Increasing uptake through collaboration in the development of core outcome sets: Lessons learned at OMERACT 2023

OBJECTIVE

This manuscript highlights the importance of enhancing the uptake of Core Outcome Sets (COS) by building partnerships with Collaborators and addressing their needs in COS development.

METHODS AND SETTING

This session was structured as a simulation, resembling a format akin to a classic television game show. The moderator posed a series of questions to eight different Collaborator groups who briefly described the importance of COS within their areas of interest. Previous studies examining the uptake of individual core outcomes revealed disparities in uptake rates. The Identified barriers to the uptake of COS include the lack of recommendations for validated instruments for each domain, insufficient involvement of patients and key Collaborator groups in COS development, and a lack of awareness regarding the existence of COS.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis underscores the need for COS development approaches that prioritize the inclusion of patients and diverse Collaborator groups at every stage. While current studies on COS uptake are limited, future research should explore the broader implementation of COS across diverse disease categories and delve into the factors that hinder or facilitate their uptake such as, the importance of COS developers extending their work to recommending domains with well validated instruments. Embracing patient leadership and multifaceted engagement is essential for advancing the relevance and impact of COS in clinical research.

Toward designing human intervention studies to prevent osteoarthritis after knee injury: A report from an interdisciplinary OARSI 2023 workshop

Objective

The global impact of osteoarthritis is growing. Currently no disease modifying osteoarthritis drugs/therapies exist, increasing the need for preventative strategies. Knee injuries have a high prevalence, distinct onset, and strong independent association with post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA). Numerous groups are embarking upon research that will culminate in clinical trials to assess the effect of interventions to prevent knee PTOA despite challenges and lack of consensus about trial design in this population. Our objectives were to improve awareness of knee PTOA prevention trial design and discuss state-of-the art methods to address the unique opportunities and challenges of these studies.

Design

An international interdisciplinary group developed a workshop, hosted at the 2023 Osteoarthritis Research Society International Congress. Here we summarize the workshop content and outputs, with the goal of moving the field of PTOA prevention trial design forward.

Results

Workshop highlights included discussions about target population (considering risk, homogeneity, and possibility of modifying osteoarthritis outcome); target treatment (considering delivery, timing, feasibility and effectiveness); comparators (usual care, placebo), and primary symptomatic outcomes considering surrogates and the importance of knee function and symptoms other than pain to this population.

Conclusions

Opportunities to test multimodal PTOA prevention interventions across preclinical models and clinical trials exist. As improving symptomatic outcomes aligns with patient and regulator priorities, co-primary symptomatic (single or aggregate/multidimensional outcome considering function and symptoms beyond pain) and structural/physiological outcomes may be appropriate for these trials. To ensure PTOA prevention trials are relevant and acceptable to all stakeholders, future research should address critical knowledge gaps and challenges.

Defining domains: developing consensus-based definitions for foundational domains in OMERACT core outcome sets

OBJECTIVE

To develop a set of detailed definitions for foundational domains commonly used in OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) core domain sets.

METHODS

We identified candidate domain definitions from prior OMERACT publications and websites and publications of major organizations involved in outcomes research for six domains commonly used in OMERACT Core Domain Sets: pain intensity, pain interference, physical function, fatigue, patient global assessment, and health-related quality of life. We conducted a two-round survey of OMERACT working groups, patient research partners, and then the OMERACT Technical Advisory Group to establish their preferred domain definitions. Results were presented at the OMERACT 2023 Methodology Workshop, where participants discussed their relevant lived experience and identified potential sources of variability giving the needed detail in our domain definitions.

RESULTS

One-hundred four people responded to both rounds of the survey, and a preferred definition was established for each of the domains except for patient global assessment for which no agreement was reached. Seventy-five participants at the OMERACT 2023 Methodology Workshop provided lived experience examples, which were used to contextualise domain definition reports for each of the five domains.

CONCLUSION

Using a consensus-based approach, we have created a detailed definition for five of the foundational domains in OMERACT core domain sets; patient global assessment requires further research. These definitions, although not mandatory for working groups to use, may facilitate the initial domain-match assessment step of instrument selection, and reduce the time and resources required by future OMERACT groups when developing core outcome sets.

Embracing unity at OMERACT: Valuing equity, promoting diversity, fostering inclusivity

OBJECTIVE

To increase awareness and understanding of the principles of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusivity (EDI) within Outcome Measures in Rheumatology's (OMERACT) members. For this, we aimed to obtain ideas on how to promote and foster these principles within the organization and determine the diversity of the current membership in order to focus future efforts.

METHODS

We held a plenary workshop session at OMERACT 2023 with roundtable discussions on barriers and solutions to increased diversity within OMERACT. We conducted an anonymous, web-based survey of members to record characteristics including population group, gender identity, education level, age, and ability.

RESULTS

The workshop generated ideas to increase diversity of participants across the themes of building relationships [12 topics], materials and methods [5 topics], and conference-specific [6 topics]. Four hundred and seven people responded to the survey (25 % response rate). The majority of respondents were White (75 %), female (61 %), university-educated (94 %), Christian (42 %), spoke English at home (60 %), aged 35 to 55 years (50 %), and did not report a disability (64 %).

CONCLUSION

OMERACT is committed to improving its diversity. Next steps include strategic recruitment of members to the EDI working group, drafting an EDI mission statement centering equity and inclusivity in the organization, and developing guidance for the OMERACT Handbook to help all working groups create actionable plans for promoting EDI principles.

Patient engagement in designing, conducting, and disseminating clinical pain research: IMMPACT recommended considerations

ABSTRACT

In the traditional clinical research model, patients are typically involved only as participants. However, there has been a shift in recent years highlighting the value and contributions that patients bring as members of the research team, across the clinical research lifecycle. It is becoming increasingly evident that to develop research that is both meaningful to people who have the targeted condition and is feasible, there are important benefits of involving patients in the planning, conduct, and dissemination of research from its earliest stages. In fact, research funders and regulatory agencies are now explicitly encouraging, and sometimes requiring, that patients are engaged as partners in research. Although this approach has become commonplace in some fields of clinical research, it remains the exception in clinical pain research. As such, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials convened a meeting with patient partners and international representatives from academia, patient advocacy groups, government regulatory agencies, research funding organizations, academic journals, and the biopharmaceutical industry to develop consensus recommendations for advancing patient engagement in all stages of clinical pain research in an effective and purposeful manner. This article summarizes the results of this meeting and offers considerations for meaningful and authentic engagement of patient partners in clinical pain research, including recommendations for representation, timing, continuous engagement, measurement, reporting, and research dissemination.

