if they evaluated a biologic intervention in people with rheumatoid arthritis and had self reported fatigue as an outcome measure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers selected relevant trials, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 32 studies for inclusion in this current review. Twenty studies evaluated five anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) biologic agents (adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab and infliximab), and 12 studies focused on five non-anti-TNF biologic agents (abatacept, canakinumab, rituximab, tocilizumab and an anti-interferon gamma monoclonal antibody). All but two of the studies were double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trials. In some trials, patients could receive concomitant disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). These studies added either biologics or placebo to DMARDs. Investigators did not change the dose of the latter from baseline. In total, these studies included 9946 participants in the intervention groups and 4682 participants in the control groups. Overall, quality of randomised controlled trials was moderate with a low to unclear risk of bias in the reporting of the outcome of fatigue. We downgraded the quality of the studies from high to moderate because of potential reporting bias (studies included post hoc analyses favouring reporting of positive result and did not always include all randomised individuals). Some studies recruited only participants with early disease. The studies used five different instruments to assess fatigue in these studies: the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Domain (FACIT-F), Short Form-36 Vitality Domain (SF-36 VT), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (0 to 100 or 0 to 10) and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). We calculated standard mean differences for pooled data in meta-analyses. Overall treatment by biologic agents led to statistically significant reduction in fatigue with a standardised mean difference of -0.43 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.38 to -0.49). This equates to a difference of 6.45 units (95% CI 5.7 to 7.35) of FACIT-F score (range 0 to 52). Both types of biologic agents achieved a similar level of improvement: for anti-TNF agents, this stood at -0.42 (95% CI -0.35 to -0.49), equivalent to 6.3 units (95% CI 5.3 to 7.4) on the FACIT-F score; and for non-anti-TNF agents, it was -0.46 (95% CI -0.39 to -0.53), equivalent to 6.9 units (95% CI 5.85 to 7.95) on the FACIT-F score. In most studies, the double-blind period was 24 weeks or less. No study assessed long-term changes in fatigue.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with biologic interventions in patients with active RA can lead to a small to moderate improvement in fatigue. The magnitude of improvement is similar for anti-TNF and non-anti-TNF biologics. However, it is unclear whether the improvement results from a direct action of the biologics on fatigue or indirectly through reduction in inflammation, disease activity or some other mechanism.

Development of a Provisional Core Domain Set for Polymyalgia Rheumatica: Report from the OMERACT 12 Polymyalgia Rheumatica Working Group

Objective.

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) working group aims to develop a core set of outcome measures to be used in clinical trials for PMR. Previous reports from OMERACT 11 included a qualitative study of the patient experience and a preliminary literature review.

Methods.

A 3-round Delphi survey of clinicians and patients with PMR was undertaken to identify a candidate core domain set for PMR research. Additionally, a literature review of outcome measures and their respective measurement instruments was undertaken. Meetings of patient research partners and clinicians were convened to review face validity of the provisional core domain set, which was subsequently presented and discussed at the OMERACT 12 congress.

Results.

Of the 60 clinicians taking part in round 1, 55 took part in round 2 and 51 in round 3. Of the 55 patients who took part in round 1, 46 and 35 took part in subsequent rounds. In total, 91% of participants in round 3 deemed the resulting draft core domain set reasonable. The literature review identified 28 studies for full review. Measurement instruments for each proposed domain were identified. Clinicians are highly aware of glucocorticoid-related adverse effects, but there is relatively little evidence about their true prevalence and severity, especially in PMR.

Conclusion.

A provisional core domain set, presented for clinical trials in PMR, comprises acute phase markers, physical function, death, glucocorticoid-related adverse events, and development of giant cell arteritis. Measurement instruments are suggested that may cover each domain, but these require formal validation for clinical trials in PMR.

The Spirit of OMERACT: Q Methodology Analysis of Conference Characteristics Valued by Delegates

OBJECTIVE

To identify the major features of OMERACT meetings as valued by frequent participants and to explore whether there are groups of participants with different opinions.

