Search

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Trials (OMERACT) Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) patient perspective working group has previously found that patients prioritised independence, pain, and fatigue as key domains of remission in RA. However, there is currently no clear definition of independence. Consequently, this scoping review aimed to explore how independence is represented in the RA literature.A comprehensive search of the EMBASE, Medline, and PsycInfo databases was performed for publications that used independence or autonomy as a disease activity measure, description of disease in remission or treatment outcome. Papers were included if they involved adult participants and were written in English, with no restrictions on study design or publication year. Two reviewers (TK and AC, AT or BJ) independently screened the abstracts. A thematic approach was applied to derive common definitions and descriptions of independence.660 articles were identified, of which 58 (25 qualitative, 28 quantitative, one mixed, and four reviews) met the inclusion criteria. 86% of total participants were female. Ten publications referenced remission. Independence took many forms; in addition to physical and functional capability, it was described in relation to work, social activities, autonomy in healthcare, and household activities. Four common themes describing independence were identified: 1. A return to a state before arthritis. 2. Being physically and functionally able. 3. A sense of freedom without needing to rely on others. 4. Having control over the organisation of one's life.Although independence is frequently mentioned in the RA literature, it has various meanings, lacks a consistent definition, and is a concept rarely applied to remission. It is multi-factorial, exceeding functional ability alone, and contextualised within sociodemographic and disease factors. This scoping review provides common descriptions of independence to inform future qualitative work towards the development of an outcome measure of independence for the assessment of RA in remission.

BackgroundTargeting interleukin (IL)-6 has become a major therapeutic strategy in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory disease. Interference with the IL-6 pathway can be directed at the specific receptor using anti-IL-6Rα antibodies or by directly inhibiting the IL-6 cytokine. This paper is an update of a previous consensus document, based on most recent evidence and expert opinion, that aims to inform on the medical use of interfering with the IL-6 pathway.MethodsA systematic literature research was performed that focused on IL-6-pathway inhibitors in inflammatory diseases. Evidence was put in context by a large group of international experts and patients in a subsequent consensus process. All were involved in formulating the consensus statements, and in the preparation of this document.ResultsThe consensus process covered relevant aspects of dosing and populations for different indications of IL-6 pathway inhibitors that are approved across the world, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular-course and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, giant cell arteritis, Takayasu arteritis, adult-onset Still’s disease, Castleman’s disease, chimeric antigen receptor-T-cell-induced cytokine release syndrome, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder and severe COVID-19. Also addressed were other clinical aspects of the use of IL-6 pathway inhibitors, including pretreatment screening, safety, contraindications and monitoring.ConclusionsThe document provides a comprehensive consensus on the use of IL-6 inhibition to treat inflammatory disorders to inform healthcare professionals (including researchers), patients, administrators and payers.