"I couldn't carry on taking a drug like that": A qualitative study of patient perspectives on side effects from rheumatology drugs

OBJECTIVES

There is growing interest in collecting outcome information directly from patients in clinical trials. This study evaluates what patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) consider important to know about symptomatic side effects they may experience from a new prescription drug.

METHODS

Patients with inflammatory arthritis, who had one or more prescribed drugs for their disease for at least 12 months, participated in focus groups and individual interviews. Discussions were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We conducted seven focus groups with 34 participants across three continents. We found four overarching and two underpinning themes. The 'impact on life' was connected to participants 'daily life', 'family life', 'work life', and 'social life'. In 'psychological and physical aspects' participants described 'limitation to physical function', 'emotional dysregulation' and 'an overall mental state'. Extra tests, hospital visits and payment for medication were considered a 'time, energy and financial burden' of side effects. Participants explained important measurement issues to be 'severity', 'frequency', and 'duration'. Underpinning these issues, participants evaluated the 'benefit-harm-balance' which includes 'the cumulative burden' of having several side effects and the persistence of side effects over time.

CONCLUSIONS

In treatment for RMDs, there seems to be an urgent need for feasible measures of patient-reported bother (impact on life and cumulative burden) from side effects and the benefit-harm-balance. These findings contribute new evidence in support of a target domain-an outcome that represents the patient voice evaluating the symptomatic treatment-related side effects for people with RMDs enrolled in clinical trials.

OMERACT 2023 Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Special Interest Group: Winnowing and Binning Preliminary Candidate Domains for the Core Outcome Set

BACKGROUND

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Working Group held a Special Interest Group (SIG) at the OMERACT 2023 conference in Colorado Springs where SLE collaborators reviewed domain sub-themes generated through qualitative research and literature review.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the SIG and the subsequent meetings of the SLE Working Group was to begin the winnowing and binning of candidate domain sub-themes into a preliminary list of candidate domains that will proceed to the consensus Delphi exercise for the SLE COS.

METHODS

Four breakout groups at the SLE SIG in Colorado Springs winnowed and binned 132 domain sub-themes into candidate domains, which was continued with a series of virtual meetings by an advisory group of SLE patient research partners (PRPs), members of the OMERACT SLE Working Group Steering Committee, and other collaborators.

RESULTS

The 132 domain sub-themes were reduced to a preliminary list of 20 candidate domains based on their clinical and research relevance for clinical trials and research studies.

CONCLUSION

A meaningful and substantial winnowing and binning of candidate domains for the SLE COS was achieved resulting in a preliminary list of 20 candidate domains.

Exploring the complexities of pain phenotypes: OMERACT 2023 chronic pain working group workshop

OBJECTIVE

To educate and discuss pain mechanisms (nociceptive, neuropathic, nociplastic) illuminating its possible impact when measuring different outcomes, which may modify, confound and potentially bias the outcome measures applied across various aspects of Rheumatic Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs) clinical trials.

METHODS

In the plenary presentations, PM lectured on different pain mechanisms and impact on disease activity assessment. Data from two data sets of RMDs patients, which assessed the prevalence and impact of nociplastic pain were presented and reviewed. Audience breakout group sessions and polling were conducted.

RESULTS

Mixed pain etiologies may differentially influence disease activity assessment and therapeutic decision-making. Polling demonstrated a consensus on the need to assess different types of pain as a phenotype, as it constitutes an important contextual factor (a variable that is not an outcome of the trial, but needs to be recognized [and measured] to understand the study results), and to standardize across RMDs.

CONCLUSION

There is need for a standardized pain measure that can differentiate underlying pain mechanisms.

Stakeholder endorsement advancing the implementation of a patient-reported domain for harms in rheumatology clinical trials: Outcome of the OMERACT Safety Working Group

OBJECTIVES

To develop an understanding of the concept of safety/harms experienced by patients involved in clinical trials for their rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and to seek input from the OMERACT community before moving forward to developing or selecting an outcome measurement instrument.

METHODS

OMERACT 2023 presented and discussed interview results from 34 patients indicating that up to 171 items might be important for patients' harm-reporting.

RESULTS

Domain was defined in detail and supported by qualitative work. Participants in the Special-Interest-Group endorsed (96 %) that enough qualitative data are available to start Delphi survey(s).

CONCLUSION

We present a definition of safety/harms that represents the patient voice (i.e., patients' perception of safety) evaluating the symptomatic treatment-related adverse events for people with RMDs enrolled in clinical trials.

Real-world evidence: new opportunities for osteoporosis research. Recommendations from a Working Group from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO)

This narrative review summarises the recommendations of a Working Group of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) for the conduct and reporting of real-world evidence studies with a focus on osteoporosis research.

PURPOSE

Vast amounts of data are routinely generated at every healthcare contact and activity, and there is increasing recognition that these real-world data can be analysed to generate scientific evidence. Real-world evidence (RWE) is increasingly used to delineate the natural history of disease, assess real-life drug effectiveness, understand adverse events and in health economic analysis. The aim of this work was to understand the benefits and limitations of this type of data and outline approaches to ensure that transparent and high-quality evidence is generated.

METHODS

A ESCEO Working Group was convened in December 2022 to discuss the applicability of RWE to osteoporosis research and approaches to best practice.

RESULTS

This narrative review summarises the agreed recommendations for the conduct and reporting of RWE studies with a focus on osteoporosis research.

CONCLUSIONS

It is imperative that research using real-world data is conducted to the highest standards with close attention to limitations and biases of these data, and with transparency at all stages of study design, data acquisition and curation, analysis and reporting to increase the trustworthiness of RWE study findings.

Interleukin-1β inhibitors for the management of acute gout flares: a systematic literature review

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effects of interleukin-1β (IL-1β) inhibitors on gout flares.

METHODS

Studies published between 2011 and 2022 that evaluated the effects of IL-1β inhibitors in adult patients experiencing gout flares were eligible for inclusion. Outcomes including pain, frequency and intensity of gout flares, inflammation, and safety were assessed. Five electronic databases (Pubmed/Medline, Embase, Biosis/Ovid, Web of Science and Cochrane Library) were searched. Two independent reviewers performed study screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessments (Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2 for randomised controlled trials [RCTs] and Downs and Black for non-RCTs). Data are reported as a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies (10 RCTs) met the inclusion criteria, with canakinumab, anakinra, and rilonacept being the three included IL-1β inhibitors. A total of 4367 patients with a history of gout were included from the 14 studies (N = 3446, RCTs; N = 159, retrospective studies [with a history of gout]; N = 762, post hoc analysis [with a history of gout]). In the RCTs, canakinumab and rilonacept were reported to have a better response compared to an active comparator for resolving pain, while anakinra appeared to be not inferior to an active comparator for resolving pain. Furthermore, canakinumab and rilonacept reduced the frequency of gout flares compared to the comparators. All three medications were mostly well-tolerated compared to their comparators.

