Rachelle Buchbinder

Effect of treatment with biological agents for arthritis in Australia: the Australian Rheumatology Association Database

Background: The Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD), a voluntary national registry, has been established to collect health information from Australian patients with inflammatory arthritis for the purpose of monitoring the benefits and safety of new treatments, in particular the biological disease‐modifying anti‐rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). These drugs are proving to be very effective, yet little is known of their long‐term effectiveness or safety. Patient registries that systematically gather data on large cohorts of unselected patients are increasingly believed to be an essential means of answering questions of the long‐term effectiveness and safety of new drugs. The aim of this report is to describe the role, development and structure of ARAD and provide some preliminary data.

Health-related quality of life and continuation rate on first-line anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy among rheumatoid arthritis patients from the Australian Rheumatology Association Database

OBJECTIVESnTo describe changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) up to 60 months after commencing anti-TNF therapy for RA patients enrolled in the Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD), and to determine the continuation rate and predictors of discontinuation of first-line anti-TNF therapy.nnnMETHODSnResponses to the HAQ, Assessment of Quality of Life, Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36) and European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) were extracted from ARAD for patients commencing anti-TNF therapy and analysed in 6-monthly intervals from the start date. Predictors of discontinuation of therapy were assessed using Cox regression.nnnRESULTSnSince September 2001, 2601 RA patients have enrolled in ARAD; 1801 have used anti-TNF therapy. Before starting the therapy, all HRQoL scores were below the population norms, but showed improvements in the first 6 months. From 12 to 60 months, HRQoL remained stable but below population means. Data to 60 months were available for 106 patients; 47% were still on first-line therapy at 5 years, all were using concurrent DMARDs and 55% were using concurrent prednisolone. Predictors of discontinuation of therapy were poorer HRQoL scores, a more recent therapy start date, concurrent prednisolone use and self-reported severe infection. Older patients and those with longer symptom duration were more likely to remain on therapy.nnnCONCLUSIONSnIn routine practice, HRQoL scores improve rapidly within 6 months of starting anti-TNFs and then remain stable for up to 60 months. Almost half remain on first-line therapy.

The Efficacy and Safety of Treatments for Acute Gout: Results from a Series of Systematic Literature Reviews Including Cochrane Reviews on Intraarticular Glucocorticoids, Colchicine, Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs, and Interleukin-1 Inhibitors

OBJECTIVEnTo determine the efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids (GC), colchicine, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID), interleukin-1 (IL-1) inhibitors, and paracetamol to treat acute gout.nnnMETHODSnWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to September 2011. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) or quasi-RCT in adults with acute gout that compared GC, colchicine, NSAID, IL-1 inhibitors, and paracetamol to no treatment, placebo, another intervention, or combination therapy were included. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary endpoints were pain and adverse events. Data were pooled where appropriate.nnnRESULTSnTwenty-six trials evaluating GC (N = 5), NSAID (N = 21), colchicine (N = 2), and canakinumab (N = 1) were included. No RCT assessed paracetamol or intraarticular (IA) GC. No RCT compared systemic GC with placebo. Moderate quality evidence (3 trials) concluded that systemic GC were as effective as NSAID but safer. Low quality evidence (1 trial) showed that both high- and low-dose colchicine were more effective than placebo, and low-dose colchicine was no different to placebo with respect to safety but safer than high-dose colchicine. Low quality evidence (1 trial) showed no difference between NSAID and placebo with regard to pain or inflammation. No NSAID was superior to another. Moderate quality evidence (1 trial) found that 150 mg canakinumab was more effective than a single dose of intramuscular GC (40 mg triamcinolone) and equally safe.nnnCONCLUSIONnGC, NSAID, low-dose colchicine, and canakinumab all effectively treat acute gout. There was insufficient evidence to rank them. Systemic GC appeared safer than NSAID and lower-dose colchicine was safer than higher-dose colchicine.

Outcome Domains and Measures in Total Joint Replacement Clinical Trials: Can We Harmonize Them? An OMERACT Collaborative Initiative

Objective. To develop a plan for harmonizing outcomes for people undergoing total joint replacement (TJR), to achieve consensus regarding TJR outcome research. Methods. The TJR working group met during the 2014 Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 12 meeting in Budapest, Hungary. Multiple conference calls preceded the face-to-face meeting. Brief presentations were made during a 1.5-h meeting, which included an overview of published systematic reviews of TJR trials and the results of a recent systematic review of TJR clinical trial outcome domains and measures. This was followed by discussion of potential core set areas/domains for TJR clinical trials (as per OMERACT Filter 2.0) as well as the challenges associated with the measurement of these domains. Results. Working group participants discussed which TJR clinical trial outcome domains/areas map to the inner versus outer core for core domain set. Several challenges were identified with TJR outcomes including how to best measure function after TJR, elucidating the source of the pre- and post-TJR joint pain being measured, joint-specific versus generic quality of life instruments and the importance of patient satisfaction and revision surgery as outcomes. A preliminary core domain set for TJR clinical trials was proposed and included pain, function, patient satisfaction, revision, adverse events, and death. This core domain set will be further vetted with a broader audience. Conclusion. An international effort with active collaboration with the orthopedic community to standardize key outcome domains and measures is under way with the TJR working group. This effort will be further developed with new collaborations.

Consensus on the Need for a Hierarchical List of Patient-reported Pain Outcomes for Metaanalyses of Knee Osteoarthritis Trials: An OMERACT Objective

Objective. Although protocol registration for systematic reviews is still not mandatory, reviewers should be strongly encouraged to register the protocol to identify the methodological approach, including all outcomes of interest. This will minimize the likelihood of biased decisions in reviews, such as selective outcome reporting. A group of international experts convened to address issues regarding the need to develop hierarchical lists of outcome measurement instruments for a particular outcome for metaanalyses. Methods. Multiple outcome measurement instruments exist to measure the same outcome. Metaanalysis of knee osteoarthritis (OA) trials, and the assessment of pain as an outcome, was used as an exemplar to assess how Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT), the Cochrane Collaboration, and other international initiatives might contribute in this area. The meeting began with formal presentations of background topics, empirical evidence from the literature, and a brief introduction to 2 existing hierarchical lists of pain outcome measurement instruments recommended for metaanalyses of knee OA trials. Results. After discussions, most participants agreed that there is a need to develop a methodology for generation of hierarchical lists of outcome measurement instruments to guide metaanalyses. Tools that could be used to steer development of such a prioritized list are the COSMIN checklist (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments) and the OMERACT Filter 2.0. Conclusion. We list meta-epidemiological research agenda items that address the frequency of reported outcomes in trials, as well as methodologies to assess the best measurement properties (i.e., truth, discrimination, and feasibility).