Responsiveness of the Core Set, Response Criteria, and Utilities in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis

Overview

Journal Ann Rheum Dis

Specialty Rheumatology

Date 2000 Nov 23

PMID 11087700

Citations 24

Authors

A C Verhoeven

M Boers

S van der Linden

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: Validation of responsiveness and discriminative power of the World Health Organisation/International League of Associations for Rheumatology (WHO/ILAR) core set, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), and European League for Rheumatology (EULAR) criteria for improvement/response, and other single and combined measures (indices) in a trial in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods: Ranking of measures by response (standardised response means and effect sizes) and between-group discrimination (unpaired t test and chi(2) values) at two time points in the COBRA study. This study included 155 patients with early RA randomly allocated to two treatment groups with distinct levels of expected response: combined treatment, high response; sulfasalazine treatment, moderate response.

Results: At week 16, standardised response means of core set measures ranged between 0.8 and 3.5 for combined treatment and between 0.4 and 1.2 for sulfasalazine treatment (95% confidence interval +/-0.25). Performance of patient oriented measures (for example, pain, global assessment) was best when the questions were focused on the disease. The most responsive single measure was the patient's assessment of change in disease activity, at 3.5. Patient utility, a generic health status measure, was moderately (rating scale) to poorly (standard gamble) responsive. Response means of most indices (combined measures) exceeded 2.0, the simple count of core set measures improved by 20% was most responsive at 4.1. Discrimination performance yielded similar but not identical results: best discrimination between treatment groups was achieved by the EULAR response and ACR improvement criteria (at 20% and other percentage levels), the pooled index, and the disease activity score (DAS), but also by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and grip strength.

Conclusions: Responsiveness and discrimination between levels of response are not identical concepts, and need separate study. The WHO/ILAR core set comprises responsive measures that discriminate well between different levels of response in early RA. However, the performance of patient oriented measures is highly dependent on their format. The excellent performance of indices such as the ACR improvement and EULAR response criteria confirms that they are the preferred primary end point in RA clinical trials.

Citing Articles

Efficacy of the cardiac glycoside digoxin as an adjunct to csDMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

El-Mahdy N, Tadros M, El-Masry T, Binsaleh A, Alsubaie N, Alrossies A Front Pharmacol. 2024; 15:1445708.

PMID: 39498340 PMC: 11532073. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1445708.

Assessing Response in Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review of the Psychometric Performance of Measures Used in HTAs and Clinical Trials.

Penton H, Jayade S, Selveindran S, Heisen M, Piketty C, Ulianov L Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2023; 13(11):2549-2571.

PMID: 37747670 PMC: 10613159. DOI: 10.1007/s13555-023-01038-3.

The value of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging scoring systems in explaining handgrip strength and functional impairment in rheumatoid arthritis patients: a pilot study.

Salaffi F, Carotti M, Di Carlo M, Ceccarelli L, Farah S, Giovagnoni A Radiol Med. 2022; 127(6):652-663.

PMID: 35567732 PMC: 9130172. DOI: 10.1007/s11547-022-01499-0.

The Importance of Outcome Measures in the Management of Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases.

Molina Collada J, Trives L, Castrejon I Open Access Rheumatol. 2021; 13:191-200.

PMID: 34285602 PMC: 8285275. DOI: 10.2147/OARRR.S276980.

Empirical evidence of disease activity thresholds used to indicate need for major therapeutic change in US veterans with rheumatoid arthritis.

Sauer B, Chen W, Xu Y, Shen J, Accortt N, Collier D Arthritis Res Ther. 2020; 22(1):253.

PMID: 33092642 PMC: 7579862. DOI: 10.1186/s13075-020-02346-1.

