Christoph Pohl

Identifying core domains to assess flare in rheumatoid arthritis: an OMERACT international patient and provider combined Delphi consensus

Objective For rheumatoid arthritis (RA), there is no consensus on how to define and assess flare. Variability in flare definitions impairs understanding of findings across studies and limits ability to pool results. The OMERACT RA Flare Group sought to identify domains to define RA flares from patient and healthcare professional (HCP) perspectives. Methods Flare was described as a worsening of disease activity of sufficient intensity and duration to consider a change in therapy. International patients and HCPs participated in separate and combined rounds of Delphi exercises to rate candidate flare domains previously generated in patient focus groups. Core domains were defined as those with ≥70% ratings of being ‘essential’ according to the third/final Delphi exercise. Results The final Delphi included 125 RA patients from 10 countries and 108 HCPs from 23 countries who rated 14 domains. Patients had a mean (±SD) age of 56±12 years and disease duration of 18±12 years. HCPs included physicians from clinical practice/research and industry, allied health providers and researchers with 17±11 years experience. Core domains comprised: pain (93%), function (89%), swollen joints (84%), tender joints (81%), participation (81%), stiffness (79%), patient global assessment (76%) and self-management (75%). Fatigue (68%), which did not reach group consensus, will receive additional consideration. Conclusions As part of the process to develop a measure for RA flare, patients and HCPs agreed on eight core domains. Next steps include identifying items to assess domains and conducting studies to validate and refine a new measure.

Developing a Standardized Definition for Disease “Flare” in Rheumatoid Arthritis (OMERACT 9 Special Interest Group)

Objective. Traditional outcome measures in randomized controlled trials (RCT) include well-established response criteria as well as ACR EULAR responses using Disease Activity Score 44 (DAS44)/DAS28 to assess improvement; however, a measure to assess worsening of disease has yet to be developed. This special interest group (SIG) was established to develop an evidence-based, consensus-driven standard definition of “flare” in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods. At OMERACT 8, the need for a standardized definition of RA flare was recognized; interested individuals developed a proposal to form a SIG. A literature review was performed to identify publications and abstracts with flare definitions applied in RA, JIA, and lupus RCT as well as concerning patient perspectives on disease worsening. A SIG was held at OMERACT 9 with breakout sessions for patients and investigators. Results. The RA flare SIG was attended by about 120 participants, including 11 patients. Patients and investigators held separate breakout sessions to discuss various aspects of disease worsening. The following consensus was obtained at OMERACT 9: a working definition of flare should indicate worsening of disease activity (88%), persistence, and duration as critical elements (77%), and consideration of change or increase in therapy (74%). Conclusion. A working definition of RA flare was developed based on these votes: flare is any worsening of disease activity that would, if persistent, in most cases lead to initiation or change of therapy; and a flare represents a cluster of symptoms of sufficient duration and intensity to require initiation, change, or increase in therapy. Using this working definition, evaluation of candidate domains will be conducted via Delphi exercise and further informed by patient focus groups. Validation of candidate definitions in appropriate RCT will be required.

Establishing a Core Domain Set to Measure Rheumatoid Arthritis Flares: Report of the OMERACT 11 RA Flare Workshop

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.

Feasibility and Domain Validation of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) Flare Core Domain Set: Report of the OMERACT 2014 RA Flare Group Plenary

Objective. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) Flare Group was established to develop an approach to identify and measure RA flares. An overview of our OMERACT 2014 plenary is provided. Methods. Feasibility and validity of flare domains endorsed at OMERACT 11 (2012) were described based on initial data from 3 international studies collected using a common set of questions specific to RA flare. Mean flare frequency, severity, and duration data were presented, and domain scores were compared by flare status to examine known-groups validity. Breakout groups provided input for stiffness, self-management, contextual factors, and measurement considerations. Results. Flare data from 501 patients in an observational study indicated 39% were in flare, with mean (SD) severity of 6.0 (2.6) and 55% lasting > 14 days. Pain, physical function, fatigue, participation, and stiffness scores averaged ≥ 2 times higher (2 of 11 points) in flaring individuals. Correlations between flare domains and corresponding legacy instruments were obtained: r = 0.46 to 0.93. A combined definition (patient report of flare and 28-joint Disease Activity Score increase) was evaluated in 2 other trials, with similar results. Breakout groups debated specific measurement issues. Conclusion. These data contribute initial evidence of feasibility and content validation of the OMERACT RA Flare Core Domain Set. Our research agenda for OMERACT 2016 includes establishing duration/intensity criteria and developing criteria to identify RA flares using existing disease activity measures. Ongoing work will also address discordance between patient and physician ratings, facilitate application of flare criteria to clinical care, elucidate the role of self-management, and finalize recommendations for RA flare measurement.

Development of a Draft Core Set of Domains for Measuring Shared Decision Making in Osteoarthritis: An OMERACT Working Group on Shared Decision Making

Objective. Despite the importance of shared decision making for delivering patient-centered care in rheumatology, there is no consensus on how to measure its process and outcomes. The aim of this Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) working group is to determine the core set of domains for measuring shared decision making in intervention studies in adults with osteoarthritis (OA), from the perspectives of patients, health professionals, and researchers. Methods. We followed the OMERACT Filter 2.0 method to develop a draft core domain set by (1) forming an OMERACT working group; (2) conducting a review of domains of shared decision making; and (3) obtaining opinions of all those involved using a modified nominal group process held at a session activity at the OMERACT 12 meeting. Results. In all, 26 people from Europe, North America, and Australia, including 5 patient research partners, participated in the session activity. Participants identified the following domains for measuring shared decision making to be included as part of the draft core set: (1) identifying the decision, (2) exchanging information, (3) clarifying views, (4) deliberating, (5) making the decision, (6) putting the decision into practice, and (7) assessing the effect of the decision. Contextual factors were also suggested. Conclusion. We proposed a draft core set of shared decision-making domains for OA intervention research studies. Next steps include a workshop at OMERACT 13 to reach consensus on these proposed domains in the wider OMERACT group, as well as to detail subdomains and assess instruments to develop a core outcome measurement set.