CONCLUSION

IL-1β inhibitors may be a beneficial and safe medication for patients experiencing gout flares for whom current standard therapies are unsuitable.

REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO ID: CRD42021267670.

Optimizing and Accelerating the Development of Precision Pain Treatments for Chronic Pain: IMMPACT Review and Recommendations

Large variability in the individual response to even the most-efficacious pain treatments is observed clinically, which has led to calls for a more personalized, tailored approach to treating patients with pain (ie, "precision pain medicine"). Precision pain medicine, currently an aspirational goal, would consist of empirically based algorithms that determine the optimal treatments, or treatment combinations, for specific patients (ie, targeting the right treatment, in the right dose, to the right patient, at the right time). Answering this question of "what works for whom" will certainly improve the clinical care of patients with pain. It may also support the success of novel drug development in pain, making it easier to identify novel treatments that work for certain patients and more accurately identify the magnitude of the treatment effect for those subgroups. Significant preliminary work has been done in this area, and analgesic trials are beginning to utilize precision pain medicine approaches such as stratified allocation on the basis of prespecified patient phenotypes using assessment methodologies such as quantitative sensory testing. Current major challenges within the field include: 1) identifying optimal measurement approaches to assessing patient characteristics that are most robustly and consistently predictive of inter-patient variation in specific analgesic treatment outcomes, 2) designing clinical trials that can identify treatment-by-phenotype interactions, and 3) selecting the most promising therapeutics to be tested in this way. This review surveys the current state of precision pain medicine, with a focus on drug treatments (which have been most-studied in a precision pain medicine context). It further presents a set of evidence-based recommendations for accelerating the application of precision pain methods in chronic pain research. PERSPECTIVE: Given the considerable variability in treatment outcomes for chronic pain, progress in precision pain treatment is critical for the field. An array of phenotypes and mechanisms contribute to chronic pain; this review summarizes current knowledge regarding which treatments are most effective for patients with specific biopsychosocial characteristics.

FDA/Arthritis Foundation osteoarthritis drug development workshop recap: Assessment of long-term benefit

OBJECTIVE

To summarize proceedings of a workshop convened to discuss the current state of science in the disease of osteoarthritis (OA), identify the knowledge gaps, and examine the developmental and regulatory challenges in bringing these products to market.

DESIGN

Summary of the one-day workshop held virtually on June 22nd, 2021.

RESULTS

Speakers selected by the Planning Committee presented data on the current approach to assessment of OA therapies, biomarkers in OA drug development, and the assessment of disease progression and long-term benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Demonstrated by numerous failed clinical trials, OA is a challenging disease for which to develop therapeutics. The challenge is magnified by the slow time of onset of disease and the need for clinical trials of long duration and/or large sample size to demonstrate the effect of an intervention. The OA science community, including academia, pharmaceutical companies, regulatory agencies, and patient communities, must continue to develop and test better clinical endpoints that meaningfully reflect disease modification related to long-term patient benefit.

Tackling Unmet Medical Need: How Slow-Release Intra-articular Corticosteroids Could Play a Role in Improving Quality of Life and Reducing Risk in Osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the fastest growing cause of disability worldwide, but, with few proven therapeutic options, it is an underserved condition. With increasingly ageing populations contributing to a rising global prevalence, this unmet need only threatens to worsen in the coming years. To date, researchers have tried and failed in their bids to develop new ways to treat the pain and loss of function that significantly impacts health-related quality of life (HrQoL) and leaves people vulnerable to accumulating disability and at risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), comorbidities, and mortality. Now, a novel way to deliver one of the only proven interventions for pain and inflammation, corticosteroid injections, is on the horizon for knee OA. Slow-release formulations could possibly prolong the clinical benefit of a single injection from 6 weeks to 6 months, providing a new option to improve HrQoL for people with OA, and maybe even breaking the cycle of inflammation that likely contributes to progression. In this key opinion leader article, Philip Conaghan and Lee Simon discuss OA’s significant Quality of life (QoL) and long-term health impact. They also outline the current, inadequate treatment landscape, and explain how slow-release corticosteroids could potentially help tackle a huge unmet medical need.

Pain Reduction in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Who Use Opioids: A Post Hoc Analysis of Phase 3 Trials of Baricitinib

Objective

Pain reduction with baricitinib was assessed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who either used opioids or did not use opioids during three randomized, double‐blind phase 3 trials.

Methods

Analysis populations were as follows: i) baricitinib 4 mg once daily versus placebo groups integrated from RA‐BEAM (NCT01710358) for patients with inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate, RA‐BUILD (NCT01721057) with IR to conventional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs, and RA‐BEACON (NCT01721044) with IR to at least one tumor necrosis factor inhibitors; ii) baricitinib 2 mg versus placebo from RA‐BUILD and RA‐BEACON; and iii) adalimumab 40 mg every other week versus placebo from RA‐BEAM. Pain was measured by the Patient Assessment of Pain Visual Analog Scale. Analysis of covariance modeling assessed differences in pain reduction between treatments at each time point through Week 24, with an interaction term to test heterogeneous treatment effects across opioid users and nonusers.

Results

Baricitinib 4 mg had greater pain reduction versus placebo in opioid users and nonusers (P < 0.05) at all time points starting from Week 1; the pain reduction was similar between opioid users and nonusers. Baricitinib 2 mg had greater pain reduction versus placebo in opioid users and nonusers starting at Week 4. A significant difference in pain reduction was not observed for adalimumab versus placebo in the opioid users but was observed in nonusers at all time points.

Conclusion

Pain reduction was observed and was similar between opioid users and nonusers with baricitinib 2 mg and 4 mg but not adalimumab in this post hoc analysis.

Serum urate as a proposed surrogate outcome measure in gout trials: From the OMERACT working group

Serum urate (SU) is the most common primary efficacy outcome in trials of urate-lowering therapies for gout. Despite this, it is not formally considered a validated surrogate outcome. In this paper we will outline the definitions of biomarkers and surrogate outcome measures, respectively as well as the available frameworks and challenges in the assessment of the validity of serum urate as a surrogate in gout (i.e. a reasonable replacement for gout symptoms).

