ABSTRACT
Objective Various definitions have been proposed for Refractory Disease in people with Rheumatoid Arthritis; however, none were generated for Polyarticular Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis or involving adult and paediatric multidisciplinary healthcare professionals and patients. The study aim is to redefine Refractory Disease, using Delphi methodology.
Methods Three rounds of surveys (one nominal group and two online (2019–2020)) to achieve consensus using a predetermined cut-off were conducted voting on: a) name, b) treatment and inflammation, c) symptoms and impact domains, and d) rating of individual components within domains. Theoretical application of the definition was conducted through a scoping exercise.
Results Votes were collected across three rounds from Patients, Researchers and nine multi-disciplinary healthcare professional groups (n=106). Refractory Inflammatory Arthritis was the most popular name. Regarding treatment and inflammation, these were voted to be kept broad rather than specifying numbers/cut offs. From 10 domains identified to capture symptoms and disease impact, six domains reached consensus for inclusion: 1) Disease Activity, 2) Joint Involvement, 3) Pain, 4) Fatigue, 5) Functioning and Quality of Life, and 6) Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drug Experiences. Within these domains, 18 components, from an initial pool (n=73), were identified as related and important to capture multi-faceted presentation of Refractory Inflammatory Arthritis, specifically in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Polyarticular Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis. Feasibility of the revised definition was established (2022-2023) with good utility as was applied to 82% of datasets (n=61) incorporating 20 outcome measures, with two further measures added to increase its utility and coverage of Pain and Fatigue.
Conclusion Refractory Inflammatory Arthritis has been found to be broader than not achieving low disease activity, with wider biopsychosocial components and factors incorporating Persistent Inflammation or Symptoms identified as important. This definition needs further refinement to assess utility as a classification tool to identify patients with unmet needs.
What is already known on this topic
In recent years within Rheumatology, parallel bodies of work have reached similar conclusions regarding the broadening of the Refractory or the wider Difficult-to-Treat concept.
What this study adds
In this paper, we provide a different angle to define, measure, and conceptualise Refractory Inflammatory Arthritis, using health psychology theory across Polyarticular Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis with the input of patients, rheumatologists, and multi-disciplinary healthcare professionals.
We support and extend recent definitions of refractory rheumatoid arthritis by detailing a three-part definition identified as important to both patients and multi disciplinary healthcare professionals that can also be applied to Polyarticular Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: 1) Treatment, 2) Inflammation, and 3) Symptoms and Impact with 18 specific components within 6 domains. The Refractory Inflammatory Arthritis definition can be operationalised as a classification tool using 22 routinely collected data points to identify those who need further targeted support and treatment.
We have applied a biopsychosocial formulation model for Refractory Inflammatory Arthritis covering perpetuating and protective factors to guide management strategies and present wider contextual factors involved in the experience of Refractory Inflammatory Arthritis.
How this study might affect research, practice or policy
The development of the Refractory Inflammatory Arthritis definition presented here included consideration of content and discriminant validity indicators to provide a clinical and research tool to appropriately classify and measure Refractory Inflammatory Arthritis with alignment to routinely used measures.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This paper represents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and Kings College London in the form of a PhD Studentship (ISBRC121520018) for the first author (HC). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Full NHS ethical approval granted in July 2018 by London Hampstead Research Ethics Committee (18/LO/1171).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* Joint Last Author
CRediT Author Statement: Hema Chaplin: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft, Visualization, Project Administration, Funding Acquisition. Ailsa Bosworth: Writing - Review & Editing, Project Administration (Nominal Group), Supervision (Patient Representative). Carol Simpson: Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision (Patient Representative). Kate Wilkins: Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision (Patient Representative). Jessica Meehan: Formal analysis, Writing - Review & Editing. Elena Nikiphorou: Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision (Clinical). Rona Moss-Morris: Methodology, Writing - Review & Editing, Visualization, Supervision (Academic). Heidi Lempp: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing – Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing, Visualization, Supervision (Academic), Funding Acquisition. Sam Norton: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing – Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing, Visualization, Supervision (Academic), Funding Acquisition.
Ethical Approval: Full NHS ethical approval granted in July 2018 by London – Hampstead Research Ethics Committee (18/LO/1171).
Conflict of Interests: None
Funding: This paper represents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London, in the form of a PhD Studentship (IS-BRC-1215-20018) for the first author (HC). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Data availability: The data generated that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, HC, upon reasonable request.
Revisions include addressing previous reviewers comments (rejection) and adding in theoretical validation of the definition to demonstrate its utility. Changes from been made throughout the manuscript as appropriate.
Data Availability
The data generated that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, HC, upon reasonable request.
