Ailsa Bosworth

BSR and BHPR rheumatoid arthritis guidelines on safety of anti-TNF therapies.

Inhibitors of TNF-a represent important treatment advances for a number of inflammatory conditions, including RA. TNF-a inhibitors offer a targeted strategy that contrasts with the non-specific immunosuppressive agents traditionally used to treat most forms of systemic inflammation. Information on who benefits from these agents and on their adverse effects continues to be collected through clinical studies, case series and reports and through national registries. In 2001 and 2005, the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) established and updated guidelines for the use of anti-TNF drugs in RA [1, 2]. These guidelines have indicated which adult patients with RA should be eligible for treatment with anti-TNF therapies, precautions that need to be taken in their use and action that should be taken in the event of adverse effects. The previous guidelines applied to the then-available anti-TNF therapies {etanercept and infliximab in 2001 [1], and etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab (first-generation anti-TNF agents) in 2005 [2]}. Due to the large volume of information now available on these agents the BSR has, in 2010, produced separate guidelines on eligibility for anti-TNF treatment in RA (in press) These current guidelines cover the safety aspects of anti-TNF treatment in RA and apply to the first-generation products but also to the newly licensed second-generation anti-TNF drugs, certolizumab pegol and golimumab. There are relatively little safety data specifically for these second-generation agents but there are no data thus far to suggest that their side-effect profile would differ significantly from the first-generation agents. This is a rapidly changing field with new data emerging each month, so it is vital that clinicians keep up to date with this area of practice. These guidelines have Rheumatology Department, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby, Rheumatology Unit, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, Rheumatology Department, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford, Rheumatology Department, Poole Hospital, Poole, ARC Epidemiology Unit, University of Manchester, Manchester, Rheumatology Department, St George’s Healthcare, London, Rheumatology Department, Royal Lancaster Infirmary, Lancaster, Rheumatology Department, St Helens Hospital, St Helens, National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, Maidenhead, Rheumatology Department, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, Rheumatology Department, Trafford General Hospital, Manchester, Rheumatology Unit, Worthing and Southlands NHS Trust, Worthing and Rheumatology Department, Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital, Oswestry, UK.

BSR and BHPR rheumatoid arthritis guidelines on eligibility criteria for the first biological therapy.

Chris Deighton1, Kimme Hyrich2, Tina Ding1, Jo Ledingham3, Mark Lunt2, Raashid Luqmani4, Patrick Kiely5, Marwan Bukhari6, Rikki Abernethy7, Andrew Ostor8, Ailsa Bosworth9, Kate Gadsby1, Frank McKenna10, Diana Finney11 and Josh Dixey12, on behalf of BSR Clinical Affairs Committee & Standards, Audit and Guidelines Working Group and the BHPR 1Rheumatology Department, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby; 2ARC Epidemiology Unit, University of Manchester, Manchester; 3Rheumatology Unit, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth; 4Rheumatology Department, Nuffi eld Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford; 5Rheumatology Department, St George’s Healthcare, London; 6Rheumatology Department, Royal Lancaster Infi rmary, Lancaster; 7Rheumatology Department, St Helens Hospital, St Helens; 8Rheumatology Department, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge; 9National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, Maidenhead; 10Department of Rheumatology, Trafford General Hospital, Manchester; 11Rheumatology Unit, Worthing and Southlands NHS Trust, Worthing; 12Department of Rheumatology, Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital, Oswestry, UK

BSR and BHPR guidelines on the use of rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis

The Standards, Audit and Guidelines Working Group (SAGWG) of the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) have recently updated the guidelines on eligibility for anti-TNF drugs in RA [1] and have updated the anti-TNF safety and efficacy guidelines [2] for general use of the rheumatology community. The National Institute for Heath and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK, which is the is an independent organization responsible for providing national guidance in the UK on promoting good health and preventing and treating ill health, has published a technology appraisal guidance [3] for use of rituximab in RA in 2007. Furthermore, a consensus statement from EULAR [4] was also published in 2007. Therefore, it was felt appropriate to undertake a review of the currently available data as new evidence was available. The group did not wish to duplicate the guidance in those documents, but wished to review the more recent evidence and supplement what is already known.