METHODS

Using Q methodology (a qualitative and quantitative approach to grouping people according to subjective opinion), participants (who attended more than 1 OMERACT conference) sorted 66 statements relating to the "spirit of OMERACT" according to level of agreement across a normal distribution grid. Data were examined using Q factor analysis.

RESULTS

Of 226 potential participants, 105 responded (46%). All participants highly ranked the focus on global standardization of methods, outcome measures, data-driven research, methodological discussion, and international collaboration. Four factors describing the "spirit of OMERACT" were identified: "Evidence not eminence" (n = 31) valued the data- and evidence-driven research above personality and status; "Collaboration and collegiality" (n = 19) valued the international and cross-stakeholder collaboration, interaction, and collegiality; "Equal voices, equal votes, common goals" (n = 12) valued equality in discussion and voting, with everyone striving toward the same goal; "principles and product, not process" (n = 8) valued the principles of focusing on outcome measures and the product of guiding clinical trials, but were unsure whether the process is necessary to reach this. The factors did not segregate different stakeholder groups.

CONCLUSION

Delegates value different elements of OMERACT, and thus the "spirit of OMERACT" encompasses evidence-based research, collaboration, and equality, although a small group are unsure whether the process is necessary to achieve the end result. Q methodology may prove useful for conference organizers to identify their delegates' different needs to tailor conference content.

Optimal Strategies for Reporting Pain in Clinical Trials and Systematic Reviews: Recommendations from an OMERACT 12 Workshop

OBJECTIVE

Pain is a patient-important outcome, but current reporting in randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews is often suboptimal, impeding clinical interpretation and decision making.

METHODS

A working group at the 2014 Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT 12) was convened to provide guidance for reporting treatment effects regarding pain for individual studies and systematic reviews.

RESULTS

For individual trials, authors should report, in addition to mean change, the proportion of patients achieving 1 or more thresholds of improvement from baseline pain (e.g., ≥ 20%, ≥ 30%, ≥ 50%), achievement of a desirable pain state (e.g., no worse than mild pain), and/or a combination of change and state. Effects on pain should be accompanied by other patient-important outcomes to facilitate interpretation. When pooling data for metaanalysis, authors should consider converting all continuous measures for pain to a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and use the established, minimally important difference (MID) of 10 mm, and the conventionally used, appreciably important differences of 20 mm, 30 mm, and 50 mm, to facilitate interpretation. Effects ≤ 0.5 units suggest a small or very small effect. To further increase interpretability, the pooled estimate on the VAS should also be transformed to a binary outcome and expressed as a relative risk and risk difference. This transformation can be achieved by calculating the probability of experiencing a treatment effect greater than the MID and the thresholds for appreciably important differences in pain reduction in the control and intervention groups.

CONCLUSION

Presentation of relative effects regarding pain will facilitate interpretation of treatment effects.

Recommendations for the Involvement of Patient Research Partners (PRP) in OMERACT Working Groups. A Report from the OMERACT 2014 Working Group on PRP

Objective.

Patient participation in research is increasing; however, practical guidelines to enhance this participation are lacking. Specifically within the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) organization, although patients have participated in OMERACT meetings since 2002, consensus about the procedures for involving patients in working groups has not been formalized. The objective is to develop a set of recommendations regarding patient research partner (PRP) involvement in research working groups.

Methods.

We conducted a systematic literature review on recommendations/guidelines of PRP involvement in research; elaborated a structured consensus process involving multiple participants to develop a set of recommendations; and sought endorsement of recommendations by OMERACT.

Results.

In the 18 articles included in the literature review, there was general agreement on the broad concepts for recommendations covering PRP involvement in research although they were heterogeneous in detail. Most considered PRP involvement in all phases of research with early engagement, training, and support important, but details on the content were scarce. This review informed a larger consensus-building process regarding PRP inclusion in OMERACT research. Three overarching principles and 8 recommendations were developed, discussed, and refined at OMERACT 2014. The guiding principles were endorsed during the OMERACT plenary session.

Conclusion.

These recommendations for PRP involvement in OMERACT research reinforce the importance of patient participation throughout the research process as integral members. Although the applicability of the recommendations in other research contexts should be assessed, the generalizability is expected to be high. Future research should evaluate their implementation and their effect on outcome development.

Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Working Toward Incorporation of the Patient Perspective at OMERACT 12

Objective.

The treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) should target patient-relevant outcomes, making patient perspective on remission essential. In 2010, patients, physicians, health professionals, and researchers at the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) conference developed an ambitious research agenda to study the concept of remission. Qualitative research has since helped us understand the concept of remission from the patient perspective.

Methods.

During OMERACT 12, the OMERACT working group on patient perspective on remission in RA elaborated on data generated to date and discussed the methodological challenges ahead. Challenges included (1) selection of domains, (2) choice of a patient remission definition or a single domain to add to the current remission definition, and (3) the importance of pain in defining remission from a patient perspective.

Results.

Focus in the coming years will be on increasing our understanding by identifying the most important domains from the patient perspective regarding remission and investigating how these domains can be measured. Investigation into the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease questionnaire, disease flare, as well as the concordance of domains from our ongoing remission survey is appropriate. More data and further discussions are needed to decide on the next steps.

Conclusion.

Progress summarized over 4 years highlights the main methodological challenges discussed within the working group on patient perspective on remission in RA during OMERACT 12.

Updating the OMERACT filter at OMERACT 11

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) community strives to develop core outcome sets for rheumatologic conditions to specify, for each condition, the minimum set of outcomes necessary to provide consistent estimates of the benefits of an intervention. The original and successful OMERACT filter of "truth, discrimination, and feasibility" requires development and updating because of application to a widening range of conditions by an expanding group, particularly patients. It should more explicitly identify the relevant core outcomes that might be universal to all randomized controlled trials within rheumatology. Working from first principles, comparing proposals against actual procedures adopted by OMERACT working groups, and seeking a broad consensus over several major sessions at the OMERACT 11 meeting, a new version has emerged, OMERACT Filter 2.0, which will form the central theme of the intended OMERACT handbook and offers an approach to core outcome set development in many areas of healthcare.

Self-efficacy as an appraisal that moderates the coping-emotion relationship: associations among people with rheumatoid arthritis

The way a coping strategy is expressed might depend on the nature of underlying efficacy expectations. For example, a cognitive coping strategy may have different content depending on efficacy beliefs underpinning the strategy's formulation and application. As such, self-efficacy (SE), as an appraisal, may moderate relationships between coping and outcomes: coping effects may differ depending on SE. This process was examined in 127 rheumatoid arthritis patients attending routine patient education/self-management programmes. Participants completed questionnaire measures of SE, coping, anxiety and depression at baseline and at 8 weeks follow-up. Regression analyses focused on coping and SE change variables, and their concurrent association with measures of change in anxiety and depression. Results highlighted contributions to these emotional variables from interactions between coping and SE. The nature of associations between coping and emotional outcomes was found to differ according to efficacy appraisals. This may have implications for clinical practice in that the adaptive significance of adjustment efforts may differ according to underlying SE.

Updating the OMERACT filter: core areas as a basis for defining core outcome sets

OBJECTIVE

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter provides guidelines for the development and validation of outcome measures for use in clinical research. The "Truth" section of the OMERACT Filter presupposes an explicit framework for identifying the relevant core outcomes that are universal to all studies of the effects of intervention effects. There is no published outline for instrument choice or development that is aimed at measuring outcome, was derived from broad consensus over its underlying philosophy, or includes a structured and documented critique. Therefore, a new proposal for defining core areas of measurement ("Filter 2.0 Core Areas of Measurement") was presented at OMERACT 11 to explore areas of consensus and to consider whether already endorsed core outcome sets fit into this newly proposed framework.

METHODS

Discussion groups critically reviewed the extent to which case studies of current OMERACT Working Groups complied with or negated the proposed framework, whether these observations had a more general application, and what issues remained to be resolved.

RESULTS

Although there was broad acceptance of the framework in general, several important areas of construction, presentation, and clarity of the framework were questioned. The discussion groups and subsequent feedback highlighted 20 such issues.