Research approaches for evaluating opioid sparing in clinical trials of acute and chronic pain treatments: Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials recommendations

ABSTRACT

Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of opioid analgesics for the treatment of acute and chronic pain conditions, and for some patients, these medications may be the only effective treatment available. Unfortunately, opioid analgesics are also associated with major risks (eg, opioid use disorder) and adverse outcomes (eg, respiratory depression and falls). The risks and adverse outcomes associated with opioid analgesics have prompted efforts to reduce their use in the treatment of both acute and chronic pain. This article presents Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) consensus recommendations for the design of opioid-sparing clinical trials. The recommendations presented in this article are based on the following definition of an opioid-sparing intervention: any intervention that (1) prevents the initiation of treatment with opioid analgesics, (2) decreases the duration of such treatment, (3) reduces the total dosages of opioids that are prescribed for or used by patients, or (4) reduces opioid-related adverse outcomes (without increasing opioid dosages), all without causing an unacceptable increase in pain. These recommendations are based on the results of a background review, presentations and discussions at an IMMPACT consensus meeting, and iterative drafts of this article modified to accommodate input from the co-authors. We discuss opioid sparing definitions, study objectives, outcome measures, the assessment of opioid-related adverse events, incorporation of adequate pain control in trial design, interpretation of research findings, and future research priorities to inform opioid-sparing trial methods. The considerations and recommendations presented in this article are meant to help guide the design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of future trials.

The Patients' Perspective of Important Glucocorticoid Effects: A Nominal Group Study Among Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Myositis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

The objective of this cohort study was to understand the positive and negative effects of glucocorticoids (GCs) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and myositis from the patients' perspective with the aim of developing a patient-reported outcome measure.

METHODS

Included patients were asked to participate in 1 of 5 nominal groups where demographic information and a quality-of-life questionnaire were collected. Patients were asked 2 open-ended questions on (1) benefits and (2) harms related to GC use. We used the Nominal Group Technique, a highly structured consensus method in which responses are generated, shared, and ranked. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the results. Nominal group sessions took place from April to May 2019.

RESULTS

Of 206 patients who were approached, 21 patients participated, 17 with systemic lupus erythematosus and 4 with myositis, predominantly women with more than 10 years of steroid use. The domains ranked highest for GC benefits were disease control (55 votes), fast onset of action (30 votes), increased energy (10 votes), and pain relief (10 votes). The highest-ranked negative effects were bone loss (38 votes) and weight gain (16 votes); psychological effects and damaged internal organs each received 12 votes.

CONCLUSIONS

The top-ranked GC effects-both benefits and harms-among patients with systemic rheumatic disease are consistent with the top domains associated with GC use reported with other inflammatory diseases. This study informs the development of a comprehensive patient-reported outcome measure that can be used across inflammatory diseases.

Improving benefit-harm assessment of glucocorticoid therapy incorporating the patient perspective: The OMERACT glucocorticoid core domain set

OBJECTIVE

Our primary objective was to develop an Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set to capture the impact of glucocorticoids (GC), both positive and negative, on patients with Rheumatic conditions.

METHODS

The OMERACT Filter 2.1 was used to guide core domain selection. Systematic literature reviews, qualitative studies and quantitative surveys were conducted by the OMERACT GC Impact working group to identify candidate domains for a core domain set. A summary of prior work and Delphi exercise were presented at the OMERACT 2020 virtual GC workshop. A proposed GC Impact core domain set derived from this work was presented for discussion in facilitated breakout groups. Participants voted on the proposed GC Impact core domain set.

RESULTS

113 people, including 23 patient research partners, participated in two virtual workshops conducted at different times on the same day. The proposed mandatory domains to be evaluated in clinical trials involving GCs were: infection, bone fragility, hypertension, diabetes, weight, fatigue, mood disturbance and death. In addition, collection of disease specific outcomes was included in the core domain set as "mandatory in specific circumstances". The proposed core domain set was endorsed by 100% (23/23) of the patient research partners and 92% (83/90) of the remaining participants, including clinicians, researchers and industry stakeholders.

CONCLUSION

A GC Impact core domain set was endorsed at the OMERACT 2020 virtual workshop. The OMERACT GC Impact working group will now progress to identify, develop and validate measurement tools to best address these domains in clinical trials.

Measurement properties of selected patient-reported outcome measures for use in randomised controlled trials in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The heterogeneous multisystem manifestations of SLE include fatigue, pain, depression, sleep disturbance and cognitive dysfunction, and underscore the importance of a multidimensional approach when assessing health-related quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration has emphasised the importance of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for approval of new medications and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology has mandated demonstration of appropriate measurement properties of selected PRO instruments.

METHODS

Published information regarding psychometric properties of the Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form 36 (SF-36), Lupus Quality of Life Questionnaire (LupusQoL) and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue Scale (FACIT-F), and their suitability as end points in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal observational studies (LOS) were assessed. A search of English-language literature using MEDLINE and EMBASE identified studies related to development and validation of these instruments. Evidence addressed content validity, reliability (internal consistency and test-retest reliability), construct validity (convergent and divergent) and longitudinal responsiveness, including thresholds of meaning and discrimination.

RESULTS

All instruments demonstrated strong internal consistency, reliability and appropriate face/content validity, indicating items within each instrument that measure the intended concept. SF-36 and LupusQoL demonstrated test-retest reliability; although not published with FACIT-F in SLE supported by evidence from other rheumatic diseases. All instruments demonstrated convergent validity with other comparable PROs and responsivity to treatment.

CONCLUSION

The measurement properties of PRO instruments with published data from RCTs including: SF-36, LupusQoL and FACIT-F indicate their value as secondary end points to support labelling claims in RCTs and LOS evaluating the efficacy of SLE treatments.

Harms reported by patients in rheumatology drug trials: a systematic review of randomized trials in the cochrane library from an OMERACT working group

BACKGROUND

Underreporting of harms in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may lead to incomplete or erroneous assessments of the perceived benefit-to-harm profile of an intervention. To compare benefit with harm in clinical practice and future clinical studies, adverse event (AE) profiles including severity need to be understood. Even though patients report harm symptoms earlier and more frequently than clinicians, rheumatology RCTs currently do not provide a reporting framework from the patient's perspective regarding harms. Our objective for this meta-research project was to identify AEs in order to determine harm clusters and whether these could be self-reported by patients. Our other objective was to examine reported severity grading of the reported harms.