Validation of Standardized Questionnaires Evaluating Symptoms of Depression in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients: Approaches to Screening for a Frequent Yet Underrated Challenge

To validate standard self‐report questionnaires for depression screening in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and compare these measures to one another and to the Montgomery‐Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), a standardized structured interview.

Toward Ensuring Health Equity: Readability and Cultural Equivalence of OMERACT Patient-reported Outcome Measures

Objective. The goal of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 12 (2014) equity working group was to determine whether and how comprehensibility of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) should be assessed, to ensure suitability for people with low literacy and differing cultures. Methods. The English, Dutch, French, and Turkish Health Assessment Questionnaires and English and French Osteoarthritis Knee and Hip Quality of Life questionnaires were evaluated by applying 3 readability formulas: Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid grade level, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook; and a new tool, the Evaluative Linguistic Framework for Questionnaires, developed to assess text quality of questionnaires. We also considered a study assessing cross-cultural adaptation with/without back-translation and/or expert committee. The results of this preconference work were presented to the equity working group participants to gain their perspectives on the importance of comprehensibility and cross-cultural adaptation for PROM. Results. Thirty-one OMERACT delegates attended the equity session. Twenty-six participants agreed that PROM should be assessed for comprehensibility and for use of suitable methods (4 abstained, 1 no). Twenty-two participants agreed that cultural equivalency of PROM should be assessed and suitable methods used (7 abstained, 2 no). Special interest group participants identified challenges with cross-cultural adaptation including resources required, and suggested patient involvement for improving translation and adaptation. Conclusion. Future work will include consensus exercises on what methods are required to ensure PROM are appropriate for people with low literacy and different cultures.

Toward the development of a core set of outcome domains to assess shared decision-making interventions in rheumatology : results from an OMERACT Delphi survey and consensus meeting

Objective. The aim of this Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Working Group was to determine the core set of outcome domains and subdomains for measuring the effectiveness of shared decision-making (SDM) interventions in rheumatology clinical trials. Methods. Following the OMERACT Filter 2.0, and based on a previous literature review of SDM outcome domains and a nominal group process at OMERACT 2014, (1) an online Delphi survey was conducted to gather feedback on the draft core set and refine its domains and subdomains, and (2) a workshop was held at the OMERACT 2016 meeting to gain consensus on the draft core set. Results. A total of 170 participants completed Round 1 of the Delphi survey, and 116 completed Round 2. Respondents came from 29 countries, with 49% being patients/caregivers. Results showed that 14 out of the 17 subdomains within the 7 domains exceeded the 70% criterion (endorsement ranged from 83% to 100% of respondents). At OMERACT 2016, only 8% of the 96 attendees were patients/caregivers. Despite initial votes of support in breakout groups, there was insufficient comfort about the conceptualization of these 7 domains and 17 subdomains for these to be endorsed at OMERACT 2016 (endorsement ranged from 17% to 68% of participants). Conclusion. Differences between the Delphi survey and consensus meeting may be explained by the manner in which the outcomes were presented, variations in participant characteristics, and the context of voting. Further efforts are needed to address the limited understanding of SDM and its outcomes among OMERACT participants.

The OMERACT First-time Participant Program: Fresh Eye from the New Guys

Objective. To describe the experience of the first-time participant (newbie) training program at the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 2016 meeting. Methods. We conducted new participant sessions at OMERACT 2016, including a 2-h introductory session on Day 1 followed by 1-h evening followup sessions on days 1–4. Pre- and post-meeting surveys assessed participants’ levels of comfort with the principles of the OMERACT Filter 2.0 (the essential tools for OMERACT methodology) and the different types of OMERACT sessions, and whether participants felt welcome. In addition, on the final day, a nominal group technique was used to elicit problematic components of the meeting and to develop solutions to those problems. Results. Of the 43 new attendees, 38 participated in the introductory session and 14–18 attended the followup sessions. Comparing Day 1 (preintroductory session) to days 1–3 (post), a similar proportion understood different types of sessions extremely well [45% (pre) versus 47%, 44%, and 36% (post), respectively], and a higher proportion understood principles of the OMERACT filter extremely well [22% (pre) versus 55%, 44%, and 40% (post), respectively]. Most reported feeling welcome (86.7%) and felt they contributed to breakout sessions (93.3%) on the evening of Day 1; results were sustained on days 2–3. The most commonly reported “best” experience included the OMERACT culture and the most common reported experience needing improvement included facilitation issues during breakouts. Conclusion. The first-time participants came to OMERACT 2016 with a high baseline level of understanding. They rapidly attained a high comfort level with participation and provided concrete and innovative solutions to the most commonly reported experiences needing improvement.

An OMERACT Initiative Toward Consensus to Identify and Characterize Candidate Contextual Factors: Report from the Contextual Factors Working Group

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.