Worker Productivity Outcome Measures: OMERACT Filter Evidence and Agenda for Future Research

The objective of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Worker Productivity working group is to identify worker productivity outcome measures that meet the requirements of the OMERACT filter. At the OMERACT 11 Workshop, we focused on the at-work limitations/productivity component of worker productivity (i.e., presenteeism) — an area with diverse conceptualization and instrumentation approaches. Various approaches to quantify at-work limitations/productivity (e.g., single-item global and multi-item measures) were examined, and available evidence pertaining to OMERACT truth, discrimination, and feasibility were presented to conference participants. Four candidate global measures of presenteeism were put forth for a plenary vote to determine whether current evidence meets the OMERACT filter requirements. Presenteeism globals from the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (72% support) and Rheumatoid Arthritis-specific Work Productivity Survey (71% support) were endorsed by conference participants; however, neither the presenteeism global item from the Health and Work Performance Questionnaire nor the Quantity and Quality method achieved the level of support required for endorsement at the present time. The plenary was also asked whether the central item from the Work Ability Index should also be considered as a candidate measure for potential endorsement in the future. Of participants at the plenary, 70% supported this presenteeism global measure. Progress was also made in other areas through discussions at individual breakout sessions. Topics examined include the merits of various multi-item measures of at-work limitations/productivity, methodological issues related to interpretability of outcome scores, and approaches to appraise and classify contextual factors of worker productivity. Feedback gathered from conference participants will inform the future research agenda of the working group.

Extended report: Development of patient-centred standards of care for osteoarthritis in Europe: the eumusc.net-project

Objective The eumusc.net project is an initiative founded by the European Community and the European League Against Rheumatism. One aim of the project was to facilitate equal standards for musculoskeletal health across Europe. The aim of this work-package was to develop patient-centred and consensus based standards of care (SOC) for osteoarthritis (OA), which should be available in a professional and a patient version. Methods A systematic review concerning guidelines dealing with OA was conducted. Furthermore, experts in musculoskeletal diseases were contacted to ensure that ‘grey’ literature was not excluded. Documents that fulfilled predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria were included and all interventions for OA were extracted and categorised. Based on this list of interventions, a three round Delphi exercise with an international and multidisciplinary expert panel, including patient research partners, was performed to achieve expert consensus. Results Six documents were included and used for further analysis. Out of them, 46 interventions have been extracted and 10 consensus based SOC were formulated. In addition, a patient version, written in a lay-understandable wording and in the format of checklist questions was developed. An example is SOC 5: “People with OA should achieve optimal pain control using pharmacological and non-pharmacological means.” The matching patient-centred checklist question reads: “Do I know how to control pain associated with OA?” Conclusions The SOC for OA will be available in the 23 languages of the European Union to enhance unified information to patients and professionals and to further harmonise the treatment/care of OA within Europe.

OMERACT Filter Evidence Supporting the Measurement of At-work Productivity Loss as an Outcome Measure in Rheumatology Research.

Objective. Indicators of work role functioning (being at work, and being productive while at work) are important outcomes for persons with arthritis. As the worker productivity working group at OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology), we sought to provide an evidence base for consensus on standardized instruments to measure worker productivity [both absenteeism and at-work productivity (presenteeism) as well as critical contextual factors]. Methods. Literature reviews and primary studies were done and reported to the OMERACT 12 (2014) meeting to build the OMERACT Filter 2.0 evidence for worker productivity outcome measurement instruments. Contextual factor domains that could have an effect on scores on worker productivity instruments were identified by nominal group techniques, and strength of influence was further assessed by literature review. Results. At OMERACT 9 (2008), we identified 6 candidate measures of absenteeism, which received 94% endorsement at the plenary vote. At OMERACT 11 (2012) we received over the required minimum vote of 70% for endorsement of 2 at-work productivity loss measures. During OMERACT 12 (2014), out of 4 measures of at-work productivity loss, 3 (1 global; 2 multiitem) received support as having passed the OMERACT Filter with over 70% of the plenary vote. In addition, 3 contextual factor domains received a 95% vote to explore their validity as core contextual factors: nature of work, work accommodation, and workplace support. Conclusion. Our current recommendations for at-work productivity loss measures are: WALS (Workplace Activity Limitations Scale), WLQ PDmod (Work Limitations Questionnaire with modified physical demands scale), WAI (Work Ability Index), WPS (Arthritis-specific Work Productivity Survey), and WPAI (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire). Our future research focus will shift to confirming core contextual factors to consider in the measurement of worker productivity.