METHODS

We considered primary publications of RCTs eligible if they were published between 2008 and 2018 evaluating pharmacological interventions in patients with a rheumatic or musculoskeletal condition and if they were included in Cochrane reviews. We extracted data on harms such as reported AE terms together with severity (if described), and categorized AE- and severity-terms into overall groups. We deemed all AEs with felt components appropriate for patient self-reporting.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 187 possible Cochrane reviews, of which 94 were eligible for evaluation, comprising 1,297 articles on individual RCTs. Of these RCTs, 93 pharmacological trials met our inclusion criteria (including 31,023 patients; representing 20,844 accumulated patient years), which reported a total of 21,498 AEs, corresponding to 693 unique reported terms for AEs. We further sub-categorized these terms into 280 harm clusters (i.e., themes). AEs appropriate for patient self-reporting accounted for 58% of the AEs reported. Among the reported AEs, we identified medical terms for all of the 117 harm clusters appropriate for patient reporting and lay language terms for 86%. We intended to include severity grades of the reported AEs, but there was no evidence for systematic reporting of clinician- or patient-reported severity in the primary articles of the 93 trials. However, we identified 33 terms suggesting severity, but severity grading was discernible in only 9%, precluding a breakdown by severity in this systematic review.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support the need for a standardized framework for patients' reporting of harms in rheumatology trials. Reporting of AEs with severity should be included in future reporting of harms, both from the patients' and investigators' perspectives.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD42018108393.

Critical appraisal of intra-articular glucocorticoid injections for symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee

OBJECTIVE

Intra-articular (IA) injections of glucocorticoids (GCs) have been shown to decrease pain, increase mobility, and improve quality of life in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Concerns about cartilage loss with IA GCs have prompted reconsideration of their use in knee OA. This review has three objectives: 1) critically review the clinical, molecular, and structural effects of IA GCs in knee OA; 2) provide a design for a clinical trial aimed at improving our understanding of the long-term consequences of IA GCs; and 3) provide practical guidance on the use of IA GCs in patients with knee OA based on current information.

DESIGN

A narrative review of current literature on the use of IA GCs for OA of the knee.

RESULTS

Important questions remain to be fully answered with respect to IA GCs, including long-term effects on all aspects of the structural and molecular environment of the knee, and identification of factors that can reliably predict a positive or negative response to IA GCs.

CONCLUSIONS

While awaiting results from an appropriately designed study, several provisional statements regarding IA GCs can be put forward: 1) IA GCs appear to be a relatively safe option that is effective in specific patients with symptomatic knee OA; 2) there is no definitive evidence that IA GCs accelerate joint deterioration to an important extent or hastens the requirement for knee replacement; and 3) there are few contraindications to IA GCs and injection-associated complications are rare when IA GCs are delivered with proper technique.

The Jak/STAT pathway: A focus on pain in rheumatoid arthritis

Pain is a manifestation of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that is mediated by inflammatory and non-inflammatory mechanisms and negatively affects quality of life. Recent findings from a Phase 3 clinical trial showed that patients with RA who were treated with a Janus kinase 1 (Jak1) and Janus kinase 2 (Jak2) inhibitor achieved significantly greater improvements in pain than those treated with a tumor necrosis factor blocker; both treatments resulted in similar changes in standard clinical measures and markers of inflammation. These findings suggest that Jak1 and Jak2 inhibition may relieve pain in RA caused by inflammatory and non-inflammatory mechanisms and are consistent with the overarching involvement of the Jak-signal transducer and activator of transcription (Jak/STAT) pathway in mediating the action, expression, and regulation of a multitude of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines. In this review, we provide an overview of pain in RA, the underlying importance of cytokines regulated directly or indirectly by the Jak/STAT pathway, and therapeutic targeting of the Jak/STAT pathway in RA. As highlighted herein, multiple cytokines directly or indirectly regulated by the Jak/STAT pathway play important roles in mediating various mechanisms underlying pain in RA. Having a better understanding of these mechanisms may help clinicians make treatment decisions that optimize the control of inflammation and pain.

A novel diclofenac gel (AMZ001) applied once or twice daily in subjects with painful knee osteoarthritis: A randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial

PURPOSE

Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) Expert Consensus Guidelines recommend topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as first-line medications for osteoarthritis (OA) knee pain, but several voluminous daily applications are required to achieve efficacy. There is a need to develop new and improved topical analgesics with a faster onset, longer duration of action, and the requirement to apply less gel. This trial investigated the safety and efficacy of a new 3.06% diclofenac gel (AMZ001) in subjects with knee OA.

METHODS

In total, 444 subjects (AMZ001 twice daily (BID) [n = 121], AMZ001 once daily (QD) + placebo QD [n = 121], placebo BID [n = 121], or Voltaren 1% 4-times daily [n = 81]) were enrolled. All except Voltaren 1% (single-blinded) were applied topically in a double-blind manner for a total of 4-weeks. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to week 4 in the WOMAC pain sub-score in the target knee. Secondary and exploratory endpoints included additional efficacy measures (WOMAC total score, WOMAC function and stiffness sub-scores, WOMAC pain weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing sub-scores, ICOAP, chair-stand test, OMERACT-OARSI responder rate, PGA, WPAI, EQ-5D, rescue medication use, satisfaction questionnaire) and safety.

RESULTS

Treatment with AMZ001 QD was effective at reducing WOMAC pain sub-scores vs placebo (estimated treatment difference [ETD]: -4.61 [95% confidence interval (CI): -9.09, -0.12]; p = 0.0440); however, BID application was not (ETD: -3.76 [95% CI: -8.21, 0.68]; p = 0.0969). For several secondary endpoints, changes from baseline to week 4 conferred nominally statistically significant improvements in favor of AMZ001 vs placebo, including PGA score (AMZ001 BID vs placebo, ETD: -0.61 [95% CI: -1.11, -0.11]; p = 0.0162; AMZ001 QD vs placebo, ETD: -0.63 [95% CI: -1.13, -0.13]; p = 0.0134), WPAI overall work impairment score (AMZ001 QD vs placebo, ETD: -10.44 [95% CI: -20.84, -0.04]; p = 0.0492), and EQ-5D VAS score (AMZ001 BID vs placebo, ETD: 4.70 [95% CI: 0.55, 8.85]; p = 0.0264). Post-hoc analysis excluding 11-14 subjects per group with pain scores that decreased between screening and baseline suggests a consistent effect of both AMZ001 QD (ETD: -5.84 [95% CI: -10.71, -0.97]; p = 0.0189) and BID (ETD: -5.35 [95% CI: -10.16, -0.54]; p = 0.0292) in reducing WOMAC pain sub-scores vs placebo. In general, treatment satisfaction was high, as measured by the satisfaction questionnaire. The frequency and incidence of adverse events (AEs) was greatest in the placebo group. Most AEs (>99%) were of mild or moderate severity. There were no serious AEs. There were no notable effects of any treatment on vital signs, ECGs, physical examination findings, or other laboratory assessments.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with AMZ001 BID for 4 weeks improved WOMAC pain sub-scores; however, only QD application conferred nominally statistically significant improvements vs placebo. AMZ001 was generally well tolerated.