Background Non-adherence to treatment could preclude reaching an optimal outcome. Thirty to 80% of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) do not adhere to the agreed treatment. Objectives The objective was to establish points to consider (PtCs) for the prevention, screening, assessment and management of non-adherence to (non-)pharmacological treatments in people with RMDs. Methods An EULAR task force (TF) was established, and the EULAR standardised operating procedures for the development of PtCs were followed. The TF included healthcare providers (HCPs), comprising rheumatologists, nurses, pharmacists, psychologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and patient-representatives from 12 European countries. A review of systematic reviews was conducted in advance to support the TF in formulating the PtCs. The level of agreement among the TF was established by anonymous online voting. Results Four overarching principles and nine PtCs were formulated. The PtCs reflect the phases of action on non-adherence. HCPs should assess and discuss adherence with patients on a regular basis and support patients to treatment adherence. As adherence is an agreed behaviour, the treatment has to be tailored to the patients’ needs. The level of agreement ranged from 9.5 to 9.9 out of 10. Conclusions These PtCs can help HCPs to support people with RMDs to be more adherent to the agreed treatment plan. The basic scheme being prevent non-adherence by bonding with the patient and building trust, overcoming structural barriers, assessing in a blame-free environment and tailoring the solution to the problem.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trial design requires value judgements and understanding patient preferences may help inform these judgements, for example when prioritizing treatment candidates, designing complex interventions, selecting appropriate outcomes, determining clinically important thresholds, or weighting composite outcomes. Preference elicitation methods are quantitative approaches that can estimate patients' preferences to quantify the absolute or relative importance of outcomes or other attributes relevant to the decision context. We aimed to explore stakeholder perceptions of using preference elicitation methods to inform judgements when designing clinical trials in rheumatology.METHODS: We conducted 1-on-1 semi-structured interviews with patients with rheumatic diseases and rheumatology clinicians/researchers, recruited using purposive and snowball sampling. Participants were provided pre-interview materials, including a video and a document, to introduce the topic of preference elicitation methods and case examples of potential applications to clinical trials. Interviews were conducted via Zoom and were audio-recorded and transcribed. We used thematic analysis to analyze our data.RESULTS: We interviewed 17 patients and 9 clinicians/researchers, until data and inductive thematic saturation were achieved within each group. Themes were grouped into overall perceptions, barriers, and facilitators. Patients and clinicians/researchers generally agreed that preference elicitation studies can improve clinical trial design, but that many considerations are required around preference heterogeneity and feasibility. A key barrier identified was the additional resources and expertise required to measure and incorporate preferences effectively in trial design. Key facilitators included developing guidance on how to use preference elicitation to inform trial design, as well as the role of external decision-makers in developing such guidance, and the need to leverage the movement towards patient engagement in research to encourage including patient preferences when designing trials.CONCLUSION: Our findings allowed us to consider the potential applications of patient preferences in trial design according to stakeholders within rheumatology who are involved in the trial process. Future research should be conducted to develop comprehensive guidance on how to meaningfully include patient preferences when designing clinical trials in rheumatology. Doing so may have important downstream effects for shared decision-making, especially given the chronic nature of rheumatic diseases.

ObjectivesTo provide an update of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations to account for the most recent developments in the field.MethodsAn international task force considered new evidence supporting or contradicting previous recommendations and novel therapies and strategic insights based on two systematic literature searches on efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) since the last update (2016) until 2019. A predefined voting process was applied, current levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned and participants ultimately voted independently on their level of agreement with each of the items.ResultsThe task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 12 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GCs); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib). Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering on sustained clinical remission is provided. Cost and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs are addressed. Initially, MTX plus GCs and upon insufficient response to this therapy within 3 to 6 months, stratification according to risk factors is recommended. With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD or JAK inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD is recommended. On sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered, but not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were mostly high.ConclusionsThese updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on the management of RA with respect to benefit, safety, preferences and cost.

ObjectivesTo explore patients’ agreement and reasons for agreement or disagreement with the EULAR recommendations for patient education (PE) for people with inflammatory arthritis (IA).MethodsThis mixed-method survey collected data using snowball sampling. The survey had been translated into 20 languages by local healthcare professionals, researchers and patient research partners. It explored the degree to which patients with IA agreed with each recommendation for PE (0=do not agree at all and 10=agree completely) and their rationale for their agreement level in free text questions. Descriptive statistics summarised participants’ demographics and agreement levels. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyse the free text data. Sixteen subcategories were developed, describing the reasons for agreement or disagreement with the recommendations, which constituted the categories.ResultsThe sample comprised 2779 participants (79% female), with a mean (SD) age 55.1 (13.1) years and disease duration 17.1 (13.3) years. Participants strongly agreed with most recommendations (median 10 (IQR: 9–10) for most recommendations). Reasons for agreement with the recommendations included the benefit of using PE to facilitate collaborative care and shared decision making, the value of flexible and tailored PE, and the value of gaining support from other patients. Reasons for disagreement included lack of resources for PE, not wanting information to be tailored by healthcare professionals and a reluctance to use telephone-based PE.ConclusionThe EULAR recommendations for PE have been disseminated among patients with IA. Overall, agreement levels were very high, suggesting that they reflect patients’ preferences for engaging in collaborative clinical care and using PE to facilitate and supplement their own understanding of IA. Reasons for not completely agreeing with the recommendations can inform implementation strategies and education of healthcare professionals.

Objective\ud To determine how best to incorporate the patient perspective into rheumatoid arthritis remission criteria.\ud \ud Methods\ud At OMERACT 2020, several studies, including a longitudinal multi-centre study testing the validity of adding patient-valued domains to the ACR/EULAR criteria, were presented and discussed by the virtual Special Interest Group.\ud \ud Results\ud Overall consensus was that there is insufficient evidence to change the remission criteria at this point. Future work should focus on measurement of the new domain of independence, clarifying the value of the patient global assessment, and optimizing the input of domains that patients value in the criteria.\ud \ud Conclusion\ud Incorporating the patient perspective into remission criteria should be further explored.

