Vivian P Bykerk1, Elisabeth Lie, Susan J Bartlett, Rieke Alten, Annelies Boonen, Robin Christensen, Daniel E Furst, Sarah Hewlett, Amye L Leong, Anne Lyddiatt, Lyn March, James E May, Pam Montie, Ana-Maria Orbai, Christoph Pohl, Marieke Scholte Voshaar, Thasia Woodworth, Clifton O Bingham, Ernest H Choy. 1. From the Department of Rheumatology, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA; Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Schlosspark Klinik, Charité University Medicine, Berlin, Germany; Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Center and Caphri Research Institute, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Musculoskeletal Statistics Unit, The Parker Institute, Department of Rheumatology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Denmark; David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA; University of the West of England, Bristol, UK; Healthy Motivation, Bone and Joint Decade, Santa Barbara, California, USA; Musculoskeletal Group, Cochrane Collaboration; University of Sydney Department of Rheumatology, Royal North Shore Hospital, St. Leonards, Australia; National Fathers' Network, Seattle, Washington, USA; Arthritis Research Center, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Tools2use.eu, Bussum, The Netherlands; and the Department of Rheumatology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Abstract
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: 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.
Entities:
Keywords:
CLINICAL TRIALS; DISEASE ACTIVITY; FLARE; OMERACT FILTER; OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT; RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS
Authors: Elisabeth Lie; Thasia G Woodworth; Robin Christensen; Tore K Kvien; Vivien Bykerk; Daniel E Furst; Clifton O Bingham; Ernest H Choy Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2013-07-12 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: John R Kirwan; Patricia Minnock; Ade Adebajo; Barry Bresnihan; Ernest Choy; Maarten de Wit; Mieke Hazes; Pam Richards; Kenneth Saag; Maria Suarez-Almazor; George Wells; Sarah Hewlett Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Frank Buttgereit; Gisela Doering; Achim Schaeffler; Stephan Witte; Stanislaw Sierakowski; Erika Gromnica-Ihle; Slawomir Jeka; Klaus Krueger; Jacek Szechinski; Rieke Alten Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-01-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Paco M J Welsing; Robert B M Landewé; Piet L C M van Riel; Maarten Boers; Anke M van Gestel; Sjef van der Linden; Hilde L Swinkels; Désirée M F M van der Heijde Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2004-07
Authors: D Aletaha; R Landewe; T Karonitsch; J Bathon; M Boers; C Bombardier; S Bombardieri; H Choi; B Combe; M Dougados; P Emery; J Gomez-Reino; E Keystone; G Koch; T K Kvien; E Martin-Mola; M Matucci-Cerinic; K Michaud; J O'Dell; H Paulus; T Pincus; P Richards; L Simon; J Siegel; J S Smolen; T Sokka; V Strand; P Tugwell; D van der Heijde; P van Riel; S Vlad; R van Vollenhoven; M Ward; M Weinblatt; G Wells; B White; F Wolfe; B Zhang; A Zink; D Felson Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: D T Felson; J J Anderson; M Boers; C Bombardier; M Chernoff; B Fried; D Furst; C Goldsmith; S Kieszak; R Lightfoot Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 1993-06
Authors: Echoe M Bouta; Richard D Bell; Homaira Rahimi; Lianping Xing; Ronald W Wood; Clifton O Bingham; Christopher T Ritchlin; Edward M Schwarz Journal: Nat Rev Rheumatol Date: 2018-01-11 Impact factor: 20.543
Authors: Susan J Bartlett; Skye P Barbic; Vivian P Bykerk; Ernest H Choy; Rieke Alten; Robin Christensen; Alfons den Broeder; Bruno Fautrel; Daniel E Furst; Francis Guillemin; Sarah Hewlett; Amye L Leong; Anne Lyddiatt; Lyn March; Pamela Montie; Christoph Pohl; Marieke Scholte Voshaar; Thasia G Woodworth; Clifton O Bingham Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2017-08-15 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Katie Bechman; Lieke Tweehuysen; Toby Garrood; David L Scott; Andrew P Cope; James B Galloway; Margaret H Y Ma Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: C Fiehn; J Holle; C Iking-Konert; J Leipe; C Weseloh; M Frerix; R Alten; F Behrens; C Baerwald; J Braun; H Burkhardt; G Burmester; J Detert; M Gaubitz; A Gause; E Gromnica-Ihle; H Kellner; A Krause; J Kuipers; H-M Lorenz; U Müller-Ladner; M Nothacker; H Nüsslein; A Rubbert-Roth; M Schneider; H Schulze-Koops; S Seitz; H Sitter; C Specker; H-P Tony; S Wassenberg; J Wollenhaupt; K Krüger Journal: Z Rheumatol Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 1.372