CONCLUSION

These issues will require resolution to reach consensus on accepting the proposed Filter 2.0 framework of Core Areas as the basis for the selection of Core Outcome Domains and hence appropriate Core Outcome Sets for clinical trials.

Updating the OMERACT filter: implications of filter 2.0 to select outcome instruments through assessment of "truth": content, face, and construct validity

OBJECTIVE

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter provides guidelines for the development and validation of outcome measures for use in clinical research. The "Truth" section of the OMERACT Filter requires that criteria be met to demonstrate that the outcome instrument meets the criteria for content, face, and construct validity.

METHODS

Discussion groups critically reviewed a variety of ways in which case studies of current OMERACT Working Groups complied with the Truth component of the Filter and what issues remained to be resolved.

RESULTS

The case studies showed that there is broad agreement on criteria for meeting the Truth criteria through demonstration of content, face, and construct validity; however, several issues were identified that the Filter Working Group will need to address.

CONCLUSION

These issues will require resolution to reach consensus on how Truth will be assessed for the proposed Filter 2.0 framework, for instruments to be endorsed by OMERACT.

Updating the OMERACT filter: discrimination and feasibility

The "Discrimination" part of the OMERACT Filter asks whether a measure discriminates between situations that are of interest. "Feasibility" in the OMERACT Filter encompasses the practical considerations of using an instrument, including its ease of use, time to complete, monetary costs, and interpretability of the question(s) included in the instrument. Both the Discrimination and Reliability parts of the filter have been helpful but were agreed on primarily by consensus of OMERACT participants rather than through explicit evidence-based guidelines. In Filter 2.0 we wanted to improve this definition and provide specific guidance and advice to participants.

How to choose core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT 11 approves filter 2.0

OBJECTIVE

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) initiative works to develop core sets of outcome measures for trials and observational studies in rheumatology. At the OMERACT 11 meeting, substantial time was devoted to discussing a conceptual framework and a proposal for a more explicit working process to develop what we now propose to term core outcome measurement sets, collectively termed "OMERACT Filter 2.0."

METHODS

Preconference work included a literature review, and discussion of preliminary proposals through face-to-face discussions and Internet-based surveys with people within and outside rheumatology. At the conference, 5 interactive sessions comprising plenary and small-group discussions reflected on the proposals from the viewpoint of previous and ongoing OMERACT work. These considerations were brought together in a final OMERACT presentation seeking consensus agreement for the Filter 2.0 framework.

RESULTS

After debate, clarification, and agreed alterations, the final proposal suggested all core sets should contain at least 1 measurement instrument from 3 Core Areas: Death, Life Impact, and Pathophysiological Manifestations, and preferably 1 from the area Resource Use. The process of core set development for a health condition starts by selecting core domains within the areas ("core domain set"). This requires literature searches, involvement (especially of patients), and at least 1 consensus process. Next, developers select at least 1 applicable measurement instrument for each core domain. Applicability refers to the original OMERACT Filter and means that the instrument must be truthful (face, content, and construct validity), discriminative (between situations of interest) and feasible (understandable and with acceptable time and monetary costs). Depending on the quality of the instruments, participants formulate either a preliminary or a final "core outcome measurement set." At final vote, 96% of participants agreed "The proposed overall framework for Filter 2.0 is a suitable basis on which to elaborate a Filter 2.0 Handbook."

CONCLUSION

Within OMERACT, Filter 2.0 has made established working processes more explicit and includes a broadly endorsed conceptual framework for core outcome measurement set development.

Updating the OMERACT Filter: Implications for Patient-reported Outcomes

Objective.

At a previous Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) meeting, participants reflected on the underlying methods of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument development. The participants requested proposals for more explicit instrument development protocols that would contribute to an enhanced version of the “Truth” statement in the OMERACT Filter, a widely used guide for outcome validation. In the present OMERACT session, we explored to what extent these new Filter 2.0 proposals were practicable, feasible, and already being applied.

Methods.

Following overview presentations, discussion groups critically reviewed the extent to which case studies of current OMERACT Working Groups complied with or negated the proposed PRO development framework, whether these observations had a more general application, and what issues remained to be resolved.

Results.

