Composite Measures in Psoriatic Arthritis: a report from the GRAPPA 2009 annual meeting.

A composite measure is one way of incorporating an assessment of all relevant clinical outcomes into one single measure. By definition it incorporates several dimensions of disease status often by combining these different domains into a single score. Such instruments are well established in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and these RA-specific measures have successfully been adopted for use in clinical trials involving patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). However, the need for a more PsA-specific composite measure has led to a number of proposals, which, for the large part, incorporate only peripheral articular disease activity. New indices that combine the diverse clinical manifestations of PsA are now under development. These issues were discussed at the 2009 annual meeting of GRAPPA (Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis) in Stockholm, Sweden, and are summarized here.

Content and criterion validity of the preliminary core dataset for clinical trials in fibromyalgia syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: Increasing research interest and emerging new therapies for treatment of fibromyalgia (FM) have led to a need to develop a consensus on a core set of outcome measures that should be assessed and reported in all clinical trials, to facilitate interpretation of the data and understanding of the disease. This aligns with the key objective of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) initiative to improve outcome measurement through a data driven, interactive consensus process. METHODS: Through patient focus groups and Delphi processes, working groups at previous OMERACT meetings identified potential domains to be included in the core data set. A systematic review has shown that instruments measuring these domains are available and are at least moderately sensitive to change. Most instruments have been validated in multiple languages. This pooled analysis study aims to develop the core data set by analyzing data from 10 randomized controlled trials (RCT) in FM. RESULTS: Results from this study provide support for the inclusion of the following in the core data set: pain, tenderness, fatigue, sleep, patient global assessment, and multidimensional function/health related quality of life. Construct validity was demonstrated with outcome instruments showing convergent and divergent validity. Content and criterion validity were confirmed by multivariate analysis showing R square values between 0.4 and 0.6. Low R square value is associated with studies in which one or more domains were not assessed. CONCLUSION: The core data set was supported by high consensus among attendees at OMERACT 9. Establishing an international standard for RCT in FM should facilitate future metaanalyses and indirect comparisons.

Measures of response in clinical trials of systemic sclerosis: the Combined Response Index for Systemic Sclerosis (CRISS) and Outcome Measures in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension related to Systemic Sclerosis (EPOSS).

There have been steady efforts to develop a combined response index for systemic sclerosis (CRISS). A parallel and equally successful effort has been made by an Expert Panel on Outcome Measures in PAH related to Systemic Sclerosis (EPOSS) to measure effect in treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension of systemic sclerosis (PAH-SSc). CRISS conducted a Delphi process combined with expert review to identify 11 candidate domains for inclusion in a core set of outcomes for SSc clinical trials: soluble biomarkers, cardiac, digital ulcers, gastrointestinal, global health, health related quality of life (HRQOL) and function, musculoskeletal, pulmonary, Raynaud's, renal, and skin. Tools within domains were also agreed upon. Concentrating on one aspect of disease, PAH, EPOSS also conducted a Delphi process and judged the following domains as the most appropriate for randomized controlled trials in PAH-SSc: lung vascular/pulmonary arterial pressure, cardiac function, exercise testing; severity of dyspnea, discontinuation of treatment; quality of life/activities of daily living; global state; and survival. Possible useful tools within each domain were also agreed on. Patient derived, physician derived, and objective measures of response will be included and combined with the idea that each reflects different aspects of PAH (EPOSS) and overall disease (CRISS) although this assumption may not prove true and can be separated if statistically and clinically valid to do so. In either case, prospective studies will require measurement of all domains, and tools are required and will be developed to define appropriate combined measures of response. CRISS and EPOSS are being developed through the OMERACT process. Through Delphi process and literature review significant progress has been made for both indices, and prospective data are being collected.

Fibromyalgia syndrome module at OMERACT 9: domain construct.

