Changes in Health Assessment Questionnaire disability scores over five years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis compared with the general population

OBJECTIVE

To analyze longitudinal data over 5 years for changes in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and age- and sex-matched controls from the general population.

METHODS

In 2000 and 2005, identical self-report questionnaires were mailed to a cohort of patients with RA and control cohort from the community. The questionnaire included the HAQ, which was used to assess functional status. Changes in HAQ scores over 5 years were analyzed.

RESULTS

In 2000, 73% of 1,495 patients with RA and 77% of 2,000 general population controls responded to the questionnaire. In 2005, 84% of 2,022 patients with RA and 77% of 1,817 controls responded. A total of 863 patients with RA and 1,176 community controls responded in both 2000 and 2005 and were included in the analyses. Mean baseline HAQ scores were significantly higher in patients with RA than in controls (0.71 versus 0.17; P < 0.001). Over 5 years, the HAQ scores increased by 0.01 units per year in both the RA cohort and the community population; in both cohorts, the net change was primarily attributable to individuals over age 70 years. Changes in HAQ scores were similar in patients and controls who had low HAQ scores at baseline. Female patients with baseline HAQ scores of >or=0.5 had less potential for improvement than did controls. Among subjects in both groups who had HAQ scores >2, death was a common outcome over the next 5 years.

CONCLUSION

Currently, progression of functional disability among patients with RA and among persons in the general population is largely explained by the aging process. Our results showing stable function scores over 5 years in most patients with RA who are younger than age 70 years provide further evidence of improved status of RA patients today compared with the major declines observed in previous decades.

Complexities in defining remission in rheumatic diseases

The rheumatology community has devoted increasing attention to the subject of remission over the past 2 decades, on the basis of greater appreciation of the long-term severity of inflammatory rheumatic diseases and availability of new therapies and approaches to improve outcomes. Nonetheless, description of remission in rheumatic diseases is complex, compared to many nonrheumatic diseases. Recognition of remission requires a set of measures or an index rather than a single "gold standard." Spontaneous remission is not infrequent in people with early inflammatory arthritis, including some who may meet criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) over less than a few months, and may be confused with a drug-induced remission. Remission may be transient in many patients over short periods, and the length of time required to maintain remission status varies in different reports. Maintenance of a state of remission in autoimmune diseases that result from dysregulatory processes, rather than invasion of foreign cells or toxins, generally requires ongoing therapy indefinitely. Patients who have organ damage or functional disability may be described as "in remission," although they are free of disease activity only, but not necessarily free of disease consequences. A status of "low disease activity" or "near remission" with 70% to 90% of the features of an ideal remission may be adequate for many people with rheumatic diseases to avoid risks that may be required to reach 100% remission status. Thus, the subject of remission remains under active discussion in the rheumatology community.

An index of patient reported outcomes (PRO-Index) discriminates effectively between active and control treatment in 4 clinical trials of adalimumab in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To analyze 2 indices composed of the 3 patient reported outcomes (PRO) in the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Core Data Set--physical function, pain, and global estimate--without joint count or laboratory data, for capacities to distinguish active from control treatments in 4 pivotal clinical trials.

METHODS

Data from 4 clinical trials involving adalimumab, in combination with methotrexate or other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) or as monotherapy, versus control treatment were made available to analyze properties of various indices. A categorical PRO-Index M was defined as "majority" improvement in 2 of the 3 PRO measures at 20%, 50%, and 70% levels; results were evaluated to analyze agreement with ACR20, ACR50, ACR70 responses and an "all Core Data Set measures" index based on 4 of the 7 measures having such levels of improvement. A continuous PRO-Index C was defined as the median or 2nd highest of 3 percentage differences from baseline to endpoint; results were evaluated to analyze agreement with a continuous ACR-N, "all Core Data Set measures" index, and Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28).

RESULTS

All indices distinguished active versus control treatment at similar levels, including PRO-Index M versus ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 responses, and PRO-Index C versus DAS28.

