Patients and clinicians define symptom levels and meaningful change for PROMIS pain interference and fatigue in RA using bookmarking.

OBJECTIVES: Using patient-reported outcomes to inform clinical decision-making depends on knowing how to interpret scores. Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) instruments are increasingly used in rheumatology research and care, but there is little information available to guide interpretation of scores. We sought to identify thresholds and meaningful change for PROMIS Pain Interference and Fatigue scores from the perspective of RA patients and clinicians. METHODS: We developed patient vignettes using the PROMIS item banks representing a continuum of Pain Interference and Fatigue levels. During a series of face-to-face 'bookmarking' sessions, patients and clinicians identified thresholds for mild, moderate and severe levels of symptoms and identified change deemed meaningful for making treatment decisions. RESULTS: In general, patients selected higher cut points to demarcate thresholds than clinicians. Patients and clinicians generally identified changes of 5-10 points as representing meaningful change. The thresholds and meaningful change scores of patients were grounded in their lived experiences having RA, approach to self-management, and the impacts on function, roles and social participation. CONCLUSION: Results offer new information about how both patients and clinicians view RA symptoms and functional impacts. Results suggest that patients and providers may use different strategies to define and interpret RA symptoms, and select different thresholds when describing symptoms as mild, moderate or severe. The magnitude of symptom change selected by patients and clinicians as being clinically meaningful in interpreting treatment efficacy and loss of response may be greater than levels determined by external anchor and statistical methods.

Patient-reported outcomes in RA care improve patient communication, decision-making, satisfaction and confidence: qualitative results.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into routine clinics, from the perspective of patients with RA, clinicians and other staff. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study using a mixed methods sequential explanatory design at an academic arthritis clinic. RA patients completed selected Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System measures on tablets in the waiting room. Results were immediately available to discuss during the visit. Post-visit surveys with patients and physicians evaluated topics discussed and their impact on decision making; patients rated confidence in treatment. Focus groups or interviews with patients, treating rheumatologists and clinic staff were conducted to understand perspectives and experiences. RESULTS: Some 196 patients and 20 rheumatologists completed post-visit surveys at 816 and 806 visits, respectively. Focus groups were conducted with 24 patients, 10 rheumatologists and 4 research/clinic staff. PROs influenced medical decision-making and RA treatment changes (38 and 18% of visits, respectively). Patients reported very high satisfaction and treatment confidence. Impact on clinical workflow was minimal after a period of initial adjustment. PROs were valued by patients and physicians, and provided new insight into how patients felt and functioned over time. Reviewing results together improved communication, and facilitated patient-centred care, shared decision making, and the identification of new symptoms and contributing psychosocial/behavioural factors. CONCLUSION: PRO use at RA visits was feasible, increased understanding of how disease affects how patients feel and function, facilitated shared decision-making, and was associated with high patient satisfaction and treatment confidence.

Barriers to Immunizations and Strategies to Enhance Immunization Rates in Adults with Autoimmune Inflammatory Diseases.

For as long as there have been immunizations, there have been barriers to them. Immunization rates in the United States are below target. Rheumatologists and rheumatology practitioners need to understand the issues of immunizations in patients with autoimmune inflammatory disease to identify and overcome barriers to immunization. Several strategies for overcoming these barriers are discussed.

Reliability and Validity of Selected PROMIS Measures in People with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the reliability and validity of 11 PROMIS measures to assess symptoms and impacts identified as important by people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Consecutive patients (N = 177) in an observational study completed PROMIS computer adapted tests (CATs) and a short form (SF) assessing pain, fatigue, physical function, mood, sleep, and participation. We assessed test-test reliability and internal consistency using correlation and Cronbach's alpha. We assessed convergent validity by examining Pearson correlations between PROMIS measures and existing measures of similar domains and known groups validity by comparing scores across disease activity levels using ANOVA. RESULTS: Participants were mostly female (82%) and white (83%) with mean (SD) age of 56 (13) years; 24% had ≤ high school, 29% had RA ≤ 5 years with 13% ≤ 2 years, and 22% were disabled. PROMIS Physical Function, Pain Interference and Fatigue instruments correlated moderately to strongly (rho's ≥ 0.68) with corresponding PROs. Test-retest reliability ranged from .725-.883, and Cronbach's alpha from .906-.991. A dose-response relationship with disease activity was evident in Physical Function with similar trends in other scales except Anger. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide preliminary evidence of reliability and construct validity of PROMIS CATs to assess RA symptoms and impacts, and feasibility of use in clinical care. PROMIS instruments captured the experiences of RA patients across the broad continuum of RA symptoms and function, especially at low disease activity levels. Future research is needed to evaluate performance in relevant subgroups, assess responsiveness and identify clinically meaningful changes.

National Institutes of Health Pathways to Prevention Workshop: the role of opioids in the treatment of chronic pain.

This National Institutes of Health (NIH) Pathways to Prevention Workshop was cosponsored by the NIH Office of Disease Prevention (ODP), the NIH Pain Consortium, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. A multidisciplinary working group developed the workshop agenda, and an evidence-based practice center prepared an evidence report through a contract with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to facilitate the workshop discussion. During the 1.5-day workshop, invited experts discussed the body of evidence, and attendees had opportunities to provide comments during open discussion periods. After weighing evidence from the evidence report, expert presentations, and public comments, an unbiased, independent panel prepared a draft report that identified research gaps and future research priorities. The report was posted on the ODP Web site for 2 weeks for public comment. This article is an abridged version of the panel's full report, which is available at https://prevention.nih.gov/programs-events/pathways-to-prevention/workshops/opioids-chronic-pain/workshop-resources#final report.