ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 0147

The Interpretation of Patient-reported Outcomes in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Do Clinical Trials Adequately Evaluate Meaningful Improvements for Patients?

Peter Taylor1, Robin Dore2, Kate Williams3, Sarah Acaster3, Jenya Antonova4 and Mark Genovese5, 1Botnar Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2Private practice, Tustin, CA, 3Acaster Lloyd Consulting, London, United Kingdom, 4Gilead Sciences, Foster City, CA, 5Gilead Sciences, Inc., Foster City, CA

Meeting: ACR Convergence 2020

Keywords: Measurement, Patient reported outcomes, rheumatoid arthritis

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Session Information

Date: Friday, November 6, 2020

Title: Patient Outcomes, Preferences, & Attitudes Poster I: RA, Spondyloarthritis, & OA

Session Type: Poster Session A

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose: The importance of patient-relevant outcomes, such as pain, fatigue and physical functioning, has been long established in the field of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) questionnaires evaluate these outcomes in RA clinical trials and can differentiate treatments. However, this ability depends on the interpretation of PRO endpoints. Measuring PRO changes that are meaningful to patients can help clinicians optimize the treatment selection and evaluate outcomes within the treat-to-target approach, recommended by ACR.  For the incoming RA treatments within the Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) class, we aimed to evaluate the available metrics to capture meaningful individual-patient-level change in most common PROs.

Methods: A targeted PubMed literature search was conducted to identify RA clinical trials of JAKis published between 1st Jan 2009 and 1st April 2020 that included a PRO as an outcome. We reviewed relevant publications and conference abstracts to identify values used to interpret PROs. Follow-up literature searches were conducted to determine and critically appraise methods used to derive these values.

Results: Among 101 papers meeting the inclusion criteria, 35 reported the proportion of patients achieving a minimal (clinically) important difference [M(C)ID] on Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Pain visual analogue scale (VAS), Patient Global Assessment (PtGA), Short-Form 36 (SF-36), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness–Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue), Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), morning stiffness severity and duration. However, the secondary methodological search revealed no evidence supporting the application of these values to interpret individual-patient-level meaningful change (Table 1).

Conclusion: Despite common use of PROs MID/MCID thresholds in the RA clinical trials of JAKis, current methods lack evidence of the methodologically robust magnitude of change meaningful to individuals. These findings highlight a need to re-evaluate the patient-relevance of PRO metrics in RA clinical trials, and potentially explore other endpoints, such as the Patient Acceptable Symptom State. The availability of methodologically robust, patient-relevant, clinically-meaningful change thresholds for PROs can help determine most patient-relevant RA therapies.

Table 1: Values used to interpret individual patient-level change on PROs in RA


Disclosure: P. Taylor, Eli Lilly, 2, 5, 8, Celgene, 2, 5, 8, AbbVie, 2, 5, 8, Biogen, 2, 5, 8, Bristol-Myers Squibb, 2, 5, 8, Celltrion, 2, 5, 8, Fresenius, 2, 5, 8, GlaxoSmithKline, 2, 5, 8, Janssen, 2, 5, 8, Nordic Pharma, 2, 5, 8, Roche, 2, 5, 8, Sanofi, 2, 5, 8, UCB, 2, 5, 8, Pfizer, 2, 5, 8, Gilead, 2, 5, 8, Galapagos, 2, 5, 8; R. Dore, AbbVie, 2, 5, Amgen, 2, 5, Biogen, 2, 5, Bristol-Myers Squibb, 2, 5, Eli Lilly and Co, 2, 5, Gilead Sciences, Inc., 2, 5, GlaxoSmithKline, 2, 5, Myriad, 2, 5, Novartis, 2, 5, Pfizer, 2, 5, Radius, 2, 5, Regeneron, 2, 5, Sanofi, 2, 5, UCB, 2, 5, Exagen, 8; K. Williams, None; S. Acaster, None; J. Antonova, Gilead Sciences, 1; M. Genovese, AbbVie, 2, 5, Eli Lily and Co, 2, 5, EMD Merck Serono, 2, 5, Galapagos, 2, Genentech/Roche, 2, 5, Gilead Sciences, Inc., 1, 2, 3, 5, GSK, 2, 5, Novartis, 2, 5, Pfizer, Inc., 2, Rpharm, 2, 5, Sanofi Genzyme, 2, 5.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Taylor P, Dore R, Williams K, Acaster S, Antonova J, Genovese M. The Interpretation of Patient-reported Outcomes in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Do Clinical Trials Adequately Evaluate Meaningful Improvements for Patients? [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020; 72 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/the-interpretation-of-patient-reported-outcomes-in-rheumatoid-arthritis-do-clinical-trials-adequately-evaluate-meaningful-improvements-for-patients/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

« Back to ACR Convergence 2020

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/the-interpretation-of-patient-reported-outcomes-in-rheumatoid-arthritis-do-clinical-trials-adequately-evaluate-meaningful-improvements-for-patients/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology