Search

Background The development and application of standardised sets of outcomes to be measured and reported in clinical trials have the potential to increase the efficiency and value of research. One of the most notable of the current outcome sets began nearly 20 years ago: the World Health Organization and International League of Associations for Rheumatology core set of outcomes for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials, originating from the OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) Initiative. This study assesses the use of this core outcome set by randomised trials in rheumatology. Methods An observational review was carried out of 350 randomised trials for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis identified through the The Cochrane Library (up to and including September 2012 issue). Reports of these trials were evaluated to determine whether or not there were trends in the proportion of trials reporting on the full set of core outcomes over time. Researchers who conducted trials after the publication of the core set were contacted to assess their awareness of it and to collect reasons for non-inclusion of the full core set of outcomes in the study. Results Since the introduction of the core set of outcomes for rheumatoid arthritis, the consistency of measurement of the core set of outcomes has improved, although variation in the choice of measurement instrument remains. The majority of trialists who responded said that they would consider using the core outcome set in the design of a new trial. Conclusions This observational review suggests that a higher percentage of trialists conducting trials in rheumatoid arthritis are now measuring the rheumatoid arthritis core outcome set. Core outcome sets have the potential to improve the evidence base for health care, but consideration must be given to the methods for disseminating their availability amongst the relevant communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OMERACT is the acronym for an international, informally organized network initiated in 1992 aimed at improving outcome measurement in rheumatology. Chaired by an executive committee, it organizes consensus conferences in a 2-yearly cycle that circles the globe. Data driven recommendations are prepared and updated by expert working groups. Recommendations include core sets of measures for most of the major rheumatologic conditions. Since 2002 patients have been actively engaged in the process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The development and application of standardised sets of outcomes to be measured and reported in clinical trials have the potential to increase the efficiency and value of research. One of the most notable of the current outcome sets began nearly 20 years ago: the World Health Organization and International League of Associations for Rheumatology core set of outcomes for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials, originating from the OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) Initiative. This study assesses the use of this core outcome set by randomised trials in rheumatology.Methods: An observational review was carried out of 350 randomised trials for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis identified through The Cochrane Library (up to and including September 2012 issue). Reports of these trials were evaluated to determine whether or not there were trends in the proportion of trials reporting on the full set of core outcomes over time. Researchers who conducted trials after the publication of the core set were contacted to assess their awareness of it and to collect reasons for non-inclusion of the full core set of outcomes in the study.Results: Since the introduction of the core set of outcomes for rheumatoid arthritis, the consistency of measurement of the core set of outcomes has improved, although variation in the choice of measurement instrument remains. The majority of trialists who responded said that they would consider using the core outcome set in the design of a new trial.Conclusions: This observational review suggests that a higher percentage of trialists conducting trials in rheumatoid arthritis are now measuring the rheumatoid arthritis core outcome set. Core outcome sets have the potential to improve the evidence base for health care, but consideration must be given to the methods for disseminating their availability amongst the relevant communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Recent qualitative research has shown that stiffness is an important symptom for patients to identify remission. However, it is unclear how to measure stiffness in low disease activity. This systematic review aims to summarise the existing literature on validity of patient reported outcomes to measure stiffness in RA low disease activity states, to aid the choice for a measurement instrument. Methods An extensive pubmed-search was undertaken, identifying measurement instruments for patient perceived stiffness used in low disease activity. Eligible studies reported on 1) stiffness as an outcome in relation to other core set measures, 2) development of a patient reported tool to measure stiffness, or 3) comparison of two different tools to measure aspects of stiffness, all in low disease activity. Results Of 788 titles, only two studies report on validity of stiffness measures within low disease activity. Morning stiffness (MS) is reported in 44 to 80% of patients in low disease activity. A difference of 40 to 60 minutes in duration until maximum improvement is observed between active and inactive patients. Severity of MS might discriminate better between high and low disease activity compared to measurement of duration of MS. Conclusions There is insufficient data on measurement of stiffness in the spectrum of low disease activity or remission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic inflammatory disease, which affects 1% of the population. Hands and feet are most commonly involved followed by the cervical spine. The spinal column consists of vertebrae stabilized by an intricate network of ligaments. Especially in the upper cervical spine, rheumatoid arthritis can cause degeneration of these ligaments, causing laxity, instability and