Feasibility and Face Validity of Outcome Measures for Use in Future Studies of Polymyalgia Rheumatica: An OMERACT Study

OBJECTIVE

To survey participants with polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) to evaluate the face validity, acceptability, and domain match of proposed candidate outcome measures.

METHODS

A structured, online, anonymous survey was disseminated by patient support groups through their networks and online forums. The candidate outcome measures comprised (1) visual analog scale (VAS) and numerical rating score (NRS) to assess pain; (2) VAS, NRS, and duration to assess stiffness; (3) the modified Health Assessment Questionnaire and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index to assess physical function; and (4) C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate to assess inflammation. Free-text answers were analyzed using descriptive thematic analysis to determine respondents' views of the candidate instruments.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight people with PMR from 6 countries (UK, France, USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) participated in the survey. Most respondents agreed candidate instruments were acceptable or "good to go." Free-text analysis identified 5 themes that participants considered inadequately covered by the proposed instruments. These related to (1) the variability, context, and location of pain; (2) the variability of stiffness; (3) fatigue; (4) disability; and (5) the correlation of inflammatory marker levels and severity of symptoms, sometimes reflecting disease activity and other times not.

CONCLUSION

Participants reported additional aspects of their experience that are not covered by the proposed instruments, particularly for the experience of stiffness and effect of fatigue. New patient-reported outcome measures are required to increase the relevance of results from clinical trials to patients with PMR.

Disease modification in osteoarthritis; pathways to drug approval

Objective

To summarize proceedings of a workshop convened to discuss advances in disease modifying osteoarthritis (OA) drugs and regulatory challenges in bringing these drugs to market.

Design

Summary of a one day workshop held in Washington, DC in May 2019.

Results

Attendees presented data documenting the prevalence, cost and disability burden of OA; recent documentation of disease modification without concomitant clinical benefit in trials of disease modifying drugs; regulatory considerations pertinent to disease modifying therapy; and methodologic approaches to addressing these regulatory considerations.

Conclusions

The research, pharmaceutical and regulatory communities must continue to collaborate on defining pathways for approval of disease modifying osteoarthritis drugs that document effects on clinical endpoints (such as pain, function or joint replacement) as well as on bone, cartilage and other structures.

Improving Study Conduct and Data Quality in Clinical Trials of Chronic Pain Treatments: IMMPACT Recommendations

The estimated probability of progressing from phase 3 analgesic clinical trials to regulatory approval is approximately 57%, suggesting that a considerable number of treatments with phase 2 trial results deemed sufficiently successful to progress to phase 3 do not yield positive phase 3 results. Deficiencies in the quality of clinical trial conduct could account for some of this failure. An Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials meeting was convened to identify potential areas for improvement in trial conduct in order to improve assay sensitivity (ie, ability of trials to detect a true treatment effect). We present recommendations based on presentations and discussions at the meeting, literature reviews, and iterative revisions of this article. The recommendations relate to the following areas: 1) study design (ie, to promote feasibility), 2) site selection and staff training, 3) participant selection and training, 4) treatment adherence, 5) data collection, and 6) data and study monitoring. Implementation of these recommendations may improve the quality of clinical trial data and thus the validity and assay sensitivity of clinical trials. Future research regarding the effects of these strategies will help identify the most efficient use of resources for conducting high quality clinical trials. PERSPECTIVE: Every effort should be made to optimize the quality of clinical trial data. This manuscript discusses considerations to improve conduct of pain clinical trials based on research in multiple medical fields and the expert consensus of pain researchers and stakeholders from academia, regulatory agencies, and industry.

Toward a Core Domain Set for Glucocorticoid Impact in Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases: The OMERACT 2018 Glucocorticoid Impact Working Group

OBJECTIVE

To understand the effects of glucocorticoids (GC), which are of importance to patients.

METHODS

The results of 2 literature reviews, a patient survey, and a qualitative study were presented.

RESULTS

No validated instrument exists to evaluate GC effect on patients. Survey data revealed skin thinning/bruising, sleep disturbance, and weight gain as the most frequent adverse effects. The qualitative research yielded rich data covering rapid benefits and physical and emotional consequences of GC.

CONCLUSION

It was agreed that a patient-reported outcome to measure GC effect was required and a research agenda was developed for this goal.

Identifying Possible Outcome Domains from Existing Outcome Measures to Inform an OMERACT Core Domain Set for Safety in Rheumatology Trials

OBJECTIVE

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Safety Working Group objective was to identify harm domains from existing outcome measurements in rheumatology.

METHODS

Systematically searching the MEDLINE database on January 24, 2017, we identified full-text articles that could be used for harm outcomes in rheumatology. Domains/items from the identified instruments were described and the content synthesized to provide a preliminary framework for harm outcomes.

RESULTS

From 435 possible references, 24 were read in full text and 9 were included: 7 measurement instruments were identified. Investigation of domains/items revealed considerable heterogeneity in the grouping and approach.

CONCLUSION

The ideal way to assess harm aspects from the patients' perspective has not yet been ascertained.

Proposed study designs for approval based on a surrogate endpoint and a post-marketing confirmatory study under FDA's accelerated approval regulations for disease modifying osteoarthritis drugs

In 1992, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) instituted the accelerated approval regulations that allow drugs or biologics for serious conditions that fill an unmet medical need to be approved on the basis of a surrogate endpoint or an intermediate clinical endpoint. The current definition of a serious condition includes chronic disabling conditions, such as osteoarthritis (OA), and thereby provides expanded opportunities for the use of biomarkers for regulatory approval of drugs for OA. The use of surrogates or intermediate clinical endpoints for initial regulatory approval of a drug or biologic requires confirmation in a post-marketing study of a drug effect on a clinically relevant outcome, such as on how a patient feels, functions or survives. Current FDA guidance requires that the post-marketing approval (PMA) study be ongoing during the time of initial drug approval. This white paper arose out of the need to brainstorm trial designs that might be suitable for PMA of drugs initially approved, on the basis of a surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoint, for treatment of OA to alter disease progression, abnormal function or pathological changes in the morphology of the joint. In this white paper we define the concept and regulations regarding accelerated approval and propose two major study design scenarios for PMA trials in OA. The long-term goal is to discuss and refine these designs in consultation with regulatory agencies in order to facilitate development of drugs to fill the large unmet need in OA.