The objective of the module was to (1) establish a core domain set for fibromyalgia (FM) assessment in clinical trials and practice, (2) review outcome measure performance characteristics, (3) discuss development of a responder index for assessment of FM in clinical trials, (4) review objective markers, (5) review the domain of cognitive dysfunction, and (6) establish a research agenda for outcomes research. Presentations at the module included: (1) Results of univariate and multivariate analysis of 10 FM clinical trials of 4 drugs, mapping key domains identified in previous patient focus group: Delphi exercises and a clinician/researcher Delphi exercise, and breakout discussions to vote on possible essential domains and reliable measures; (2) Updates regarding outcome measure status; (3) Update on objective markers to measure FM disease state; and (4) Review of the issue of cognitive dysfunction (dyscognition) in FM. Consensus was reached as follows: (1) Greater than 70% of OMERACT participants agreed that pain, tenderness, fatigue, patient global, multidimensional function and sleep disturbance domains should be measured in all FM clinical trials; dyscognition and depression should be measured in some trials; and stiffness, anxiety, functional imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers were identified as domains of research interest. (2) FM domain outcome measures have generally proven to be reliable, discriminative, and feasible. More sophisticated and comprehensive measures are in development, as is a responder index for FM. (3) Increasing numbers of objective markers are being developed for FM assessment. (4) Cognitive dysfunction assessment by self-assessed and applied outcome measures is being developed. In conclusion, a multidimensional symptom core set is proposed for evaluation of FM in clinical trials. Research on improved measures of single domains and composite measures is ongoing.

Variation in outcome measures in hip and knee arthroplasty clinical trials: a proposed approach to achieving consensus.

OMERACT began work over a decade ago on a consensus effort to identify optimal outcome measures for knee and hip osteoarthritis clinical trials. Recent evidence indicates extensive variation in outcome measures used in clinical trials of knee and hip arthroplasty published since 2000. This heterogeneity leads to confusion, not only for conducting systematic reviews but also for applying evidence to clinical practice. Given the extensive psychometric research conducted in the past 2 decades, the timing seems ideal to design and implement a study to develop consensus on optimal outcome measures for hip and knee arthroplasty trials. We describe a Delphi survey design and an approach for synthesizing the extensive psychometric literature on the outcome measures used in hip and knee arthroplasty trials. Plans for dissemination of the findings are also discussed. This proposed study could have an important influence on the design and reporting of future randomized trials of knee arthroplasty.

Measuring worker productivity: frameworks and measures.

Worker productivity is a combination of time off work (absenteeism) due to an illness and time at work but with reduced levels of productivity while at work (also known as presenteeism). Both can be gathered with a focus on application as a cost indicator and/or as an outcome state for intervention studies. We review the OMERACT worker productivity groups' progress in evaluating measures of worker productivity for use in arthritis using the OMERACT filter. Attendees at OMERACT 9 strongly endorsed the importance of work as an outcome in arthritis. Consensus was reached (94% endorsement) for fielding a broader array of indicators of absenteeism. Twenty-one measures of at-work productivity loss, ranging from single item indicators to multidimensional scales, were reviewed for measurement properties. No set of at-work productivity measures was endorsed because of variability in the concepts captured, and the need for a better framework for the measurement of worker productivity that also incorporates contextual issues such as job demands and other paid and unpaid life responsibilities. Progress has been made in this area, revealing an ambivalent set of results that directed us back to the need to further define and then contextualize the measurement of worker productivity.

Observations from the OMERACT Drug Safety Summit, May 2008.

Due to mounting concern about determination of benefit and risk in the context of product development and clinical practice the OMERACT Executive identified the need to bring together a variety of specialists to define risk. At the Drug Safety Summit held at OMERACT 9, specialists spoke on their given topics and the group considered risk in the context of formally posed questions.

How to ascertain drug safety in the context of benefit. Controversies and concerns.

