Search

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the joints affecting 1% of the world population. It has major impact on patients through disability and associated comorbidities. Current treatment strategies have considerably improved the prognosis, but recent innovations (especially biologic drugs and the new class of so-called "JAK/STAT inhibitors") have important safety issues and are very costly. Glucocorticoids (GCs) are highly effective in RA, and could reduce the need for expensive treatment with biologic agents. However, despite more than 65 years of clinical experience, there is a lack of studies large enough to adequately document the benefit/harm balance. The result is inappropriate treatment strategies, i.e. both under-use and over-use of GCs, and consequently suboptimal treatment of RA.Methods: The GLORIA study is a pragmatic multicentre, 2-year, randomised, double-blind, clinical trial to assess the safety and effectiveness of a daily dose of 5 mg prednisolone or matching placebo added to standard of care in elderly patients with RA. Eligible participants are diagnosed with RA, have inadequate disease control (disease activity score, DAS28 ≥ 2.6), and are ≥ 65 years. The primary outcome measures are the time-averaged mean value of the DAS28 and the occurrence of serious adverse events or adverse events of special interest. During the trial, change in antirheumatic therapy is permitted as clinically indicated, except for GCs. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility are secondary outcomes. The main challenge is the interpretation of the trial result with two primary endpoints and the pragmatic trial design that allows co-interventions. Another challenge is the definition of safety and the relative lack of power to detect differences between treatment groups. We have chosen to define safety as the number of patients experiencing at least one serious adverse event. We also specify a decision tree to guide our conclusion on the balance of benefit and harm, and our methodology to combat potential confounding caused by co-interventions.Discussion: Pragmatic trials minimise impact on daily practice and maximise clinical relevance of the results, but analysis and interpretation of the results is challenging. We expect that the results of this trial are of importance for all rheumatologists who treat elderly patients with RA.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02585258 . Registered on 20 October 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In cooperation with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) initiative aimed to develop a guideline on how to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes (i.e., constructs or domains) included in a "Core Outcome Set" (COS). A COS is an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials of a specific disease or trial population.Methods: Informed by a literature review to identify potentially relevant tasks on outcome measurement instrument selection, a Delphi study was performed among a panel of international experts, representing diverse stakeholders. In three consecutive rounds, panelists were asked to rate the importance of different tasks in the selection of outcome measurement instruments, to justify their choices, and to add other relevant tasks. Consensus was defined as being achieved when 70 % or more of the panelists agreed and when fewer than 15 % of the panelists disagreed.Results: Of the 481 invited experts, 120 agreed to participate of whom 95 (79 %) completed the first Delphi questionnaire. We reached consensus on four main steps in the selection of outcome measurement instruments for COS: Step 1, conceptual considerations; Step 2, finding existing outcome measurement instruments, by means of a systematic review and/or a literature search; Step 3, quality assessment of outcome measurement instruments, by means of the evaluation of the measurement properties and feasibility aspects of outcome measurement instruments; and Step 4, generic recommendations on the selection of outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a COS (consensus ranged from 70 to 99 %).Conclusions: This study resulted in a consensus-based guideline on the methods for selecting outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a COS. This guideline can be used by COS developers in defining how to measure core outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most disabling and costly disorders affecting modern society, and approximately 90% of patients are labelled as having non-specific LBP (NSLBP). Several interventions for patients with NSLBP have been assessed in clinical trials, but heterogeneous reporting of outcomes in these trials has hindered comparison of results and performance of meta-analyses. Moreover, there is a risk of selective outcome reporting bias. To address these issues, the development of a core outcome set (COS) that should be measured in all clinical trials for a specific health condition has been recommended. A standardized set of outcomes for LBP were proposed in 1998 however, with evolution in COS development methodology, new instruments, interventions, and understanding of measurement properties, it is appropriate to update that proposal. This protocol describes the methods used in the initial step in developing a COS for NSLBP, namely, establishing a core domain set that should be measured in all clinical trials. Methods/Design An International Steering Committee including researchers, clinicians, and patient representatives from four continents was formed to guide the development of this COS. The approach of initiatives like Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) was followed. Participants were invited to participate in a Delphi study aimed at generating a consensus-based core domain set for NSLBP. A list of potential core domains was drafted and presented to the Delphi participants who were asked to judge which domains were core. Participant suggestions about overlap, aggregation, or addition of potential core domains were addressed during the study. The patients' responses were isolated to assess whether there was substantial disagreement with the rest of the Delphi panel. A priori thresholds for consensus were established before each Delphi round. All participants' responses were analysed from a quantitative and qualitative perspective to ascertain that no substantial discrepancies between the two approaches emerged. Discussion We present the initial step in developing a COS for NSLBP. The next step will be to determine which measurement instruments adequately cover the domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]