Objectives: To develop an operational definition of contextual factors (CF) [1].Methods: Based on previously conducted interviews, we presented three CF types in a Delphi survey; Effect Modifying-, Outcome Influencing -and Measurement Affecting CFs. Subsequently, a virtual Special Interest Group (SIG) session was held for in depth discussion of Effect Modifying CFs.Results: Of 161 Delphi participants, 129 (80%) completed both rounds. After two rounds, we reached consen-sus (>70% agreeing) for all but two statements. The 45 SIG participants were broadly supportive.Conclusion: Through consensus we developed an operational definition of CFs, which was well received by OMERACT members. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Objective: To gain consensus on the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set for rheumatology trials of shared decision making (SDM) interventions.Methods: The process followed the OMERACT Filter 2.1 methodology, and used consensus-building methods, with patients involved since the inception. After developing the draft core domain set in previous research, we conducted five steps: (i) improving the draft core domain set; (ii) developing and disseminating whiteboard videos to promote its understanding; (iii) conducting an electronic survey to gather feedback on the draft core domain set; (iv) finalizing the core domain set and developing summaries, a plenary session video and discussion boards to promote its understanding; and (v) conducting virtual workshops with voting to endorse the core domain set.Results: A total of 167 participants from 28 countries answered the survey (62% were patients/caregivers). Most participants rated domains as relevant (81%-95%) and clear (82%-93%). A total of 149 participants (n = 48 patients/caregivers, 101 clinicians/researchers) participated in virtual workshops and voted on the proposed core domain set which received endorsement by 95%. Endorsed domains are: 1-Knowledge of options, their potential benefits and harms; 2-Chosen option aligned with each patient's values and preferences; 3-Confidence in the chosen option; 4-Satisfaction with the decision-making process; 5-Adherence to the chosen option and 6-Potential negative consequences of the SDM intervention.Conclusion: We achieved consensus among an international group of stakeholders on the OMERACT core domain set for rheumatology trials of SDM interventions. Future research will develop the Core Outcome Measurement Set.Clinical significance: Prior to this study, there had been no consensus on the OMERACT core domain set for SDM interventions. The current study shows that the OMERACT core domain set achieved a high level of endorsement by key stakeholders, including patients/caregivers, clinicians and researchers.(c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

ObjectivesJanus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) have been approved for use in various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. With five agents licensed, it was timely to summarise the current understanding of JAKi use based on a systematic literature review (SLR) on efficacy and safety.MethodsExisting data were evaluated by a steering committee and subsequently reviewed by a 29 person expert committee leading to the formulation of a consensus statement that may assist the clinicians, patients and other stakeholders once the decision is made to commence a JAKi. The committee included patients, rheumatologists, a gastroenterologist, a haematologist, a dermatologist, an infectious disease specialist and a health professional. The SLR informed the Task Force on controlled and open clinical trials, registry data, phase 4 trials and meta-analyses. In addition, approval of new compounds by, and warnings from regulators that were issued after the end of the SLR search date were taken into consideration.ResultsThe Task Force agreed on and developed four general principles and a total of 26 points for consideration which were grouped into six areas addressing indications, treatment dose and comedication, contraindications, pretreatment screening and risks, laboratory and clinical follow-up examinations, and adverse events. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendations were determined based on the SLR and levels of agreement were voted on for every point, reaching a range between 8.8 and 9.9 on a 10-point scale.ConclusionThe consensus provides an assessment of evidence for efficacy and safety of an important therapeutic class with guidance on issues of practical management.