Several aspects of PRO development were recognized as particularly important, and the need to directly involve patients at every stage of an iterative PRO development program was endorsed. This included recognition that patients contribute as partners in the research and not merely as subjects. Correct communication of concepts with the words used in questionnaires was central to their performance as measuring instruments, and ensuring this understanding crossed cultural and linguistic boundaries was important in international studies or comparisons.

Conclusion.

Participants recognized, endorsed, and were generally already putting into practice the principles of PRO development presented in the plenary session. Further work is needed on some existing instruments and on establishing widespread good practice for working in close collaboration with patients.

Toward a generalized framework of core measurement areas in clinical trials: a position paper for OMERACT 11

OBJECTIVE

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) international consensus initiative has successfully developed core sets of outcome measures for trials of many rheumatologic conditions, but its expanding scope called for clarification and updating of its underlying conceptual framework and working process. To develop a core set of what we propose to call outcome measurement instruments, consensus must be reached both on what to measure and how to measure. This article deals with the first part: a framework necessary to ensure comprehensiveness of the domains chosen for measurement. We formulated a conceptual framework of core measurement areas in clinical trials, for discussion at the OMERACT 11 conference.

METHODS

We formulated a framework and definitions of key concepts adapted from the literature, and followed an iterative consensus process (small group processes and an Internet-based survey) of those involved including patients, health professionals, and methodologists within and outside rheumatology.

RESULTS

The draft framework comprises 4 core "areas": death, life impact (all aspects of how a patient feels or functions), resource use (monetary and other costs of the health condition and interventions), and pathophysiologic manifestations (disease-specific clinical and psychological signs, biomarkers, and potential surrogate outcome measures necessary to assess specific effects). The survey responses (262 of 2293, response rate 11%) indicated broad agreement with the draft framework and the proposed definitions of key concepts, including understandability and feasibility. A total of 283 comments were processed.

CONCLUSION

In an iterative process, we have developed a generic framework for outcome measurement and working definitions of key concepts ready for discussion at the OMERACT 11 conference.

Polymyalgia Rheumatica (PMR) Special Interest Group at OMERACT 11: outcomes of importance for patients with PMR

We worked toward developing a core outcome set for clinical research studies in polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) by conducting (1) patient consultations using modified nominal group technique; (2) a systematic literature review of outcome measures in PMR; (3) a pilot observational study of patients presenting with untreated PMR, and further discussion with patient research partners; and (4) a qualitative focus group study of patients with PMR on the meaning of stiffness, using thematic analysis. (1) Consultations included 104 patients at 4 centers. Symptoms of PMR included pain, stiffness, fatigue, and sleep disturbance. Function, anxiety, and depression were also often mentioned. Participants expressed concerns about diagnostic delay, adverse effects of glucocorticoids, and fear of relapse. (2) In the systematic review, outcome measures previously used for PMR include pain visual analog scores (VAS), morning stiffness, blood markers, function, and quality of life; standardized effect sizes posttreatment were large. (3) Findings from the observational study indicated that asking about symptom severity at 7 AM, or "on waking," appeared more relevant to disease activity than asking about symptom severity "now" (which depended on the time of assessment). (4) Preliminary results were presented from the focus group qualitative study, encompassing broad themes of stiffness, pain, and the effect of PMR on patients' lives. It was concluded that further validation work is required before a core outcome set in PMR can be recommended. Nevertheless, the large standardized effect sizes suggest that pain VAS is likely to be satisfactory as a primary outcome measure for assessing response to initial therapy of PMR. Dissection of between-patient heterogeneity in the subsequent treatment course may require attention to comorbidity as a potential confounding factor.

The intelligent use of systemic glucocorticoids in rheumatoid arthritis

Glucocorticoids (GC) have potent anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects and are widely used in the management of rheumatoid arthritis in combination with other disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drugs. Concern about the risk of adverse effects may be to some extent misplaced as low to moderate doses of GC have different mechanisms of action and risk profiles compared with high doses. This review discusses the current understanding about the different modes of action of GC, their strong disease-modifying properties and the efforts at improving the therapeutic ratio of GC through the development of new drugs which promise greater safety such as selective GC receptor agonists, liposomal GC and modified-release (MR) prednisone.