There is great concern about clearly defining benefit and risk in the context of both drug development and clinical practice. In view of this pressure, the OMERACT Executive identified the need to bring together clinical trialists, pharmacoepidemiologists, clinicians, clinical epidemiologists, statistical experts, and regulatory representatives to discuss different approaches to define risk and perhaps improved ways to express it. Each attendee spoke on a given topic and the group was charged to consider the issue of risk in the context of formally posed questions. This article provides a summary of the presentations and outlines the discussions that followed.

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.

Multiple computer-based methods of measuring joint space width can discriminate between treatment arms in the COBRA trial -- Update of an ongoing OMERACT project.

Previously reported data on 5 computer-based programs for measurement of joint space width focusing on discriminating ability and reproducibility are updated, showing new data. Four of 5 different programs for measuring joint space width were more discriminating than observer scoring for change in narrowing in the 12 months interval. Three of 4 programs were more discriminating than observer scoring for the 0-18 month interval. The program that failed to discriminate in the 0-12 month interval was not the same program that failed in the 0-18 month interval. The committee agreed at an interim meeting in November 2007 that an important goal for computer-based measurement programs is a 90% success rate in making measurements of joint pairs in followup studies. This means that the same joint must be measured in images of both timepoints in order to assess change over time in serial radiographs. None of the programs met this 90% threshold, but 3 programs achieved 85%-90% success rate. Intraclass correlation coefficients for assessing change in joint space width in individual joints were 0.98 or 0.99 for 4 programs. The smallest detectable change was < 0.2 mm for 4 of the 5 programs, representing 29%-36% of the change within the 99th percentile of measurements.

Effects of prasterone on bone mineral density in women with active systemic lupus erythematosus receiving chronic glucocorticoid therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess prevention of bone mineral density (BMD) loss and durability of the response during treatment with prasterone in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) receiving chronic glucocorticoids. METHODS: 155 patients with SLE received 200 mg/day prasterone or placebo for 6 months in a double-blind phase. Subsequently, 114 patients were re-randomized to receive 200 or 100 mg/day prasterone for 12 months in an open-label phase. Primary efficacy endpoints were changes in BMD at the lumbar spine (L-spine) from baseline to Month 6 and maintenance of BMD from Month 6 to 18 for patients who received prasterone during the double-blind phase. RESULTS: In the double-blind phase, there was a trend for a small gain in BMD at the L-spine for patients who received 200 mg/day prasterone for 6 months versus a loss in the placebo group (mean +/- SD, 0.003 +/- 0.035 vs -0.005 +/- 0.053 g/cm(2), respectively; p = 0.293 between groups). In the open-label phase, there was dose-dependent increase in BMD at the L-spine at Month 18 between patients who received 200 versus 100 mg/day prasterone (p = 0.021). For patients who received 200 mg/day prasterone for 18 months, the L-spine BMD gain was 1.083 +/- 0.512% (p = 0.042). There was no overall change in BMD at the total hip over 18 months with 200 mg/day prasterone treatment. The safety profile reflected the weak androgenic properties of prasterone. CONCLUSION: This study suggests prasterone 200 mg/day may offer mild protection against bone loss in women with SLE receiving glucocorticoids. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers NCT00053560 and NCT00082511).

Cardiovascular effects of selective COX-2 inhibition: is there a class effect? The International COX-2 Study Group.

The International COX-2 Study Group, a panel of independent physicians and scientists, convened January 28-30, 2005, in Washington, DC, to discuss the issues concerning the cardiovascular (CV) profile of coxibs. The purpose of the meeting was to review potential mechanisms by which inhibition of COX-2 by selective and nonselective NSAID could increase risk of CV events, to evaluate the similarities and differences between drugs based on mechanism and pharmacology, and to propose potential trial methodology to more definitively answer questions regarding cardiovascular risk.

Measurement of joint space width and erosion size.

Measurement of radiographic abnormalities in metric units has been reported by several investigators during the last 15 years. Measurement of joint space in large joints has been employed in a few trials to evaluate therapy in osteoarthritis. Measurement of joint space width in small joints has been reported by several investigators but has not yet found a place in clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis. We review methods for measuring joint space width in finger, toe, and wrist joints; special attention is given to how the joint edges are found, the method used to measure distance between joint margins, size of an area of the sampled joint, and reproducibility of measurements. Methods for measurement of erosion size, which have had less attention, are briefly discussed.