Pain Measurement in Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases: Where To Go from Here? Report from a Special Interest Group at OMERACT 2018

Objective.

Establishing a research agenda on standardizing pain measurement in clinical trials in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMD).

Methods.

Discussion during a meeting at the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 2018, prepared by a systematic review of existing core outcome sets and a patient online survey.

Results.

Several key questions were debated: Is pain a symptom or a disease? Are pain core (sub)domains consistent across RMD? How to account for pain mechanistic descriptors (e.g., central sensitization) in pain measurement?

Conclusion.

Characterizing and assessing the spectrum of pain experience across RMD in a standardized fashion is the objective of the OMERACT Pain Working Group.

OMERACT Filter 2.1: Elaboration of the Conceptual Framework for Outcome Measurement in Health Intervention Studies

OBJECTIVE

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.0 framework was developed in 2014 to aid core outcome set development by describing the full universe of "measurable aspects of health conditions" from which core domains can be selected. This paper provides elaborations and updated concepts (OMERACT Filter 2.1).

METHODS

At OMERACT 2018, we discussed challenges in the framework application caused by unclear or ambiguous wording and terms and incompletely developed concepts.

RESULTS

The updated OMERACT Filter 2.1 framework makes benefits and harms explicit, clarifies concepts, and improves naming of various terms.

CONCLUSION

We expect that the Filter 2.1 framework will improve the process of core set development.

Core Domain Set Selection According to OMERACT Filter 2.1: The OMERACT Methodology

Objective.

To describe the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 methodology for core domain set selection.

Methods.

The “OMERACT Way for Core Domain Set selection” framework consists of 3 stages: first, generating candidate domains through literature reviews and qualitative work, then a process of consensus to obtain agreement from those involved, and finally formal voting on the OMERACT Onion. The OMERACT Onion describes the placement of domains in layers/circles: mandatory in all trials/mandatory in specific circumstances (inner circle); important but optional (middle circle); or research agenda (outer circle). Five OMERACT working groups presented their core domain sets for endorsement by the OMERACT community. Tools including a workbook and whiteboard video were created to assist the process. The methods workshop at OMERACT 2018 introduced participants to this framework.

Results.

The 5 OMERACT working groups achieved consensus on their proposed core domain sets. After the Methodology Workshop training exercise at OMERACT 2018, over 90% of participants voted that they were confident that they understood the process of core domain set selection.

Conclusion.

The methods described in this paper were successfully used by the 5 working groups voting on domains at the OMERACT 2018 meeting, demonstrating the feasibility of the process. In addition, participants at OMERACT 2018 expressed increased confidence and understanding of the core domain set selection process after the training exercise. This methodology will continue to evolve, and we will use innovative technology such as whiteboard videos as a key part of our dissemination and implementation strategy for new methods.

Patient Perspectives on DMARD Safety Concerns in Rheumatology Trials: Results from Inflammatory Arthritis Patient Focus Groups and OMERACT Attendees Discussion

OBJECTIVE

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Safety Working Group is identifying core safety domains that matter most to patients with rheumatic disease.

METHODS

International focus groups were held with 39 patients with inflammatory arthritis to identify disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) experiences and concerns. Themes were identified by pragmatic thematic coding and discussed in small groups by meeting attendees.

RESULTS

Patients view DMARD side effects as a continuum and consider the cumulative effect on day-to-day function. Disease and drug experiences, personal factors, and life circumstances influence tolerance of side effects and treatment persistence.

CONCLUSION

Patients weigh overall adverse effects and benefits over time in relation to experiences and life circumstances.

Adaptive Trial Designs in Rheumatology: Report from the OMERACT Special Interest Group

OBJECTIVE

Adaptive trial design was developed initially for oncology to improve trial efficiency. If optimized for rheumatology, it may improve trial efficiency by reducing sample size and time.

METHODS

A systematic review assessed design of phase II clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis.

RESULTS

Fifty-six trials were reviewed. Most trials had 4 groups (1 control and 3 intervention), with an average group size of 34 patients. American College of Rheumatology 20 measured at 16 weeks was the most commonly used primary endpoint.

CONCLUSION

The next step is to undertake a systematic review of adaptive designs used in early-phase trials in nonrheumatic conditions.

Toward a Core Outcome Measurement Set for Polymyalgia Rheumatica: Report from the OMERACT 2018 Special Interest Group

Objective.

To report the progress of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Polymyalgia Rheumatica (PMR) Working Group in selecting candidate instruments for a core outcome measurement set.

Methods.

A systematic literature review identified outcomes measured and instruments used in PMR studies, and a respondent survey and raw data analysis assessed their domain match and feasibility.

Results.

Candidate instruments were identified for pain [visual analog scale/numerical rating scale (VAS/NRS)], stiffness (VAS/NRS and duration), and physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index/modified Health Assessment Questionnaire). Domain match and feasibility assessments were favorable; however, validation in PMR was lacking.

Conclusion.

Further assessment of candidate instruments is required prior to recommending a PMR core outcome measurement set.

Instrument Selection Using the OMERACT Filter 2.1: The OMERACT Methodology

Objective.

Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 revised the process used for core outcome measurement set selection to add rigor and transparency in decision making. This paper describes OMERACT’s methodology for instrument selection.

Methods.

We presented instrument selection processes, tools, and reporting templates at OMERACT 2018, introducing the concept of “3 pillars, 4 questions, 7 measurement properties, 1 answer.” Truth, discrimination, and feasibility are the 3 original OMERACT pillars. Based on these, we developed 4 signaling questions. We introduced the Summary of Measurement Properties table that summarizes the 7 measurement properties: truth (domain match, construct validity), discrimination [test-retest reliability, longitudinal construct validity (responsiveness), clinical trial discrimination, thresholds of meaning], and feasibility. These properties address a set of standards which, when met, answer the one question: Is there enough evidence to support the use of this instrument in clinical research of the benefits and harms of treatments in the population and study setting described? The OMERACT Filter 2.1 was piloted on 2 instruments by the Psoriatic Arthritis Working Group.