ObjectiveTo analyse how non-adherence to prescribed treatments might be prevented, screened, assessed and managed in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).MethodsAn overview of systematic reviews (SR) was performed in four bibliographic databases. Research questions focused on: (1) effective interventions or strategies, (2) associated factors, (3) impact of shared decision making and effective communication, (4) practical things to prevent non-adherence, (5) effect of non-adherence on outcome, (6) screening and assessment tools and (7) responsible healthcare providers. The methodological quality of the reviews was assessed using AMSTAR-2. The qualitative synthesis focused on results and on the level of evidence attained from the studies included in the reviews.ResultsAfter reviewing 9908 titles, the overview included 38 SR on medication, 29 on non-pharmacological interventions and 28 on assessment. Content and quality of the included SR was very heterogeneous. The number of factors that may influence adherence exceed 700. Among 53 intervention studies, 54.7% showed a small statistically significant effect on adherence, and all three multicomponent interventions, including different modes of patient education and delivered by a variety of healthcare providers, showed a positive result in adherence to medication. No single assessment provided a comprehensive measure of adherence to either medication or exercise.ConclusionsThe results underscore the complexity of non-adherence, its changing pattern and dependence on multi-level factors, the need to involve all stakeholders in all steps, the absence of a gold standard for screening and the requirement of multi-component interventions to manage it.

ObjectivesThe Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Initiative established the Contextual Factors Working Group to guide the understanding, identification and handling of contextual factors for clinical trials. In clinical research, different uses of the term ‘contextual factors’ exist. This study explores the perspectives of researchers (including clinicians) and patients in defining 'contextual factor’ and its related terminology, identifying such factors and accounting for them in trials across rheumatology.MethodsWe conducted individual semistructured interviews with researchers (including clinicians) who have experience within the field of contextual factors in clinical trials or other potentially relevant areas, and small focus group interviews with patients with rheumatic conditions. We transcribed the interviews and applied qualitative content analysis.ResultsWe interviewed 12 researchers and 7 patients. Researcher's and patient's descriptions of contextual factors were categorised into two broad themes, each comprising two contextual factors types. The ‘treatment effect’ theme focused on factors explaining variations in treatment effects (A) among patients and (B) among studies. The ‘outcome measurement’ theme focused on factors that explain (C) variations in the measurement result itself (apart from actual changes/differences in the outcome) and (D) variations in the outcome itself (beside treatment of interest). Methods for identifying and handling contextual factors differed among these themes and types.ConclusionsTwo main themes for contextual factors with four types of contextual factors were identified based on input from researchers and patients. This will guide operationalisation of contextual factors. Further research should refine our findings and establish consensus among relevant stakeholders.

To update the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the role of the nurse in the management of chronic inflammatory arthritis (CIA) using the most up to date evidence. The EULAR standardised operating procedures were followed. A task force of rheumatologists, health professionals and patients, representing 17 European countries updated the recommendations, based on a systematic literature review and expert consensus. Higher level of evidence and new insights into nursing care for patients with CIA were added to the recommendation. Level of agreement was obtained by email voting. The search identified 2609 records, of which 51 (41 papers, 10 abstracts), mostly on rheumatoid arthritis, were included. Based on consensus, the task force formulated three overarching principles and eight recommendations. One recommendation remained unchanged, six were reworded, two were merged and one was reformulated as an overarching principle. Two additional overarching principles were formulated. The overarching principles emphasise the nurse’s role as part of a healthcare team, describe the importance of providing evidence-based care and endorse shared decision-making in the nursing consultation with the patient. The recommendations cover the contribution of rheumatology nursing in needs-based patient education, satisfaction with care, timely access to care, disease management, efficiency of care, psychosocial support and the promotion of self-management. The level of agreement among task force members was high (mean 9.7, range 9.6-10.0). The updated recommendations encompass three overarching principles and eight evidence-based and expert opinion-based recommendations for the role of the nurse in the management of CIA.

Objective.To reach consensus on the core domains to be included in a core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders using the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 Core Domain Set process.Methods.At OMERACT 2018, the OMERACT Shoulder Working Group conducted a workshop that presented the OMERACT 2016 preliminary core domain set and its rationale based upon a systematic review of domains measured in shoulder trials and international Delphi sessions involving patients, clinicians, and researchers, as well as a new systematic review of qualitative studies on the experiences of people with shoulder disorders. After discussions in breakout groups, the OMERACT core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders was presented for endorsement by OMERACT 2018 participants.Results.The qualitative review (n = 8) identified all domains included in the preliminary core set. An additional domain, cognitive dysfunction, was also identified, but confidence that this represents a core domain was very low. The core domain set that was endorsed by the OMERACT participants, with 71% agreement, includes 4 “mandatory” trial domains: pain, function, patient global — shoulder, and adverse events including death; and 4 “important but optional” domains: participation (recreation/work), sleep, emotional well-being, and condition-specific pathophysiological manifestations. Cognitive dysfunction was voted out of the core domain set.Conclusion.OMERACT 2018 delegates endorsed a core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders. The next step includes identification of a core outcome measurement set that passes the OMERACT 2.1 Filter for measuring each domain.

