Critical Outcomes in Longitudinal Observational Studies and Registries in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: An OMERACT Special Interest Group Report

Objective. Outcomes important to patients are those that are relevant to their well-being, including quality of life, morbid endpoints, and death. These outcomes often occur over the longterm and can be identified in prospective longitudinal observational studies (PLOS). There are no standards for which outcome domains should be considered. Our overarching goal is to identify critical longterm outcome domains for patients with rheumatic diseases, and to develop a conceptual framework to measure and classify them within the scope of OMERACT Filter 2.0. Methods. The steps of this initiative primarily concern rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and include (1) performing a systematic review of RA patient registries and cohorts to identify previously collected and reported outcome domains and measurement instruments; (2) developing a conceptual framework and taxonomy for identification and classification of outcome domains; (3) conducting focus groups to identify domains considered critical by patients with RA; and (4) surveying patients, providers, and researchers to identify critical outcomes that can be evaluated through the OMERACT filter. Results. In our initial evaluation of databases and registries across countries, we found both commonalities and differences, with no clear standardization. At the initial group meeting, participants agreed that additional work is needed to identify which critical outcomes should be collected in PLOS, and suggested several: death, independence, and participation, among others. An operational strategy for the next 2 years was proposed. Conclusion. Participants endorsed the need for an initiative to identify and evaluate critical outcome domains and measurement instruments for data collection in PLOS.

[1]  James M Robins,et al.  Using Big Data to Emulate a Target Trial When a Randomized Trial Is Not Available. , 2016, American journal of epidemiology.

[2]  K. Michaud,et al.  Methodological Challenges When Comparing Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of International Observational Registries , 2015, Arthritis care & research.

[3]  Michelle B. Leavy,et al.  A framework for creating standardized outcome measures for patient registries. , 2014, Journal of comparative effectiveness research.

[4]  P. Tugwell,et al.  Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT filter 2.0. , 2014, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[5]  L. Carmona,et al.  Databases and registers: useful tools for research, no studies , 2014, Rheumatology International.

[6]  W. Dixon,et al.  Launch of a checklist for reporting longitudinal observational drug studies in rheumatology: a EULAR extension of STROBE guidelines based on experience from biologics registries , 2013, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[7]  P. Tugwell,et al.  Non‐randomized studies as a source of complementary, sequential or replacement evidence for randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions , 2013, Research synthesis methods.

[8]  Jonathan J Deeks,et al.  Issues relating to study design and risk of bias when including non‐randomized studies in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions , 2013, Research synthesis methods.

[9]  M. Dougados,et al.  Relative importance of doctor-reported outcomes vs patient-reported outcomes in DMARD intensification for rheumatoid arthritis: the DUO study. , 2013, Rheumatology.

[10]  M. Boers,et al.  Examining the Similarities and Differences of OMERACT Core Sets Using the ICF: First Step Towards an Improved Domain Specification and Development of an Item Pool to Measure Functioning and Health , 2011, The Journal of Rheumatology.

[11]  Gordon H Guyatt,et al.  GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[12]  W. Dixon,et al.  A comparison of patient characteristics and outcomes in selected European and U.S. rheumatoid arthritis registries. , 2010, Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism.

[13]  W. Dixon,et al.  EULAR points to consider when establishing, analysing and reporting safety data of biologics registers in rheumatology , 2010, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[14]  Nancy A Dreyer,et al.  Registries for robust evidence. , 2009, JAMA.

[15]  A. Silman,et al.  Preliminary core set of domains and reporting requirements for longitudinal observational studies in rheumatology. , 1999, The Journal of rheumatology.

[16]  M. Dougados,et al.  Preliminary core sets for endpoints in ankylosing spondylitis. Assessments in Ankylosing Spondylitis Working Group. , 1997, The Journal of rheumatology.

[17]  P. Tugwell,et al.  Recommendations for a core set of outcome measures for future phase III clinical trials in knee, hip, and hand osteoarthritis. Consensus development at OMERACT III. , 1997, The Journal of rheumatology.

[18]  P. Tugwell,et al.  World Health Organization and International League of Associations for Rheumatology core endpoints for symptom modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. , 1994, The Journal of rheumatology. Supplement.