Using actigraphy to measure sleep patterns in rheumatoid arthritis: a pilot study in patients taking night-time prednisone

OBJECTIVE

Poor sleep quality is a commonly reported but under-investigated consequence of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Actigraphy is a non-invasive way of measuring sleep, estimated from the frequency and intensity of physical movement at the wrist. We used actigraphy to measure sleep parameters compared with sleep questionnaire data, and assessed the practicality of actigraph use in patients with RA.

METHODS

In a pilot study of actigraphy conducted within an investigation of night-time prednisone treatment and circadian interleukin-6 concentrations in ten patients with active RA, we compared actigraphy with the St Mary's Hospital Sleep Questionnaire and assessed whether night-time administration of prednisone resulted in increased sleep disturbance.

RESULTS

The actigraph watch was well tolerated by our patients, producing adequate data for analysis for 128 out of 133 test days (96.2%). The results indicated reasonable concordance between actigraph and sleep questionnaire data in the present sample. Patient satisfaction with sleep (question 11) strongly correlated with sleep efficiency measured by the actigraph (r = 0.71, p = 0.22) and showed a trend for inverse correlation with the fragmentation index (r = -0.60, p = 0.067). Quality of sleep (question 9) correlated non-significantly with the fragmentation index (r = -0.59, p = 0.072). We were unable to identify any significant correlations between clinical measures of disease and sleep parameters in this sample. There were no apparent detrimental consequences of the night-time dose of prednisone on the measures of sleep quality and quantity.

CONCLUSION

In spite of the physical disability imposed by RA, the actigraph was well tolerated and gave a useful measure of sleep in patients with active disease. It has the potential for use in larger controlled trials.

Non-pharmacological interventions for fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Fatigue is a common and potentially distressing symptom for people with rheumatoid arthritis with no accepted evidence based management guidelines. Non-pharmacological interventions, such as physical activity and psychosocial interventions, have been shown to help people with a range of other long-term conditions to manage subjective fatigue.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefit and harm of non-pharmacological interventions for the management of fatigue in people with rheumatoid arthritis. This included any intervention that was not classified as pharmacological in accordance with European Union (EU) Directive 2001/83/EEC.

SEARCH METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched up to October 2012, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; AMED; CINAHL; PsycINFO; Social Science Citation Index; Web of Science; Dissertation Abstracts International; Current Controlled Trials Register; The National Research Register Archive; The UKCRN Portfolio Database. In addition, reference lists of articles identified for inclusion were checked for additional studies and key authors were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials were included if they evaluated a non-pharmacological intervention in people with rheumatoid arthritis with self-reported fatigue as an outcome measure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors selected relevant trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Where appropriate, data were pooled using meta-analysis with a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 2882 participants with rheumatoid arthritis. Included studies investigated physical activity interventions (n = 6 studies; 388 participants), psychosocial interventions (n = 13 studies; 1579 participants), herbal medicine (n = 1 study; 58 participants), omega-3 fatty acid supplementation (n = 1 study; 81 participants), Mediterranean diet (n = 1 study; 51 participants), reflexology (n = 1 study; 11 participants) and the provision of Health Tracker information (n = 1 study; 714 participants). Physical activity was statistically significantly more effective than the control at the end of the intervention period (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.62 to -0.10; back translated to mean difference of 14.4 points lower, 95% CI -4.0 to -24.8 on a 100 point scale where a lower score means less fatigue; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 7, 95% CI 4 to 26) demonstrating a small beneficial effect upon fatigue. Psychosocial intervention was statistically significantly more effective than the control at the end of the intervention period (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.07; back translated to mean difference of 9.6 points lower, 95% CI -2.8 to -16.0 on a 100 point scale, lower score means less fatigue; NNTB 10, 95% CI 6 to 33) demonstrating a small beneficial effect upon fatigue. For the remaining interventions meta-analysis was not possible and there was either no statistically significant difference between trial arms or findings were not reported. Only three studies reported any adverse events and none of these were serious, however, it is possible that the low incidence was in part due to poor reporting. The quality of the evidence ranged from moderate quality for physical activity interventions and Mediterranean diet to low quality for psychosocial interventions and all other interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides some evidence that physical activity and psychosocial interventions provide benefit in relation to self-reported fatigue in adults with rheumatoid arthritis. There is currently insufficient evidence of the effectiveness of other non-pharmacological interventions.