Outcome measures in psoriatic arthritis.

Recent advances in biologic therapies have provided hope for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). However, studies have been hampered by the lack of acceptable and validated outcome measures. This article reviews outcome measures used in the assessment of both skin and joints in PsA, and provides a summary of the Psoriatic Arthritis Workshop during OMERACT 7. A set of domains to be included in the assessment of patients with PsA was derived, and a research agenda was developed.

Fibromyalgia syndrome.

The objectives of the first OMERACT Fibromyalgia Syndrome (FM) Workshop were to identify and prioritize symptom domains that should be consistently evaluated in FM clinical trials, and to identify aspects of domains and outcome measures that should be part of a concerted research agenda of FM researchers. Such an effort will help standardize and improve the quality of outcomes research in FM. A principal assumption in this workshop has been that there exists a clinical syndrome, generally known as FM, characterized by chronic widespread pain typically associated with fatigue, sleep disturbance, mood disturbance, and other symptoms and signs, and considered to be related to central neuromodulatory dysregulation. FM can be diagnosed using 1990 American College of Rheumatology criteria. In preparation for the workshop a Delphi exercise involving 23 FM researchers was conducted to establish a preliminary prioritization of domains of inquiry. At the OMERACT meeting, the workshop included presentation of the Delphi results; a review of placebo-controlled trials of FM treatment, with a focus on the outcome measures used and their performance; a panel discussion of the key issues in FM trials, from both an investigator and regulatory agency perspective; and a voting process by the workshop attendees. The results of the workshop were presented in the plenary session on the final day of the meeting. A prioritized list of domains of FM to be investigated was thus developed, key issues and controversies in the field were debated, and consensus on a research agenda on outcome measure development was reached.

Minimal disease activity for rheumatoid arthritis: a preliminary definition.

Agreement on response criteria in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has allowed better standardization and interpretation of clinical trial reports. With recent advances in therapy, the proportion of patients achieving a satisfactory state of minimal disease activity (MDA) is becoming a more important measure with which to compare different treatment strategies. The threshold for MDA is between high disease activity and remission and, by definition, anyone in remission will also be in MDA. True remission is still rare in RA; in addition, the American College of Rheumatology definition is difficult to apply in the context of trials. Participants at OMERACT 6 in 2002 agreed on a conceptual definition of minimal disease activity (MDA): "that state of disease activity deemed a useful target of treatment by both the patient and the physician, given current treatment possibilities and limitations." To prepare for a preliminary operational definition of MDA for use in clinical trials, we asked rheumatologists to assess 60 patient profiles describing real RA patients seen in routine clinical practice. Based on their responses, several candidate definitions for MDA were designed and discussed at the OMERACT 7 in 2004. Feedback from participants and additional on-site analyses in a cross-sectional database allowed the formulation of 2 preliminary, equivalent definitions of MDA: one based on the Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) index, and one based on meeting cutpoints in 5 out the 7 WHO/ILAR core set measures. Researchers applying these definitions first need to choose whether to use the DAS28 or the core set definition, because although each selects a similar proportion in a population, these are not always the same patients. In both MDA definitions, an initial decision node places all patients in MDA who have a tender joint count of 0 and a swollen joint count of 0, and an erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) no greater than 10 mm. If this condition is not met: * The DAS28 definition places patients in MDA when DAS28 < or = 2.85; * The core set definition places patients in MDA when they meet 5 of 7 criteria: (1) Pain (0-10) < or = 2; (2) Swollen joint count (0-28) < or = 1; (3) Tender joint count (0-28) < or = 1; (4) Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ, 0-3) < or = 0.5; (5) Physician global assessment of disease activity (0-10) < or = 1.5; (6) Patient global assessment of disease activity (0-10) < or = 2; (7) ESR < or = 20. This set of 2 definitions gained approval of 73% of the attendees. These (and other) definitions will now be subject to further validation in other databases.