References

Anderson J, Wells G, Verhoeven A, Felson D . Factors predicting response to treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: the importance of disease duration. Arthritis Rheum. 2000; 43(1):22-9. DOI: 10.1002/1529-0131(200001)43:1<22::AID-ANR4>3.0.CO;2-9. View

Buchbinder R, Bombardier C, Yeung M, Tugwell P . Which outcome measures should be used in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials? Clinical and quality-of-life measures' responsiveness to treatment in a randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum. 1995; 38(11):1568-80. DOI: 10.1002/art.1780381108. View

Meenan R, Gertman P, Mason J . Measuring health status in arthritis. The arthritis impact measurement scales. Arthritis Rheum. 1980; 23(2):146-52. DOI: 10.1002/art.1780230203. View

Pinals R, MASI A, Larsen R . Preliminary criteria for clinical remission in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1981; 24(10):1308-15. DOI: 10.1002/art.1780241012. View

Fries J, Spitz P, Young D . The dimensions of health outcomes: the health assessment questionnaire, disability and pain scales. J Rheumatol. 1982; 9(5):789-93. View

WARD J, Williams H, Egger M, Reading J, BOYCE E, Samuelson Jr C . Comparison of auranofin, gold sodium thiomalate, and placebo in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. A controlled clinical trial. Arthritis Rheum. 1983; 26(11):1303-15. DOI: 10.1002/art.1780261102. View

Siegert C, Vleming L, Vandenbroucke J, Cats A . Measurement of disability in Dutch rheumatoid arthritis patients. Clin Rheumatol. 1984; 3(3):305-9. DOI: 10.1007/BF02032335. View

Tugwell P, Bombardier C, BUCHANAN W, Goldsmith C, Grace E, Hanna B . The MACTAR Patient Preference Disability Questionnaire--an individualized functional priority approach for assessing improvement in physical disability in clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 1987; 14(3):446-51. View

Arnett F, Edworthy S, Bloch D, McShane D, Fries J, Cooper N . The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1988; 31(3):315-24. DOI: 10.1002/art.1780310302. View

10.

Kazis L, Anderson J, Meenan R . Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989; 27(3 Suppl):S178-89. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-198903001-00015. View

11.

Anderson J, Felson D, Meenan R, Williams H . Which traditional measures should be used in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials?. Arthritis Rheum. 1989; 32(9):1093-9. DOI: 10.1002/anr.1780320907. View

12.

Weinblatt M, Kaplan H, Germain B, Merriman R, Solomon S, Wall B . Low-dose methotrexate compared with auranofin in adult rheumatoid arthritis. A thirty-six-week, double-blind trial. Arthritis Rheum. 1990; 33(3):330-8. DOI: 10.1002/art.1780330305. View

13.

Pincus T, Stein C . What is the best source of useful data on the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: clinical trials, clinical observations, or clinical protocols?. J Rheumatol. 1995; 22(9):1611-7. View

14.

Stucki G, Liang M, Fossel A, Katz J . Relative responsiveness of condition-specific and generic health status measures in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995; 48(11):1369-78. DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(95)00054-2. View

15.

van Gestel A, Prevoo M, van t Hof M, van Rijswijk M, van de Putte L, van Riel P . Development and validation of the European League Against Rheumatism response criteria for rheumatoid arthritis. Comparison with the preliminary American College of Rheumatology and the World Health Organization/International League Against.... Arthritis Rheum. 1996; 39(1):34-40. DOI: 10.1002/art.1780390105. View

16.

Goossens M, Rutten-van Molken M, Leidl R, Bos S, Vlaeyen J . Cognitive-educational treatment of fibromyalgia: a randomized clinical trial. II. Economic evaluation. J Rheumatol. 1996; 23(7):1246-54. View

17.

Saag K, Criswell L, Sems K, Nettleman M, Kolluri S . Low-dose corticosteroids in rheumatoid arthritis. A meta-analysis of their moderate-term effectiveness. Arthritis Rheum. 1996; 39(11):1818-25. DOI: 10.1002/art.1780391107. View

18.

Prevoo M, van Gestel A, van t Hof M, van Rijswijk M, van de Putte L, van Riel P . Remission in a prospective study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. American Rheumatism Association preliminary remission criteria in relation to the disease activity score. Br J Rheumatol. 1996; 35(11):1101-5. DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/35.11.1101. View

19.

Beaton D, Hogg-Johnson S, Bombardier C . Evaluating changes in health status: reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997; 50(1):79-93. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00296-x. View

20.

Wright J, Young N . A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997; 50(3):239-46. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00373-3. View