CONCLUSION

PRO indices based only on patient questionnaire data, without joint counts or laboratory tests, may be useful quantitative measures of therapeutic efficacy for use in standard rheumatology clinical care.

A proposed approach to recognise "near-remission" quantitatively without formal joint counts or laboratory tests: a patient self-report questionnaire routine assessment of patient index data (RAPID) score as a guide to a "continuous quality improvement" s

A proposed approach is presented to recognise a status of "near-remission" in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on the basis of patient self-report questionnaire data without formal joint counts or laboratory tests. Indices of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures distinguish active from control treatments in RA clinical trials at levels similar to American College of Rheumatology (ACR) or disease activity score (DAS) 28 improvement levels. PRO measures on a multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ) can be compiled into a routine assessment of patient index data (RAPID) score. RAPID 3 includes the three PRO measures from the ACR Core Data Set - physical function, pain, and global estimate. RAPID 4 adds a self-report joint count from a rheumatoid arthritis disease activity index (RADAI). RAPID 5 adds a physician estimate of global status. RAPID cores may be classified into four preliminary proposed categories, as "near-remission" (0-1), "low severity" (1.01-2), "moderate severity" (2.01-4), and "high severity" (> 4), analogous to the four categories of the DAS28 of "remission" (< 2.6), as well as "low" (2.6-3.19), "moderate" (3.2-5.1), and "high" (> 5.1) disease activity. RAPID scores are correlated significantly with DAS28 (rho = 0.64-0.67, p < 0.001), and about 75% of patients with DAS < 2.6 have RAPID scores < 2, while about 75% of patients with DAS > 5.1 have RAPID scores > 4. RAPID data are available on one side of one page, and are feasible to collect in standard clinical care. RAPID 3 scores may be calculated in about 10 seconds, and RAPID 4 and RAPID 5 scores in 20 to 30 seconds. RAPID scores every 3 months or more on simple flowsheets can be a basis for a "continuous quality improvement" strategy in standard clinical care to recognise a need for aggressive therapy, an inadequate response to a therapy, and "near- remission" status.

Declines in number of tender and swollen joints in patients with rheumatoid arthritis seen in standard care in 1985 versus 2001: possible considerations for revision of inclusion criteria for clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To analyse tender and swollen joint counts in three cohorts of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with a focus on the proportions of patients who had fewer than 6-12 tender or swollen joints, as possible evidence based information toward more generalisable inclusion criteria for current and future RA clinical trials.

METHODS

Tender and swollen joint counts were analysed in three cohorts of patients with RA: 125 in 1985, 138 in 2000, and 232 with early RA in 2001.

RESULTS

The median numbers of tender joints were 11, 2, and 4 in 1985, 2000, and in early RA in 2001, respectively. The median numbers of swollen joints were 12, 6, and 5 in 1985, 2000, and 2001, respectively. The numbers of tender joints among 28 assessed were >or=12, >or=6, >or=4, and >or=3 in 47%, 80%, 85%, and 90% of patients in 1985; 20%, 37%, 44%, and 49% in 2000; and 17%, 37%, 50%, and 58% in early RA in 2001. The numbers of swollen joints among 28 assessed were >or=12, >or=6, >or=4, and >or=3 in 51%, 78%, 86%, and 90% of patients in 1985; 20%, 50%, 64%, and 67% in 2000; and 14%, 46%, 58%, and 72% in 2001. The number of patients with >or=6 tender or swollen joints in 1985 was greater than the number with >or=3 joints in 2000 and in early RA in 2001.

CONCLUSION

Contemporary cohorts of patients seen in standard care have smaller numbers of tender and swollen joints than in previous times. These findings suggest that revision of inclusion criteria for numbers of tender and swollen joints in contemporary RA clinical trials might improve generalisability.