Content validity of global measures for at-work productivity in patients with rheumatic diseases: an international qualitative study

OBJECTIVES To identify from a patients perspective, difficulties and differences in the comprehension of five global presenteeism measures in patients with inflammatory arthritis and OA across seven countries. METHODS Seventy patients with a diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis or OA in paid employment were recruited from seven countries across Europe and Canada. Patients were randomly allocated to be cognitively debriefed on 3/5 global measures [Work Productivity Scale - Rheumatoid Arthritis, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI), Work Ability Index, Quality and Quantity questionnaire, and WHO Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ)], with the WPAI debriefed in all patients as a standard measure of comparison between countries and patients. NVivo was used to code the data into four themes: construct and anchor, time recall, reference frame, and attribution. RESULTS Discrepancies were found in the interpretation of the word performance (HPQ) between countries, with Romania and Sweden relating performance to sports rather than work. Seventy percent of patients considered that a 7-day recall (WPAI) can accurately represent how their disease affects work productivity. The compared to normal reference (Quality and Quantity questionnaire) was reportedly too ambiguous, and the comparison with colleagues (HPQ), made many feel uncomfortable. Overall, 29% of patients said the WPAI was the most relevant to them, making it the most favoured measure. CONCLUSION Overall, patients across countries agree that the construct of work productivity in the last 7 days can accurately reflect the impact of disease while at work. Some current constructs to assess at-work productivity are not interchangeable between languages.

Patient involvement in the development of a handbook for moderate rheumatoid arthritis.

Self‐management is a key recommendation for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Educational materials may support self‐management, and increasingly patients are becoming involved with the development of these materials. The TITRATE trial compares the effectiveness of intensive management to standard care in patients with moderate RA across England. As part of the intensive management intervention, participants are given a handbook.

Test-retest Reliability and Correlations of 5 Global Measures Addressing At-work Productivity Loss in Patients with Rheumatic Diseases

Objective. Several global measures to assess at-work productivity loss or presenteeism in patients with rheumatic diseases have been proposed, but the comparative validity is hampered by the lack of data on test-retest reliability and comparative concurrent and construct validity. Our objective was to test-retest 5 global measures of presenteeism and to compare the association between these scales and health-related well-being. Methods. Sixty-five participants with inflammatory arthritis or osteoarthritis in paid employment were recruited from 7 countries (UK, Canada, Netherlands, France, Sweden, Romania, and Italy). At baseline and 2 weeks later, 5 global measures of presenteeism were evaluated: the Work Productivity Scale–Rheumatoid Arthritis (WPS-RA), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI), Work Ability Index (WAI), Quality and Quantity questionnaire (QQ), and the WHO Health and Performance Questionnaire (HPQ). Agreement between the 2 timepoints was assessed using single-measure intraclass correlations (ICC) and correlated between each other and with visual analog scale general well-being scores at followup by Spearman correlation. Results. ICC between measures ranged from fair (HPQ 0.59) to excellent (WPS-RA 0.78). Spearman correlations between measures were moderate (Qquality vs WAI, r = 0.51) to strong (WPS-RA vs WPAI, r = 0.88). Correlations between measures and general well-being were low to moderate, ranging from −0.44 ≤ r ≤ 0.66. Conclusion. Test-retest results of 4 out of 5 global measures were good, and the correlations between these were moderate. The latter probably reflect differences in the concepts, recall periods, and references used in the measures, which implies that some measures are probably not interchangeable.

Optimizing treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis-a proof of principle and exploratory trial: is dose tapering practical in good responders?

Abstract Objectives RA patients receiving TNF inhibitors (TNFi) usually maintain their initial doses. The aim of the Optimizing Treatment with Tumour Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Rheumatoid Arthritis trial was to evaluate whether tapering TNFi doses causes loss of clinical response. Methods We enrolled RA patients receiving etanercept or adalimumab and a DMARD with DAS28 under 3.2 for over 3 months. Initially (months 0–6) patients were randomized to control (constant TNFi) or two experimental groups (tapering TNFi by 33 or 66%). Subsequently (months 6–12) control subjects were randomized to taper TNFi by 33 or 66%. Disease flares (DAS28 increasing ⩾0.6 with at least one additional swollen joint) were the primary outcome. Results Two hundred and forty-four patients were screened, 103 randomized and 97 treated. In months 0–6 there were 8/50 (16%) flares in controls, 3/26 (12%) with 33% tapering and 6/21 (29%) with 66% tapering. Multivariate Cox analysis showed time to flare was unchanged with 33% tapering but was reduced with 66% tapering compared with controls (adjusted hazard ratio 2.81, 95% CI: 0.99, 7.94; P = 0.051). Analysing all tapered patients after controls were re-randomized (months 6–12) showed differences between groups: there were 6/48 (13%) flares with 33% tapering and 14/39 (36%) with 66% tapering. Multivariate Cox analysis showed 66% tapering reduced time to flare (adjusted hazard ratio 3.47, 95% CI: 1.26, 9.58; P = 0.016). Conclusion Tapering TNFi by 33% has no impact on disease flares and appears practical in patients in sustained remission and low disease activity states. Trail registration EudraCT, https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu, 2010-020738-24; ISRCTN registry, https://www.isrctn.com, 28955701