Updating the OMERACT filter: implications for imaging and soluble biomarkers

Successful evaluation of spinal mobility measurements with the Epionics SPINE device in patients with axial spondyloarthritis compared to controls

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate ES for quantification of spinal mobility in patients with axSpA.

METHODS

A total of 153 individuals, 39 females and 114 males, were examined:134 axSpA patients, 40 non-(nr-) and 94 radiographic (r)-axSpA, and 19 healthy controls (HC), respectively. The results were compared using mean ES scores and modeling was performed using multivariable logistic regression models resulting in good validity and high discriminative power.

RESULTS

ES measurements showed meaningful differences between axSpA patients and HC (all p<0.001) as well as between r- and nr-axSpA (p<0.01). In axSpA patients a negative correlation between ES and BASMI values was found: -0.76≤r≤-0.52 (p<0.05). BASFI scores showed a similar trend (r > -0.39). Patients with r-axSpA had a more limited and slower spinal mobility than those with nr-axSpA. Other patient reported outcomes did almost not correlate.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that the ES is an objective performance measure and a valid tool to assess spinal mobility in axSpA, also based on OMERACT criteria. RoK and RoM scores provide additional information on physical function of axSpA patients.

[Epionics SPINE-use of an objective method to examine spinal mobility in patients with axial spondyloarthritis]

Axial spondylarthritis (axSpA) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the spine that can be associated with loss of physical function, mobility and upright postural impairment. Established tools for the assessment of function that are largely based on subjective perception are semiquantitatively recorded by standardized questionnaires (Bath ankylosing spondylitis functional index, BASFI), while measurement of spinal mobility of patients with axSpA is based on physical examination of various movement regions particularly the axial skeleton (Bath ankylosing spondylitis metrology index, BASMI). Recently, a performance test has been added to assess the range of motion and speed of certain tasks (AS performance-based improved test, ASPI); however, since these tests have limited reliability and reproducibility, more objective tests would be desirable. In this study the spinal mobility of patients with axSpA was quantified using the Epionics SPINE device (ES) and data were evaluated using the outcome measures in rheumatology (OMERACT) criteria. The ES automatically measures various patterns of spinal movements using electronic sensors, which also assess the range and speed of carrying out movements. Patients with back pain from other causes and persons without back pain served as controls. The measurement results obtained with ES differed between the groups and correlated with BASMI values (r = 0.53-0.82, all p = <0.03). Patients with radiographically detectable axSpA had more limited and slower mobility than those with non-radiographically detectable axSpA. Overall, the results presented here suggest that ES measurements represent a valid and objective measurement procedure of spinal mobility for axSpA patients.

Development and Reliability of the Joint Tissue Activity and Damage Examination for Quantitation of Structural Abnormalities by Musculoskeletal Ultrasound in Hemophilic Joints

OBJECTIVES

Musculoskeletal ultrasound (US) is used increasingly to examine hemophilic arthropathy. However, quantitative algorithms to document findings are lacking. We developed and sought to validate a protocol quantifying hemophilic joint abnormalities.

METHODS

Thirty-one patients with hemophilia were examined serially for 2 years with musculoskeletal US (≈600 joint examinations and ≈6000 images). Based on the spectrum of pathologies, a quantitative algorithm, named Joint Tissue Activity and Damage Examination (JADE), was developed for soft tissue and osteochondral measurements, including power Doppler, using nominal group techniques. To study intra- and inter-rater reliability, 8 musculoskeletal US-experienced hemophilia providers performed anatomic landmark recognition and tissue measurements on 86 images with arthropathic changes, with repetition 1 month later. Twenty-three musculoskeletal US-inexperienced providers performed similar assessments. Inter-operator reliability was established by 6 musculoskeletal US-experienced hemophilia providers, each acquiring images and JADE assessments of 3 hemophilic arthropathic joints. A radiologist and musculoskeletal sonographer functioned as adjudicators. The statistical analysis was performed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Fleiss κ, and Cohen κ where appropriate.

RESULTS

The musculoskeletal US-experienced providers showed excellent intra-and inter-rater reliability for tissue measurements (ICCs, 0.94-0.96). Agreement was good to excellent for landmark recognition (Fleiss κ, 0.87-0.94). Inter-operator reliability was excellent for measurements and landmark recognition (ICC, 0.90; Fleiss κ, 1.0). Agreement with adjudicators was mostly good to excellent. Musculoskeletal US-inexperienced providers showed excellent inter-rater reliability for measurements (ICC, 0.96) and moderate agreement for landmark recognition (Fleiss κ, 0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

The JADE protocol appears feasible for quantifying hemophilic intra-articular abnormalities. Musculoskeletal US-trained hemophilia providers showed high intra-rater, inter-rater, and inter-operator reliability, supporting JADE as a protocol for clinical management and research.

The OMERACT Stepwise Approach to Select and Develop Imaging Outcome Measurement Instruments: The Musculoskeletal Ultrasound Example

Objective.

To describe the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) stepwise approach to select and develop an imaging instrument with musculoskeletal ultrasound (US) as an example.