subluxation of the vertebral bodies. Subsequent compression of the spinal cord and medulla oblongata can cause severe neurological deficits and even sudden death. Once neurological deficits occur, progression is inevitable although the rapidity of progression is highly variable. The first signs and symptoms are pain at the back of the head caused by compression of the major occipital nerve, followed by loss of strength of arms and legs. The severity of the subluxation can be observed with radiological investigations (MRI, CT) with a high sensitivity. The authors have sent a Delphi Questionnaire about the current treatment strategies of craniocervical involvement by rheumatoid arthritis to an international forum of expert rheumatologists and surgeons. The timing of surgery in patients with radiographic instability without evidence of neurological deficit is an area of considerable controversy. If signs and symptoms of myelopathy are present there is little chance of recovery to normal levels after surgery. Design: In this international multicenter randomized clinical trial, early surgical atlantoaxial fixation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and radiological abnormalities without neurological deficits will be compared with prolonged conservative treatment. The main research question is whether early surgery can prevent radiological and neurological progression. A cost-effectivity analysis will be performed. 250 patients are needed to answer the research question. Discussion: Early surgery could prevent serious neurological deficits, but may have peri-operative morbidity and loss of rotation of the head and neck. The objective of this study is to identify the best timing of surgery for patients at risk for the development of neurological signs and symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A substantial proportion of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients discontinues treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) due to inefficacy or intolerance. After the failure of treatment with a TNFi, treatment can be switched to another TNFi or a bDMARD with a different mode of action (non-TNFi). Measurement of serum drug concentrations and/or anti-drug antibodies (therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)) may help to inform the choice for the next step. However, the clinical utility of TDM to guide switching has not been investigated in a randomised test-treatment study.Methods: ADDORA-switch is a 24-week, multi-centre, triple-blinded, superiority test-treatment randomised controlled trial. A total of 84 RA patients failing adalimumab treatment (treatment failure defined as DAS28-CRP > 2.9) will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to a switching strategy to either TNFi or non-TNFi based on adalimumab serum trough level (intervention group) or random allocation (control group). The primary outcome is the between-group difference in mean time-weighted DAS28 over 24 weeks.Discussion: The trial design differs in many aspects from previously published and ongoing TDM studies and is considered the first blinded test-treatment trial using TDM in RA. Several choices in the design of this trial are described, and overarching principles regarding test-treatment trials and clinical utility of TDM are discussed in further detail.Trial Registration: Dutch Trial Register NL8210 . Registered on 3 December 2019 (CMO NL69841.091.19). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Background: Recent qualitative research has shown that stiffness is an important symptom for patients to identify remission. However, it is unclear how to measure stiffness in low disease activity. This systematic review aims to summarise the existing literature on validity of patient reported outcomes to measure stiffness in RA low disease activity states, to aid the choice for a measurement instrument.Methods: An extensive pubmed-search was undertaken, identifying measurement instruments for patient perceived stiffness used in low disease activity. Eligible studies reported on 1) stiffness as an outcome in relation to other core set measures, 2) development of a patient reported tool to measure stiffness, or 3) comparison of two different tools to measure aspects of stiffness, all in low disease activity.Results: Of 788 titles, only two studies report on validity of stiffness measures within low disease activity. Morning stiffness (MS) is reported in 44 to 80% of patients in low disease activity. A difference of 40 to 60 minutes in duration until maximum improvement is observed between active and inactive patients. Severity of MS might discriminate better between high and low disease activity compared to measurement of duration of MS.Conclusions: There is insufficient data on measurement of stiffness in the spectrum of low disease activity or remission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Our objective was to develop an instrument to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews, building upon previous tools, empirical evidence and expert consensus. Methods: A 37-item assessment tool was formed by combining 1) the enhanced Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ), 2) a checklist created by Sacks, and 3) three additional items recently judged to be of methodological importance. This tool was applied to 99 paper-based and 52 electronic systematic reviews. Exploratory factor analysis was used to identify underlying components. The results were considered by methodological experts using a nominal group technique aimed at item reduction and design of an assessment tool with face and content validity. Results: The factor analysis identified 11 components. From each component, one item was selected by the nominal group. The resulting instrument was judged to have face and content validity. Conclusion: A measurement tool for the 'assessment of multiple systematic reviews' (AMSTAR) was developed. The tool consists of 11 items and has good face and content validity for measuring the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Additional studies are needed with a focus on the reproducibility and construct validity of AMSTAR, before strong recommendations can be made on its use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]