Search

Objective: To examine the test-retest reliability of four measurement instruments in polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR): pain severity visual analogue scale (VAS) / numerical rating score (NRS), stiffness severity VAS/NRS, the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and the modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ)., Method: Two prospectively collected datasets were used. All participants had a diagnosis of PMR and only those with stable disease were included in analyses. Measurement instruments were administered twice, with a testing interval of two to six weeks. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated using a two-way mixed effects model looking for absolute agreement. ICC values of 0.8-0.9 were deemed representative of good test-retest reliability, whilst values >0.9 were representative of excellent test-retest reliability., Results: From the first dataset, 38 participants were analysed. The ICC between baseline and 2 weeks for pain VAS, stiffness VAS, HAQ-DI and mHAQ were 0.84, 0.82, 0.92 and 0.92 respectively. From the second dataset, 58 participants were included in the analysis for pain NRS, 59 for stiffness NRS and 78 for mHAQ. The ICC between baseline and follow-up for pain NRS, stiffness NRS and mHAQ were 0.80, 0.83 and 0.87 respectively., Conclusion: Pain severity VAS/NRS, stiffness severity VAS/NRS, HAQ-DI and mHAQ all demonstrate good to excellent test-retest reliability in a PMR patient population., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Jessica L. Leung has received speaker honoraria from Novartis, Eli Lilly and AbbVie, as well as payment for advisory board participation from Fresenius Kabi, Eli Lilly and AbbVie. Helen Twohig has no declarations of interest. Sara Muller is a trustee of the PMRGCAuk charity. Lara Maxwell has no declarations of interest. Sarah L. Mackie's institution has received grant funding from the National Institute for Health Research, Leeds Hospitals Charity and Vifor Pharmaceuticals, and payment for clinical trial participation from Sanofi. She has received support for virtual attendance at ACR Convergence 2021. She is also the patron of the PMRGCAuk charity (unpaid role) and is supported in part by the NIHR Leeds Bioedical Research Centre. Lorna M. Neill has received honoraria from AbbVie and is a trustee of PMR-GCA Scotland Charity. Claire E. Owen has received speaking honoraria from AbbVie and Novartis, as well as payment for advisory board participation from AbbVie., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: PMR causes pain, stiffness and disability in older adults. Measuring the impact of the condition from the patient's perspective is vital to high-quality research and patient-centred care, yet there are no validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for PMR. We set out to develop and psychometrically evaluate a PMR-specific PROM., Methods: Two cross-sectional postal surveys of people with a confirmed diagnosis of PMR were used to provide data for field testing and psychometric evaluation. A total of 256 participants completed the draft PROM. Distribution of item responses was examined, and exploratory factor analysis and Rasch analysis were used to inform item reduction, formation of dimension structure and scoring system development. Some 179 participants completed the PROM at two time points, along with comparator questionnaires and anchor questions. Test-retest reliability, construct validity and responsiveness were evaluated., Results: Results from the field-testing study led to the formation of the PMR-Impact Scale (PMR-IS), comprising four domains (symptoms, function, psychological and emotional well-being, and steroid side effects). Construct validity and test-retest reliability met accepted quality criteria for each domain. There was insufficient evidence from this study to determine its ability to detect flares/deterioration, but the PMR-IS was responsive to improvements in the condition., Conclusion: The PMR-IS offers researchers a new way to assess patient-reported outcomes in clinical studies of PMR. It has been developed robustly, with patient input at every stage. It has good construct validity and test-retest reliability. Further work is needed to fully establish its responsiveness and interpretability parameters, and to assess its real-world clinical utility., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Objective: To systematically identify the outcome measures and instruments used in clinical studies of polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) and to evaluate evidence about their measurement properties., Methods: Searches based on the MeSH term "polymyalgia rheumatica" were carried out in 5 databases. Two researchers were involved in screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Once outcomes and instruments used were identified and categorized, key instruments were selected for further review through a consensus process. Studies on measurement properties of these instruments were appraised against the COSMIN-OMERACT (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments-Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) checklist to determine the extent of evidence supporting their use in PMR., Results: Forty-six studies were included. In decreasing order of frequency, the most common outcomes (and instruments) used were markers of systemic inflammation [erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP)], pain [visual analog scale (VAS)], stiffness (duration in minutes), and physical function (elevation of upper limbs). Instruments selected for further evaluation were ESR, CRP, pain VAS, morning stiffness duration, and the Health Assessment Questionnaire. Five studies evaluated measurement properties of these instruments, but none met all of the COSMIN-OMERACT checklist criteria., Conclusion: Measurement of outcomes in studies of PMR lacks consistency. The critical patient-centered domain of physical function is poorly assessed. None of the candidate instruments considered for inclusion in the core outcome set had high-quality evidence, derived from populations with PMR, on their full range of measurement properties. Further studies are needed to determine whether these instruments are suitable for inclusion in a core outcome measurement set for PMR., (Copyright © 2021 by the Journal of Rheumatology.)