Methods.

The OMERACT US Working Group (WG) developed a 4-step process to select instruments based on imaging. Step 1 applies the OMERACT Framework Instrument Selection Algorithm (OFISA) to existing US outcome measurement instruments for a specific indication. This step requires a literature review focused on the truth, discrimination, and feasibility aspects of the instrument for the target pathology. When the evidence is completely unsatisfactory, Step 2 is a consensus process to define the US characteristics of the target pathology including one or more so-called “elementary lesions”. Step 3 applies the agreed definitions to the image, evaluates their reliability, develops a severity grading of the lesion(s) at a given anatomical site, and evaluates the effect of the acquisition technique on feasibility and lesion(s) detection. Step 4 applies and assesses the definition(s) and scoring system(s) in cross-sectional studies and multicenter trials. The imaging instrument is now ready to pass a final OFISA check.

Results.

With this process in place, the US WG now has 18 subgroups developing US instruments in 10 different diseases. Half of them have passed Step 3, and the groups for enthesitis (spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis), synovitis, and tenosynovitis (rheumatoid arthritis) have finished Step 4.

Conclusion.

The US WG approach to select and develop outcome measurement instruments based on imaging has been repeatedly and successfully applied in US, but is generic for imaging and fits with OMERACT Filter 2.1.

Clinimetrics of ultrasound pathologies in osteoarthritis: systematic literature review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to systematically review clinimetrics of commonly assessed ultrasound pathologies in knee, hip and hand osteoarthritis (OA), and to conduct a meta-analysis for each clinimetric.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from their inceptions to September 2016. According to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Instrument Selection Algorithm, data extraction focused on ultrasound technical features and performance metrics. Methodological quality was assessed with modified 19-item Downs and Black score and 11-item Quality Appraisal of Diagnostic Reliability (QAREL) score. Separate meta-analyses were performed for clinimetrics: (1) inter-rater/intra-rater reliability; (2) construct validity; (3) criteria validity; and (4) internal/external responsiveness. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), Excel and Comprehensive Meta-analysis were used.

RESULT

Our search identified 1126 records; of these, 100 were eligible, including a total of 8542 patients and 32,373 joints. The average Downs and Black score was 13.01, and average QAREL was 5.93. The stratified meta-analysis was performed only for knee OA, which demonstrated moderate to substantial reliability [minimum kappa > 0.44(0.15,0.74), minimum intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) > 0.82(0.73-0.89)], weak construct validity against pain (r = 0.12 to 0.27), function (r = 0.15 to 0.23), and blood biomarkers (r = 0.01 to 0.21), but weak to strong correlation with plain radiography (r = 0.13 to 0.60), strong association with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) [minimum r = 0.60(0.52,0.67)] and strong discrimination against symptomatic patients (OR = 3.08 to 7.46). There was strong criterion validity against cartilage histology [r = 0.66(-0.05,0.93)], and small to moderate internal [standardized mean difference(SMD) = 0.20 to 0.58] and external (r = 0.35 to 0.43) responsiveness to interventions.

CONCLUSION

Ultrasound demonstrated strong criterion validity with cartilage histology, poor to strong correlation with patient findings and MRI, moderate reliability, and low responsiveness to interventions.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NO

CRD42016039954.

Association between ultrasound-detected synovitis and knee pain: a population-based case-control study with both cross-sectional and follow-up data

BACKGROUND

An important role for synovial pathology in the initiation and progression of knee osteoarthritis has been emphasised recently. This study aimed to examine whether ultrasonography-detected synovial changes associate with knee pain (KP) in a community population.

METHODS

A case-control study was conducted to compare people with early KP (n = 298), established KP (n = 100) or no KP (n = 94) at baseline. Multinomial logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) between groups adjusted for radiographic osteoarthritis (ROA) severity and other confounding factors. After 1 year, 255 participants with early and established KP completed the follow-up questionnaire for changes in KP. Logistic regression with adjustment was used to determine predictors of KP worsening.

RESULTS

At baseline, effusion was associated with early KP (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.57-4.45) and established KP (OR 5.07, 95% CI 2.74-9.38). Synovial hypertrophy was also associated with early KP (OR 5.43, 95% CI 2.12-13.92) and established KP (OR 13.27, 95% CI 4.97-35.43). The association with effusion diminished when adjusted for ROA. Power Doppler signal was uncommon (early KP 3%, established KP 2%, controls 0%). Baseline effusion predicted worsening of KP at 1 year (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.05-3.64). However, after adjusting for ROA, the prediction was insignificant (adjusted OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.44-2.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound effusion and synovial hypertrophy are associated with KP, but only effusion predicts KP worsening. However, the association/prediction is not independent from ROA. Power Doppler signal is uncommon in people with KP. Further study is needed to understand whether synovitis is directly involved in different types of KP.

The relationship between three-dimensional knee MRI bone shape and total knee replacement-a case control study: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative

Objective. There is growing understanding of the importance of bone in OA. Our aim was to determine the relationship between 3D MRI bone shape and total knee replacement (TKR).