Objective.The importance of contextual factors (CF) for appropriate patient-specific care is widely acknowledged. However, evidence in clinical trials on how CF influence outcomes remains sparse. The 2014 Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Handbook introduced the role of CF in outcome assessment and defined them as “potential confounders and/or effect modifiers of outcomes in randomized controlled trials.” Subsequently, the CF Methods Group (CFMG) was formed to develop guidance on how to address CF in clinical trials.Methods.First, the CFMG conducted an e-mail survey of OMERACT working groups (WG) to analyze how they had addressed CF in outcome measurement so far. The results facilitated an informed discussion at the OMERACT 2016 CFMG Special Interest Group (SIG) session, with the aim of gaining preliminary consensus regarding an operational definition of CF and to make a first selection of potentially relevant CF.Results.The survey revealed that the WG had mostly used the OMERACT Handbook and/or the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) definition. However, significant heterogeneity was found in the methods used to identify, refine, and categorize CF candidates. The SIG participants agreed on using the ICF as a framework along with the OMERACT Handbook definition. A list with 28 variables was collected including person-related factors and physical and social environments. Recommendations from the SIG guided the CFMG to formulate 3 preliminary projects on how to identify and analyze CF.Conclusion.New methods are urgently needed to assist researchers to identify and characterize CF that significantly influence the interpretation of results in clinical trials. The CFMG defined first steps to develop further guidance.

International audience; Recent insights in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) necessitated updating the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) RA management recommendations. A large international Task Force based decisions on evidence from 3 systematic literature reviews, developing 4 overarching principles and 12 recommendations (vs 3 and 14, respectively, in 2013). The recommendations address conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GC); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, clazakizumab, sarilumab and sirukumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (Janus kinase (Jak) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib). Monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and the targets of sustained clinical remission (as defined by the American College of Rheumatology-(ACR)-EULAR Boolean or index criteria) or low disease activity are discussed. Cost aspects were taken into consideration. As first strategy, the Task Force recommends MTX (rapid escalation to 25 mg/week) plus short-term GC, aiming at >50% improvement within 3 and target attainment within 6 months. If this fails stratification is recommended. Without unfavourable prognostic markers, switching to-or adding-another csDMARDs (plus short-term GC) is suggested. In the presence of unfavourable prognostic markers (autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions, failure of 2 csDMARDs), any bDMARD (current practice) or Jak-inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD or tsDMARD is recommended. If a patient is in sustained remission, bDMARDs can be tapered. For each recommendation, levels of evidence and Task Force agreement are provided, both mostly very high. These recommendations intend informing rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies, hospital officials, social security agencies and regulators about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA, aimed at attaining best outcomes with current therapies.

Background: Guidelines suggest treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) should be targeted at remission, in close consultation with the patient. Our recent qualitative study of the patient perspective on remission in RA identified reduction or absence of a) certain symptoms and b) impact of the disease on daily life, as well as c) a return to normal life as important themes. Objectives: The current study aimed to determine the relative importance of the many aspects of remission identified within these three themes to produce a short list of the most important aspects to inform future research. Methods: RA patients from the Netherlands, the United Kingdom (UK), Austria, Denmark, France, and the United States (US) were asked to complete a survey that contained all 26 domains of remission identified in our qualitative study. Patients were asked to rate domains for importance (“not important”, “important”, or “essential” to characterise a period of remission) and if important or essential, whether this domain needs to be ''less”, 'almost gone', or 'gone' to reflect remission. In addition, respondents were asked to determine their personal top 3 of most important/essential domains that characterise remission. First, frequency of a particular domain mentioned in the top 3 was calculated. Second, domains that >30% of patients identified as “not important” were removed. The remaining domains were sorted on the percentage of patients that evaluated a particular domain as “essential”. Results: Data from 274 RA patients were collected (54 Netherlands, 33 UK, 51 Austria, 43 Denmark, 43 France, and 50 US), including 75% females, mean (SD) age 57 (13) years, disease duration 12 (9) years (range 0 to 50). 38% reported they were currently in remission and 41% reported erosive disease. The most often mentioned domains in the top 3 were: pain (n=188,67%), fatigue (n=91,33%) and independence (n=53,19%). Domains that were most frequently rated as “essential” to characterise a period of remission were: pain (n=163,60%), being mobile (n=142,52%), physical function (n=140,51%), being independent (n=129,47%) and fatigue (n=113,41%). Pain needed to be less (13%), almost gone (42%) or gone (45%) to reflect remission. Similar patterns were seen for fatigue (23%,40%,37%), independence (16%,31%,53%), mobility (16%,35%,49%) and physical functioning (14%,29%,57%). Conclusions: The most important domains of RA disease activity that need to be improved in order to reflect remission from a patient perspective are pain, fatigue, independence, mobility and physical functioning. Measurement of these domains in low disease activity will be a next challenge.