Work disability in early rheumatoid arthritis: higher rates but better clinical status in Finland compared with the US

OBJECTIVE

To analyse and compare work disability attributed to rheumatoid arthritis in two cohorts of patients with early disease: one in the US and the other in Finland.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Two cohorts of patients who were working and aged <65 years at the time of their first symptom of rheumatoid arthritis were studied: 269 patients in Nashville, TN, USA (median age 46 years, 72.5% females), and 364 patients from Jyväskylä, Finland, (median age 47.1 years, 70.9% females). The cohorts were analysed and compared for measures of clinical status and work disability status over a median (interquartile range) of 38.9 months in Nashville and 48.4 months in Jyväskylä.

RESULTS

The probability of working at 36 months was 0.89 (0.84-0.92) for patients from Nashville and 0.84 (0.80-0.88) for patients from Jyväskylä (p = 0.02). These rates were lower than in earlier decades. Patients from Jyväskylä had significantly higher rates of work disability (p = 0.02) than those from Nashville, but better scores for self-report physical function (p<0.001), pain (p<0.001) and global status (p<0.001) at last observation. The likelihood of being disabled from work was 2.6-fold higher in Jyväskylä compared to Nashville (95% confidence interval 1.44 to 4.59, p = 0.001), after adjustment for demographic and disease-specific variables.

CONCLUSION

Rates of work disability in both early rheumatoid arthritis cohorts were improved from earlier decades, but differed significantly in two different social systems. Higher work disability rates with better clinical status was seen in the Finnish early rheumatoid arthritis cohort than in the US cohort.

Are American College of Rheumatology 50% response criteria superior to 20% criteria in distinguishing active aggressive treatment in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials reported since 1997? A meta-analysis of discriminant capacities

OBJECTIVE

To carry out a meta-analysis designed to compare the discriminant capacities of American College of Rheumatology 50% (ACR50) with 20% (ACR20) responses in clinical trials on rheumatoid arthritis reported after 1997 and to analyse whether ACR50 can be as informative as ACR20 in distinguishing active from control treatments in more recent trials.

METHODS

Clinical trials on rheumatoid arthritis reported since 1997 were identified, which included aggressive combinations of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and glucocorticoids, as well as powerful new agents-leflunomide, etanercept, infliximab, anakinra, adalimumab, abatacept, tacrolimus and rituximab. A meta-analysis of ACR20 compared with ACR50 responses for 21 clinical trials was carried out on differences in proportions of responders for active and control treatments and corresponding odds ratios (ORs).

RESULTS

In all but one clinical trial on rheumatoid arthritis published since 1997 with data available on ACR20 and ACR50, more than 50% of patients who were ACR20 responders among those randomised to active treatment were also ACR50 responders. This phenomenon was seen for control groups in 38% of trials, many of which included treatment with methotrexate. A meta-analysis of the clinical trials indicated a slight advantage to ACR50 for quantifying treatment comparisons, not significant for differences in proportions but significant for ORs.

CONCLUSION

ACR20 and ACR50 seem to be similar in distinguishing active from control treatments in clinical trials on rheumatoid arthritis reported since 1997. As ACR50 represents a considerably stronger clinical response, ACR50 may be a preferred end point for contemporary clinical trials on rheumatoid arthritis.

Utility of the Framingham risk score to predict the presence of coronary atherosclerosis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