EULAR evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations on the management of medium to high-dose glucocorticoid therapy in rheumatic diseases

To develop recommendations for the management of medium to high-dose (ie, >7.5 mg but ≤100 mg prednisone equivalent daily) systemic glucocorticoid (GC) therapy in rheumatic diseases. A multidisciplinary EULAR task force was formed, including rheumatic patients. After discussing the results of a general initial search on risks of GC therapy, each participant contributed 10 propositions on key clinical topics concerning the safe use of medium to high-dose GCs. The final recommendations were selected via a Delphi consensus approach. A systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library was used to identify evidence concerning each of the propositions. The strength of recommendation was given according to research evidence, clinical expertise and patient preference. The 10 propositions regarded patient education and informing general practitioners, preventive measures for osteoporosis, optimal GC starting dosages, risk-benefit ratio of GC treatment, GC sparing therapy, screening for comorbidity, and monitoring for adverse effects. In general, evidence supporting the recommendations proved to be surprisingly weak. One of the recommendations was rejected, because of conflicting literature data. Nine final recommendations for the management of medium to high-dose systemic GC therapy in rheumatic diseases were selected and evaluated with their strengths of recommendations. Robust evidence was often lacking; a research agenda was created.

Pharmacokinetics of modified-release prednisone tablets in healthy subjects and patients with rheumatoid arthritis

In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), nocturnal release of proinflammatory cytokines is not adequately counteracted by endogenous glucocorticoid and is associated with symptoms of morning stiffness and pain. Taking exogenous glucocorticoid during the night reduces morning stiffness significantly more than treatment at the conventional time in the morning, although waking to take tablets is unacceptable for patients. Modified-release prednisone tablets were developed to allow administration at bedtime for programmed delivery of glucocorticoid during the night. Single-center crossover studies were conducted, each in ≤24 healthy subjects, to compare the pharmacokinetics of a single 5-mg oral dose of modified-release prednisone and conventional prednisone, as well as the effect of food on bioavailability. There was no substantial difference in pharmacokinetic parameters of the formulations apart from the programmed delay in release of glucocorticoid from the modified-release tablets (C(max) 97%, AUC(0-∞) 101%, 90% confidence intervals within the requisite range for bioequivalence). Administration after a full or light meal did not affect pharmacokinetic characteristics, but bioavailability was reduced under fasted conditions. Pharmacokinetic evaluation in 9 patients with RA confirmed that modified-release prednisone tablets taken at bedtime (around 22:00 h) with or after an evening meal result in programmed release of glucocorticoid 4 to 6 hours after intake.

Overview of the patient perspective at OMERACT 10--conceptualizing methods for developing patient-reported outcomes

This overview draws out the main conclusions from the 4 workshops focused on incorporating the patient perspective into outcome assessment at the 10th Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT 10) conference. They raised methodological issues about the choice of outcome domains to include in clinical trials, the development or choice of instruments to measure these domains, and the way these instruments might capture the impact of a disease and its treatment. The need to develop a more rigorous conceptual model of quantifying the way conditions affect health, and the need to ensure patients are directly involved in the decisions about domains and instruments, emerged clearly. The OMERACT participants voted to develop guidelines for domain and instrument selection, and conceptual and experimental work will be brought forward to revise and upgrade the OMERACT Filter.