Methods. A nested case-control study within the Osteoarthritis Initiative cohort identified case knees with confirmed TKR for OA and controls that were matched using propensity scores. Active appearance modelling quantification of the bone shape of all knee bones identified vectors between knees having or not having OA. Vectors were scaled such that −1 and +1 represented the mean non-OA and mean OA shapes.

Results. Compared to controls (n = 310), TKR cases (n = 310) had a more positive mean baseline 3D bone shape vector, indicating more advanced structural OA, for the femur [mean 0.98 vs −0.11; difference (95% CI) 1.10 (0.88, 1.31)], tibia [mean 0.86 vs −0.07; difference (95% CI) 0.94 (0.72, 1.16)] and patella [mean 0.95 vs 0.03; difference (95% CI) 0.92 (0.65, 1.20)]. Odds ratios (95% CI) for TKR per normalized unit of 3D bone shape vector for the femur, tibia and patella were: 1.85 (1.59, 2.16), 1.64 (1.42, 1.89) and 1.36 (1.22, 1.50), respectively, all P < 0.001. After including Kellgren–Lawrence grade in a multivariable analysis, only the femur 3D shape vector remained significantly associated with TKR [odds ratio 1.24 (1.02, 1.51)].

Conclusion. 3D bone shape was associated with the endpoint of this study, TKR, with femoral shape being most associated. This study contributes to the validation of quantitative MRI bone biomarkers for OA structure-modification trials.

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.

Updating the OMERACT filter at OMERACT 11

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) community strives to develop core outcome sets for rheumatologic conditions to specify, for each condition, the minimum set of outcomes necessary to provide consistent estimates of the benefits of an intervention. The original and successful OMERACT filter of "truth, discrimination, and feasibility" requires development and updating because of application to a widening range of conditions by an expanding group, particularly patients. It should more explicitly identify the relevant core outcomes that might be universal to all randomized controlled trials within rheumatology. Working from first principles, comparing proposals against actual procedures adopted by OMERACT working groups, and seeking a broad consensus over several major sessions at the OMERACT 11 meeting, a new version has emerged, OMERACT Filter 2.0, which will form the central theme of the intended OMERACT handbook and offers an approach to core outcome set development in many areas of healthcare.

Toward a generalized framework of core measurement areas in clinical trials: a position paper for OMERACT 11

OBJECTIVE

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) international consensus initiative has successfully developed core sets of outcome measures for trials of many rheumatologic conditions, but its expanding scope called for clarification and updating of its underlying conceptual framework and working process. To develop a core set of what we propose to call outcome measurement instruments, consensus must be reached both on what to measure and how to measure. This article deals with the first part: a framework necessary to ensure comprehensiveness of the domains chosen for measurement. We formulated a conceptual framework of core measurement areas in clinical trials, for discussion at the OMERACT 11 conference.

METHODS

We formulated a framework and definitions of key concepts adapted from the literature, and followed an iterative consensus process (small group processes and an Internet-based survey) of those involved including patients, health professionals, and methodologists within and outside rheumatology.

RESULTS

The draft framework comprises 4 core "areas": death, life impact (all aspects of how a patient feels or functions), resource use (monetary and other costs of the health condition and interventions), and pathophysiologic manifestations (disease-specific clinical and psychological signs, biomarkers, and potential surrogate outcome measures necessary to assess specific effects). The survey responses (262 of 2293, response rate 11%) indicated broad agreement with the draft framework and the proposed definitions of key concepts, including understandability and feasibility. A total of 283 comments were processed.

CONCLUSION

In an iterative process, we have developed a generic framework for outcome measurement and working definitions of key concepts ready for discussion at the OMERACT 11 conference.

Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT filter 2.0

BACKGROUND

Lack of standardization of outcome measures limits the usefulness of clinical trial evidence to inform health care decisions. This can be addressed by agreeing on a minimum core set of outcome measures per health condition, containing measures relevant to patients and decision makers. Since 1992, the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) consensus initiative has successfully developed core sets for many rheumatologic conditions, actively involving patients since 2002. Its expanding scope required an explicit formulation of its underlying conceptual framework and process.

METHODS

Literature searches and iterative consensus process (surveys and group meetings) of stakeholders including patients, health professionals, and methodologists within and outside rheumatology.

RESULTS

To comprehensively sample patient-centered and intervention-specific outcomes, a framework emerged that comprises three core "Areas," namely Death, Life Impact, and Pathophysiological Manifestations; and one strongly recommended Resource Use. Through literature review and consensus process, core set development for any specific health condition starts by identifying at least one core "Domain" within each of the Areas to formulate the "Core Domain Set." Next, at least one applicable measurement instrument for each core Domain is identified to formulate a "Core Outcome Measurement Set." Each instrument must prove to be truthful (valid), discriminative, and feasible. In 2012, 96% of the voting participants (n=125) at the OMERACT 11 consensus conference endorsed this model and process.

CONCLUSION

The OMERACT Filter 2.0 explicitly describes a comprehensive conceptual framework and a recommended process to develop core outcome measurement sets for rheumatology likely to be useful as a template in other areas of health care.