The prevalence of ischemic heart disease and atherosclerosis is increased in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In the general population, but not in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, the Framingham risk score identifies patients at increased cardiovascular risk and helps determine the need for preventive interventions. We examined the hypothesis that the Framingham score is increased and associated with coronary-artery atherosclerosis in patients with RA. The Framingham score and the 10-year cardiovascular risk were compared among 155 patients with RA (89 with early disease, 66 with long-standing disease) and 85 control subjects. The presence of coronary-artery calcification was determined by electron-beam computed tomography. The Framingham score was compared in patients with RA and control subjects, and the association between the risk score and coronary-artery calcification was examined in patients. Patients with long-standing RA had a higher Framingham score (14 [11 to 18]) (median [interquartile range]) compared to patients with early RA (11 [8 to 14]) or control subjects (12 [7 to 14], P < 0.001). This remained significant after adjustment for age and gender (P = 0.015). Seventy-six patients with RA had coronary calcification; their Framingham risk score was higher (14 [12 to 17]) than that of 79 patients without calcification (10 [5 to 14]) (P < 0.001). Furthermore, a higher Framingham score was associated with a higher calcium score (odds ratio [OR] = 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12 to 1.29, P < 0.001), and the association remained significant after adjustment for age and gender (OR = 1.15, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.29, P = 0.03). In conclusion, a higher Framingham risk score is independently associated with the presence of coronary calcification in patients with RA.

Advantages and limitations of quantitative measures to assess rheumatoid arthritis: joint counts, radiographs, laboratory tests, and patient questionnaires

Medical care is advanced by quantitative measures, all of which have advantages and limitations. No single "gold standard" measure, analogous to blood pressure, is available for diagnosis, prognosis, and management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Four types of measures have been used, including joint counts, radiographs, laboratory tests, and patient questionnaires. Joint counts are the most specific measure for RA but are poorly reproducible and not performed in most standard care. Radiographs provide an objective record of joint damage, but are scored quantitatively only in clinical research and have little prognostic value for long-term outcomes such as work disability and mortality. Laboratory tests are helpful when positive but frequently are "false negative"--for example, rheumatoid factor (RF), erythrocyte sedimentation rate, or C-reactive protein are normal in 30% to 45% of patients. "False positive" results are also seen; most people with RF or antinuclear antibody do not have a disease. Patient questionnaires are useful to assess and monitor patient status and provide the most significant predictive measures for long-term work disability and mortality. A multidimensional health assessment questionnaire is useful in all rheumatic diseases, with scoring templates and medical history information to save time for the rheumatologist and patient in standard care.

A composite disease activity scale for clinical practice, observational studies, and clinical trials: the patient activity scale (PAS/PAS-II)

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a composite patient self-report disease activity scale for use in clinical practice and in observational studies and clinical trials.

METHODS

A total of 9078 patients with rheumatoid arthritis completed detailed questionnaires that included measure of quality of life in the form of utilities. We evaluated several disease activity scales by measuring their agreement with the utility scales, and also their assessed ability to predict mortality and prescription for anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy.

RESULTS

A composite index composed of a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, a patient global VAS, and the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) or the HAQ II formed the Patient Activity Scale (PAS) and PAS-II. These scales performed as well as or better than longer, more complex scales.

CONCLUSION

A simple, useful clinical scale, the PAS or PAS-II, can be formed by the use of common clinical variables. It is well correlated with and relevant to a wide range of clinical variables. This scale should be useful for comparative studies, clinical care, and regulatory documentation.

Most visits of most patients with rheumatoid arthritis to most rheumatologists do not include a formal quantitative joint count

OBJECTIVE

To ask rheumatologists about the likelihood of performing a formal joint count at each visit of a patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in standard clinical care.

METHOD

Direct query of rheumatologists at an international meeting of about 600 rheumatologists from 17 European countries.

RESULTS

Overall, 14% of rheumatologists reported performing a formal joint count at each visit of each patient, and 44% of rheumatologists reported performing a formal joint count at more than 50% of visits of patients with RA. Therefore, 56% of rheumatologists reported performing a joint count at fewer than 50% of visits, including 45% at fewer than 25% of visits. One in eight rheumatologists (13%) reported never performing a formal joint count.

CONCLUSION

Although the joint count remains the most specific measure for RA, most visits of most patients with RA to most rheumatologists do not include a formal quantitative joint count.