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.

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.

Objective: To inform development of a core domain set for outcome measures for clinical trials in polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR), we conducted patient consultations, a systematic review, a Delphi study, and 2 qualitative studies., Methods: Domains identified by 70% or more of physicians and/or patients in the Delphi study were selected. The conceptual framework derived from the 2 qualitative research studies helped inform the meaning of each domain and its relationship to the others. The draft core domain set was refined by further discussion with patients and physicians who had participated in the Delphi study. At the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 2016, the domains were discussed and prioritized by 8 breakout groups. Formal voting took place at the end of the workshop and in the final plenary., Results: Ninety-three percent of voters in the final plenary agreed that the inner core of domains considered mandatory for clinical trials of PMR should consist the following: laboratory markers of systemic inflammation, pain, stiffness, and physical function. Patient's global and fatigue were considered important but not mandatory (outer core). The research agenda included psychological impact, weakness, physical activity, participation, sleep, imaging, and health-related quality of life., Conclusion: This core domain set was considered sufficiently well-defined that the next step will be to apply the OMERACT Filter 2.0 Instrument Selection Algorithm to select candidate instruments for a subsequent "deeper dive" into the data. This will allow instruments to be mapped onto each of our core domains to derive a core outcome set for PMR.

Objectives: To explore patient experiences of living with, and receiving treatment for, PMR., Methods: Semi-structured qualitative interviews, with 22 patients with PMR recruited from general practices in South Yorkshire. Thematic analysis using a constant comparative method, ran concurrently with the interviews and was used to derive a conceptual framework., Results: 5 Key themes emerged highlighting the importance of: (1) pain, stiffness and weakness, (2) disability, (3) treatment and disease course, (4) experience of care, (5) psychological impact of PMR. Patients emphasised the profound disability experienced that was often associated with fear and vulnerability, highlighting how this was often not recognised by health care professionals. Patients' experiences also challenge medical convention, particularly around the concept of 'weakness' as a symptom, the use of morning stiffness as a measure of disease activity and the myth of full resolution of symptoms with steroid treatment. Treatment decisions were complex, with patients balancing glucocorticoid side effects against persistent symptoms., Conclusions: Patients often described their experience of PMR in terms of disability rather than focussing on localised symptoms. The associated psychological impact was significant., Practice Implications: Recognising this is key to achieving shared understanding, reaching the correct diagnosis promptly, and formulating a patient-centred management plan., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The last British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) guideline on PMR was published in 2009. The guideline needs to be updated to provide a summary of the current evidence for pharmacological and non-pharmacological management of adults with PMR. This guideline is aimed at healthcare professionals in the UK who directly care for people with PMR, including general practitioners, rheumatologists, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, pharmacists, psychologists and other health professionals. It will also be relevant to people living with PMR and organisations that support them in the public and third sector, including charities and informal patient support groups. This guideline will be developed using the methods and processes outlined in the BSR Guidelines Protocol. Here we provide a brief summary of the scope of the guideline update in development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]