Objective.Discussion and endorsement of the OMERACT total joint replacement (TJR) core domain set for total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) for endstage arthritis; and next steps for selection of instruments.Methods.The OMERACT TJR working group met at the 2016 meeting at Whistler, British Columbia, Canada. We summarized the previous systematic reviews, the preliminary OMERACT TJR core domain set and results from previous surveys. We discussed preliminary core domains for TJR clinical trials, made modifications, and identified challenges with domain measurement.Results.Working group participants (n = 26) reviewed, clarified, and endorsed each of the inner and middle circle domains and added a range of motion domain to the research agenda. TJR were limited to THR and TKR but included all endstage hip and knee arthritis refractory to medical treatment. Participants overwhelmingly endorsed identification and evaluation of top instruments mapping to the core domains (100%) and use of subscales of validated multidimensional instruments to measure core domains for the TJR clinical trial core measurement set (92%).Conclusion.An OMERACT core domain set for hip/knee TJR trials has been defined and we are selecting instruments to develop the TJR clinical trial core measurement set to serve as a common foundation for harmonizing measures in TJR clinical trials.

Objective.The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) working group on the patients’ perspective on remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been working on this topic since 2010. At OMERACT 2016, progress and preliminary data on validity of measurement instruments for pain, fatigue, and independence in remission in RA were presented, and future directions were explored.Methods.A special interest group was organized, in which the current data on the patients’ perspective on remission were presented. The ongoing study that aimed to validate measurement instruments for pain, fatigue, and independence in a state of low disease activity or remission was presented, and preliminary data on construct validity and discriminative capacity were evaluated cross-sectionally.Results.At OMERACT 2016, the progress of the working group and preliminary data from 142 of the anticipated 300 patients were presented. Selected instruments significantly correlated with the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (construct validity) and all instruments except 1 discriminated between patients in and patients not in remission. The subsequent discussion mainly focused around 3 points: (1) the formulation of patient perceived remission, (2) the duration of remission, and (3) the measurement of the domain independence. An informal vote indicated a slight preference for working toward modifying the current remission criteria by adding patient-reported outcomes (PRO), or by substituting the patient’s global assessment with 1 or more PRO.Conclusion.More evidence on measuring patients’ perspective on remission in RA is needed before an informed decision can be made regarding development or modification of remission definitions.

Objective.The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) Flare Group was established to develop a reliable way to identify and measure RA flares in randomized controlled trials (RCT). Here, we summarized the development and field testing of the RA Flare Questionnaire (RA-FQ), and the voting results at OMERACT 2016.Methods.Classic and modern psychometric methods were used to assess reliability, validity, sensitivity, factor structure, scoring, and thresholds. Interviews with patients and clinicians also assessed content validity, utility, and meaningfulness of RA-FQ scores.Results.People with RA in observational trials in Canada (n = 896) and France (n = 138), and an RCT in the Netherlands (n = 178) completed 5 items (11-point numerical rating scale) representing RA Flare core domains. There was moderate to high evidence of reliability, content and construct validity, and responsiveness. Factor analysis supported unidimensionality. Rasch analysis showed acceptable fit to the Rasch model, with items and people covering a broad measurement continuum and evidence of appropriate targeting of items to people, ordered thresholds, minimal differential item functioning by language, sex, or age. A summative score across items is defensible, yielding an interval score (0–50) where higher scores reflect worsening flare. The RA-FQ received endorsement from 88% of attendees that it passed the OMERACT Filter 2.0 “Eyeball Test” for instrument selection.Conclusion.The RA-FQ has been developed to identify and measure RA flares. Its review through OMERACT Filter 2.0 shows evidence of reliability, content and construct validity, and responsiveness. These properties merit its further validation as an outcome for clinical trials.