Use of combination of leflunomide with biological agents in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

An Expert Panel Meeting was held in May 2004 to assess experience with combination therapy with leflunomide and biological agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), to identify both optimal use of such combinations and precautions for use. Eleven published prospective or retrospective studies were reviewed, principally evaluating combination of leflunomide with infliximab, as well as patient registry data. Available data suggest that combination therapies are more efficacious than monotherapies, reflecting the complementarity of mechanisms of action. Information on side effects remains contradictory, and tolerability of these combinations may vary between different patient groups. In some studies, tolerability is equivalent to that seen with monotherapy; in others a high rate of adverse events has led to frequent treatment discontinuation. Dermatological reactions may be a specific side effect of these combination therapies. Combination therapy is considered justified for treatment of patients diagnosed early who are at risk for rapid progression and for patients who fail to respond to monotherapy. The majority of participants favored adding biological agents to a previously established leflunomide monotherapy rather than starting both treatments simultaneously. On the other hand, combination therapy should be considered with caution in patients with a history of treatment failure, with hepatic comorbidity, or with other autoimmune disease, and in immunocompromised patients. When considering initiation of combination therapy, it is important to provide full information to the patient on the potential benefits and risks of such treatment and to integrate patients as far as possible into the decision-making process.

The efficacy of leflunomide monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis: towards the goals of disease modifying antirheumatic drug therapy.

This expert review of results from the leflunomide phase II and III clinical trials database demonstrates that leflunomide meets all 3 goals desired of disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy: reducing the signs and symptoms of the disease; inhibiting structural damage; and improving physical function. Further, leflunomide has a rapid onset of action, sustained efficacy, and is effective in early and late disease, regardless of whether patients have received other DMARD previously. The consistent efficacy of leflunomide across phase III clinical trials is confirmed by the findings from clinical practice. Experts agreed that it is important to observe a patient under leflunomide monotherapy for at least 3-4 months before assessing efficacy. It is possible to start maintenance therapy, with either a daily dose of leflunomide 10 mg, subsequently changing to 20 mg, or the reverse. The decision to use a loading dose when initiating leflunomide therapy depends primarily on the balance between the tolerability and rapid efficacy associated with a loading dose, and the balance desired for an individual patient. In general, the use of both maintenance and loading doses requires a flexible approach to the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. During the first few weeks of leflunomide therapy, patient dropout can be avoided by using prednisolone rather than a loading dose. Moreover, to ensure good tolerability and compliance in patients receiving a loading dose, information and adequate support should be provided throughout treatment.

Leflunomide: a manageable safety profile.

The safety profile of leflunomide in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis has been well documented in clinical trials, postmarketing surveillance, and epidemiological studies. Both postmarketing surveillance and epidemiological study results are consistent with the safety profile of leflunomide reported in clinical trials, and no increased risk was observed with leflunomide, compared with other disease modifying antirheumatic drugs; these studies have allowed a more precise representation of the incidence of adverse events occurring with leflunomide under normal conditions of care. The most common leflunomide-associated adverse events include diarrhea, elevated liver enzymes, alopecia, and rash. Ninety-five percent of the Expert Panel considered the adverse events associated with leflunomide to be manageable. If an adverse event required treatment to be stopped, many of the experts would consider subsequently restarting leflunomide. For minor adverse events, it was suggested that the physician might also consider using cholestyramine or charcoal to determine if the side effect is dose-related and, if it was, reduce the leflunomide dose accordingly. In addition to informing patients about the likelihood of side effects, it is important to emphasize that their incidence appears to diminish with continued treatment. It is also important to adequately support patients who are experiencing side effects and involve them in their disease management, for example, by offering the choice of reducing the leflunomide dose and/or having symptomatic treatment. Other patient management recommendations in this review reflect the views of the majority of participants as expressed in the meeting.