Increased coronary-artery atherosclerosis in rheumatoid arthritis: relationship to disease duration and cardiovascular risk factors

OBJECTIVE

To compare the prevalence and severity of coronary-artery atherosclerosis in patients with early and established rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and controls.

METHODS

Electron-beam computed tomography was used to measure the extent of coronary-artery calcification in 227 subjects, of whom 70 had early RA, 71 had established RA, and 86 were controls. Coronary-artery calcification calculated according to the Agatston calcium score was compared in patients and controls, and its relationship to clinical characteristics was examined. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were obtained with the use of proportional odds logistic regression models to determine independent associations of early and established RA and coronary-artery calcification.

RESULTS

Calcium scores were higher in patients with established RA (median 40.2, interquartile range [IQR] 0-358.8) compared with those with early disease (median 0, IQR 0-42.6) and controls (median 0, IQR 0-19.2) (P = 0.001). Coronary-artery calcification occurred more frequently in patients with established RA (60.6%) than in patients with early RA (42.9%) and control subjects (38.4%) (P = 0.016) The OR for the likelihood of having more severe coronary-artery calcification (defined as an Agatston score >109) in patients with established disease was 3.42 (P = 0.002) after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors. Among patients with RA, smoking (OR 1.02, P = 0.04) and an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (OR 1.02, P = 0.05) were associated with more severe coronary-artery calcification after adjustment for age and sex.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence and severity of coronary calcification is increased in patients with established RA and is related, in part, to smoking and an increased erythrocyte sedimentation rate.

Development of a multi-dimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ) for the infrastructure of standard clinical care

The HAQ has become the pre-eminent patient questionnaire used in rheumatology. It is easily completed by patients, but not easily reviewed and scored in standard clinical care and has some minor psychometric limitations, as do all questionnaires. Modifications of the HAQ been made to facilitate use in standard care, particularly to include 8-10 activities of daily living, along with scores for pain and global status and other information on one side of one page for rapid review by the clinician. A patient questionnaire for standard care should be limited to 2 sides of 1 page, in a format amenable to "eyeball" review by the clinician in 5 seconds or less. It can be scored formally in 15-20 seconds or less, and is useful in patients with all rheumatic diseases. The current version of a multi-dimensional HAQ (MDHAQ) includes scoring templates on the questionnaire to allow formal scoring in less than 15 seconds by a rheumatologist or an assistant, for possible entry onto a paper and/or computerized flow sheet. Various versions of the MDHAQ may also include a "constant" region of physical function, pain and patient global status, and "variable" regions of fatigue, morning stiffness, psychological distress, change in status, a review of systems, a rheumatoid arthritis disease activity self-report joint count (RADAI), review of recent health events, and review of medications. The MDHAQ can be used in the infrastructure of rheumatology care to include quantitative data in standard care of all patients with all rheumatic diseases.

An Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment Evaluation Registry (ERATER) in the United States

An Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment Evaluation Registry (ERATER) was established in 2001 to enroll patients with a disease duration of 3 years or less, in order to analyze treatment patterns in an era of biological therapies and to study the long-term outcomes of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Patients were assessed at baseline according to a standard protocol to evaluate their rheumatoid arthritis (SPERA). Similar data from earlier cohorts with RA in the same community will allow for comparisons with treatments and outcomes from previous decades. This essay describes the background regarding the identification of the cohort, methods for data collection, and observations to date.

A 3-page standard protocol to evaluate rheumatoid arthritis (SPERA): efficient capture of essential data for clinical trials and observational studies

An efficient 3-page format known as the "standard protocol to evaluate rheumatoid arthritis" (SPERA) has been developed to collect essential baseline clinical data in clinical trials and clinical research studies. The three pages address: 1) clinical features of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 2) medications taken, and 3) a 42-joint count. Two additional documents, a patient questionnaire and a radiographic scoring sheet, are included for a comprehensive database. The 15-20 minutes needed to complete the SPERA generally adds efficiency over time in standard clinical care, and does not preclude the collection of additional information for clinical care and/or clinical research. The SPERA is presented not as the most desirable format, but rather as an example of a possible approach to the development of a consensus in the rheumatology community regarding a common format for the collection of core clinical data in RA.