Objective.The OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) Flare Group (FG) is developing a data-driven, patient-inclusive, consensus-based RA flare definition for use in clinical trials, longterm observational studies, and clinical practice. At OMERACT 11, we sought endorsement of a proposed core domain set to measure RA flare.Methods.Patient and healthcare professional (HCP) qualitative studies, focus groups, and literature review, followed by patient and HCP Delphi exercises including combined Delphi consensus at Outcome Measures in Rheumatology 10 (OMERACT 10), identified potential domains to measure flare. At OMERACT 11, breakout groups discussed key domains and instruments to measure them, and proposed a research agenda. Patients were active research partners in all focus groups and domain identification activities. Processes for domain selection and patient partner involvement were case studies for OMERACT Filter 2.0 methodology.Results.A pre-meeting combined Delphi exercise for defining flare identified 9 domains as important (> 70% consensus from patients or HCP). Four new patient-reported domains beyond those included in the RA disease activity core set were proposed for inclusion (fatigue, participation, stiffness, and self-management). The RA FG developed preliminary flare questions (PFQ) to measure domains. In combined plenary voting sessions, OMERACT 11 attendees endorsed the proposed RA core set to measure flare with ≥ 78% consensus and the addition of 3 additional domains to the research agenda for OMERACT 12.Conclusion.At OMERACT 11, a core domain set to measure RA flare was ratified and endorsed by attendees. Domain validation aligning with Filter 2.0 is ongoing in new randomized controlled clinical trials and longitudinal observational studies using existing and new instruments including a set of PFQ.

Objective To describe the perception of the current role of systemic glucocorticoids in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by examining their importance and the current level of evidence in recent guidelines, and to identify open questions to be addressed in future guidelines and research projects. Methods We conducted a systematic literature review using the databases Ovid Embase, PubMed Medline, and Cochrane Library for guidelines on the pharmacologic treatment of RA. Retrieved articles were evaluated regarding their quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool and scrutinized for all relevant information concerning the use of glucocorticoids. Results All guidelines agree that glucocorticoids, especially if given at low doses and for a short duration, are an appropriate option in the treatment of RA. However, many recommendations remain vague, as reliable and detailed evidence is scarce. Important aspects of glucocorticoid therapy are partially or completely neglected, and the existing nomenclature is not used uniformly. Quality evaluation revealed flaws in many articles, concerning not only glucocorticoid-specific recommendations but also guideline quality in general. Conclusion Current recommendations for use of glucocorticoids in the management of RA are suboptimal. More rigorous evaluation of doses, timing, and duration of their use is needed. Existing nomenclature on glucocorticoid therapy should be used uniformly.

Background Although disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are the cornerstone of treatment for inflammatory rheumatic diseases, medication adherence to DMARDs is often suboptimal. Effective interventions to improve adherence to DMARDs are lacking, and new targets are needed to improve adherence. The aim of the present study was to explore patients’ barriers and facilitators of optimal DMARD use. These factors might be used as targets for adherence interventions. Methods In a mixed method study design, patients (n = 120) with inflammatory arthritis (IA) completed a questionnaire based on an existing adapted Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify facilitators and barriers of DMARD use. A subgroup of these patients (n = 21) participated in focus groups to provide insights into their facilitators and barriers. The answers to the questionnaires and responses of the focus groups were thematically coded by three researchers independently and subsequently categorized. Results The barriers and facilitators that were reported by IA patients presented large inter-individual variations. The identified barriers and facilitators could be captured in the following domains based on an adapted TDF: (i) knowledge, (ii) emotions, (iii) attention, memory, and decision processes, (iv) social influences, (v) beliefs about capability, (vi) beliefs about consequences, (vii) motivation and goals, (viii) goal conflict, (ix) environmental context and resources, and (x) skills. Conclusions Patients with IA have a variety of barriers and facilitators with regard to their DMARD use. All of these barriers and facilitators could be categorized into adapted domains of the TDF. Interventions that address individual facilitators and barriers, based on capability, opportunity, and motivation, are needed to develop strategies for medication adherence that are tailored to individual patient needs. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-016-1289-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.