Results.

The methodology was reviewed in a full plenary session and facilitated breakout groups. Tools to facilitate retention of the process (i.e., “The OMERACT Way”) were provided. The 2 instruments were presented, and the recommendation of the working group was endorsed in the first OMERACT Filter 2.1 Instrument Selection votes.

Conclusion.

Instrument selection using OMERACT Filter 2.1 is feasible and is now being implemented.

Improving Benefit-harm Assessment of Therapies from the Patient Perspective: OMERACT Premeeting Toward Consensus on Core Sets for Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective.

Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) convened a premeeting in 2018 to bring together patients, regulators, researchers, clinicians, and consumers to build upon previous OMERACT drug safety work, with patients fully engaged throughout all phases.

Methods.

Day 1 included a brief introduction to the history of OMERACT and methodology, and an overview of current efforts within and outside OMERACT to identify patient-reported medication safety concerns. On Day 2, two working groups presented results; after each, breakout groups were assembled to discuss findings.

Results.

Five themes pertaining to drug safety measurement emerged.

Conclusion.

Current approaches have failed to include data from the patient’s perspective. A better understanding of how individuals with rheumatic diseases view potential benefits and harms of therapies is essential.

Early phase and adaptive design clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of early phase trials

Objective

Adaptive designs can enable highly sophisticated and efficient early phase trials, but the clinical inference from these trials is surrounded by complexity, and currently there is a paucity but steadily increasing amount of use of these designs in all fields of medicine. We aim to review early phase trials in RA to discover those that have used adaptive designs and benchmark trial characteristics.

Methods

From an OVID search for journal articles reporting the results of early phase trials in rheumatology, 35 studies were found, with 9 subsequently excluded; 11 were added from manual searches and 19 from searching the references. Study characteristics were extracted from the 56 papers (describing 62 trials), including the number of arms, number of patients, the primary outcome and when it was measured.

Result

One early phase trial using an adaptive design was found. The benchmark early phase trial in RA is a phase II double-blinded randomized trial, with four arms (one control and three intervention), each with 34 patients, and ACR20 measured at 16 weeks as the primary outcome.

Conclusion

The one adaptive design reviewed here, and a simulation study found in the search, both indicate that adaptive designs can be applied to early phase trials in RA. We have described the benchmark, which the efficiency of early phase trials using an adaptive design needs to exceed. These efficient designs could drive down numbers required, time for data collection and thus cost. Changes have been suggested, but more needs to be done.

Development and Validation of a Novel Evidence-Based Lupus Multivariable Outcome Score for Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE

Trials of new systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) treatments are hampered by the lack of effective outcome measures. To address this, we developed a novel Lupus Multivariable Outcome Score (LuMOS) and assessed its performance using data from 2 randomized controlled trials of belimumab in patients with SLE.

METHODS

The LuMOS formula was developed by analyzing raw data from 2 pivotal trials, the Study of Belimumab in Subjects with SLE 52-week (BLISS-52) and 76-week (BLISS-76) trials, which are the basis for approval of belimumab. Using the BLISS-76 trial data as the learning data set, we carried out multivariable logistic regression analyses to optimize discrimination of outcomes between patients treated with 10 mg/kg belimumab and patients receiving placebo over the first 52 weeks of follow-up. In addition, the performance of LuMOS was assessed using an independent validation data set from the BLISS-52 trial.

RESULTS

The LuMOS model incorporated the following response criteria: a ≥4-point reduction on the Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment version of the SLE Disease Activity Index, an increase in C4 levels, a decrease in anti-double-stranded DNA titers, and changes in the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group scores for organ system manifestations (no worsening in renal components, and improvements in mucocutaneous components). A decrease in the prednisone dose and increase in C3 levels had very minor impacts on the total LuMOS score. In all analyses of the BLISS-76 and BLISS-52 trial data sets, the mean LuMOS scores were significantly higher (P < 0.0001) in patients treated with 1 mg or 10 mg belimumab compared to placebo. In contrast to the performance of the SLE Responder Index 4 (SRI-4), the LuMOS revealed significant differences between the active treatment group (1 mg belimumab in the BLISS-76 cohort) and placebo group. The effect sizes were significantly much higher with the LuMOS than with the SRI-4.

CONCLUSION

The evidenced-based LuMOS outcome scoring system, developed with data from the BLISS-76 trial of belimumab in patients with SLE and validated with data from the BLISS-52 trial, exhibits a superior capacity to discriminate responders from nonresponders when compared to the SRI-4. Use of the LuMOS may improve the efficiency and power of analyses in future lupus trials.

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.

A Patient-reported Outcome Measure for Effect of Glucocorticoid Therapy in Adults with Inflammatory Diseases Is Needed: Report from the OMERACT 2016 Special Interest Group

OBJECTIVE

The need for a standardized instrument to measure the effect of glucocorticoid (GC) therapy has been well documented in the literature. The aim of the first GC Special Interest Group was to define a research agenda around the development of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in this area.

METHODS

The results of a background literature search and the preliminary results of a pilot survey and 2 qualitative studies were presented to facilitate the development of a research agenda.

RESULTS

It was agreed that there was a need for a data-driven PROM that identified both positive and negative effects of GC therapy to be used across all inflammatory indications for systemic GC use in adults. A research agenda was developed, consisting of further qualitative work to assess the effect of GC across different groups including various indications for GC use, different age groups, different dosages, and duration of treatment.

CONCLUSION

There was agreement on the need for a PROM in this area and a research agenda was set.

A Phase I study of the pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of a novel tocopheryl phosphate mixture/oxymorphone transdermal patch system

AIM

Characterize the pharmacokinetic profile and tolerability of two tocopheryl phosphate mixture/oxymorphone patch formulations in healthy subjects, and the active metabolite (6-OH-oxymorphone).

MATERIALS & METHODS

Fifteen participants received a single application of oxymorphone patches +/- capsaicin for 72 h and were crossed-over for another 72 h.

RESULTS

Plasma oxymorphone was detected approximately 7 h and 6-OH-oxymorphone after approximately 18-19 h postapplication of both formulations, respectively. For oxymorphone, median t_max was 24 h, and C_max/C_min ratio was approximately 2.4. The most frequently reported treatment-related adverse event was application site reaction, mainly with capsaicin formulation.

CONCLUSION

Tocopheryl phosphate mixture/oxymorphone transdermal patches can successfully deliver therapeutic amounts of oxymorphone in a sustained manner over 72 h and are well tolerated. ANZCTR registration number: ACTRN12614000613606.