It's good to feel better but it's better to feel good and even better to feel good as soon as possible for as long as possible. Response criteria and the importance of change at OMERACT 10

The OMERACT patient reported outcomes (PRO) working group evaluated the methodologies for measuring responsiveness to change at the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 10 meeting. The outcome measures used in PRO studies are often expressed as continuous data at the group level (e.g., mean change in pain on a 0-100 visual analog scale). This is difficult to interpret and cannot easily be translated to the individual level of response. When interpreting scores at the individual level, it is important to take into account the following 4 main concepts: (1) improvement; (2) status of well-being; (3) onset of action; and (4) sustainability. Information from clinical trials on how many patients showed a response, what the level of response was, and how many patients are doing well, would be extremely useful for physicians. The objective of this article is to outline how continuous data may be reported in a clinically relevant manner. We will describe 5 techniques of reporting continuous variables in clinical studies and discuss the relevance of each.

Patient perspective: choosing or developing instruments

Previous Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) meetings recognized that patients view outcomes of intervention from a different perspective. This preconference position paper briefly sets out 2 patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument approaches, the PROMISE computer adaptive testing (CAT) system and development of a rheumatoid arthritis-specific questionnaire to measure fatigue; a tentative proposal for a PRO instrument development pathway is also made.

Finalisation and validation of the rheumatoid arthritis impact of disease score, a patient-derived composite measure of impact of rheumatoid arthritis: a EULAR initiative

OBJECTIVE

A patient-derived composite measure of the impact of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the rheumatoid arthritis impact of disease (RAID) score, takes into account pain, functional capacity, fatigue, physical and emotional wellbeing, quality of sleep and coping. The objectives were to finalise the RAID and examine its psychometric properties.

METHODS

An international multicentre cross-sectional and longitudinal study of consecutive RA patients from 12 European countries was conducted to examine the psychometric properties of the different combinations of instruments that might be included within the RAID combinations scale (numeric rating scales (NRS) or various questionnaires). Construct validity was assessed cross-sectionally by Spearman correlation, reliability by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) in 50 stable patients, and sensitivity to change by standardised response means (SRM) in 88 patients whose treatment was intensified.

RESULTS

570 patients (79% women, mean ± SD age 56 ± 13 years, disease duration 12.5 ± 10.3 years, disease activity score (DAS28) 4.1 ± 1.6) participated in the validation study. NRS questions performed as well as longer combinations of questionnaires: the final RAID score is composed of seven NRS questions. The final RAID correlated strongly with patient global (R=0.76) and significantly also with other outcomes (DAS28 R=0.69, short form 36 physical -0.59 and mental -0.55, p<0.0001 for all). Reliability was high (ICC 0.90; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.94) and sensitivity to change was good (SRM 0.98 (0.96 to 1.00) compared with DAS28 SRM 1.06 (1.01 to 1.11)).

CONCLUSION

The RAID score is a patient-derived composite score assessing the seven most important domains of impact of RA. This score is now validated; sensitivity to change should be further examined in larger studies.

Monitoring adverse events of low-dose glucocorticoid therapy: EULAR recommendations for clinical trials and daily practice

Objective

To develop recommendations on monitoring for adverse events (AEs) of low-dose glucocorticoid (GC) therapy (≤7.5 mg prednisone or equivalent daily) in clinical trials and daily practice.

Methods

Literature was searched for articles containing information on incidence and monitoring of GC-related AEs using PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. Second, the authors searched for broad accepted guidelines on the monitoring of certain AEs (eg, WHO guidelines on screening for diabetes). Available data were summarised and discussed among experts (rheumatologists and patients) of the EULAR Task Force to decide which potential AEs should be monitored, how and at which interval.

Results

Data on monitoring proved to be scarce; most articles were focused on therapeutic effects of GCs, not on occurrence and monitoring of AEs. Most recommendations had to be based on consensus. Those for clinical trials aimed at getting insights into incidence, prevalence and clinical relevance of AEs to create a comprehensive and valid AE-profile of GC therapy. The set of AEs to monitor is therefore more extensive, and often consists of assessments at baseline and at end of trials. Recommendations for daily practice are meant to protect patients from real dangers, which can be prevented or treated. Standard care monitoring needs NOT be extended for patients on low-dose GC therapy, except for osteoporosis (follow national guidelines), and baseline assessments of ankle edema, fasting blood glucose and risk factors for glaucoma.

Conclusion

Given the incompleteness of literature data, consensus-based recommendations on monitoring for GC-related AEs were created, separately for daily practice and clinical trials.