The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Core Data Set and derivative "patient only" indices to assess rheumatoid arthritis

Pooled indices of several measures have been developed to assess and monitor patients with rheumatoid arthritis in clinical trials and clinical care, as no single measure can serve as a "gold standard" in all individual patients. Early indices of disease activity include the Steinbrocker "therapeutic scorecard in rheumatoid arthritis," the Lansbury Index, and Paulus criteria. The most widely used indices at this time are the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Core Data Set and disease activity score (DAS). A simplified disease activity index (SDAI) and clinical disease activity index (CDAI) are derived from the DAS. The ACR Core Data Set includes 7 measures--swollen joint count, tender joint count, patient assessment of global status, an acute phase reactant [erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) or C-reactive protein (CRP)], health professional assessment of global status, physical function, and pain; the first four of these measures are included on the DAS. Improvement criteria for the ACR Core Data Set are based on improvement of at least 20% in both tender and swollen joint counts, and three of the five additional measures (ACR 20), and corresponding "ACR 50," and "ACR 70." A pooled index which includes only the three patient self-report questionnaire measures from the Core Data Set, physical function, pain, and patient assessment of global status performs as well as ACR 20 or DAS to discriminate between efficacy of active versus placebo treatment in a clinical trial.

Rheumatology function tests: quantitative physical measures to monitor morbidity and predict mortality in patients with rheumatic diseases

Physical measures of functional status, including grip strength, walking time and button test, had been used in rheumatology clinical trials for many years, but have been supplanted in recent years by patient questionnaires. While patient questionnaire measures involve minimum professional time and have greater predictive value than physical measures for severe long-term outcomes of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), physical measures bypass socio-cultural differences which may be seen in use of patient questionnaires. Inter-observer and intra-observer reliabilities of these physical measures were excellent when administered according to a standard protocol for instructions. Physical measures of function also were significant predictors of mortality in two cohorts of patients with RA, one monitored between 1973 and 1988, and a second between 1985 and 1990.

Complexities in the quantitative assessment of patients with rheumatic diseases in clinical trials and clinical care

Quantitative measurement has led to major advances in the diagnosis, prognosis and management of chronic diseases. Quantitative measures in rheumatic diseases differ from measures in many chronic diseases in several respects. There is no single "gold standard," such as blood pressure or cholesterol, in the diagnosis, management, and prognosis of any rheumatic disease. Laboratory tests are limited; for example, in rheumatoid arthritis > 40% of patients or more have a normal erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Formal joint counts have poor reliability and are not performed at most visits of most patients. Radiographs are rarely read quantitatively, except in formal clinical trials. The optimal quantitative measures to monitor status and assess long-term prognosis are often derived from patient self-report questionnaires. Quantitative measures may reflect disease activity, e.g., swollen joint counts or C-reactive protein (CRP), long-term damage, e.g., radiographic damage, or poor outcomes, e.g., work disability and premature death. Disease activity measures used in clinical trials are primarily surrogates for long-term outcomes. As there is no single "gold standard" measure, indices of multiple measures are used in patient assessment. Indices used in rheumatoid arthritis assess primarily disease activity, but separate indices have been developed to assess disease activity versus damage in patients with ankylosing spondylitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and vasculitis.

Quantitative joint assessment in rheumatoid arthritis

A count of swollen and tender joints is the most specific quantitative clinical measure to assess and monitor the status of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Many methods have been described to quantitate joint abnormalities, including scoring various numbers of joints (with or without grading of abnormality) for different types of abnormalities, including swelling, tenderness, pain on motion, limited motion, and deformity. This article reviews selected methods for the performance of joint counts, with discussion of their advantages and limitations in the assessment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.