Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire as an Effective Tool to Screen for Depression in Routine Rheumatology Care

PROMIS-29 in rheumatoid arthritis patients who screen positive or negative for fibromyalgia on MDHAQ FAST4 (fibromyalgia assessment screening tool) or 2011 fibromyalgia criteria

BACKGROUND

PROMIS-29 T-scores query health-related quality of life (HRQL) in 7 domains, physical function, pain, fatigue, anxiety, depression, sleep quality, and social participation, to establish population norms. An MDHAQ (multidimensional health assessment questionnaire) scores these 7 domains and includes medical information such as a FAST4 (fibromyalgia assessment screening tool) index. We analyzed PROMIS-29 T-scores in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients vs population norms and for positive vs negative fibromyalgia (FM) screens and compared PROMIS-29 T-scores to MDHAQ scores to assess HRQL.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was performed at one routine visit of 213 RA patients, who completed MDHAQ, PROMIS-29, and reference 2011 FM Criteria. PROMIS-29 T-scores were compared in RA vs population norms and in FM+ vs FM- RA patients, based on MDHAQ/FAST4 and reference criteria. Possible associations between PROMIS-29 T-scores and corresponding MDHAQ scores were analyzed using Spearman correlations and multiple regressions.

RESULTS

Median PROMIS-29 T-scores indicated clinically and statistically significantly poorer status in 26-29% FM+ vs FM- RA patients, with larger differences than in RA patients vs population norms for 6/7 domains. MDHAQ scores were correlated significantly with each of 7 corresponding PROMIS-29 domains (|rho|≥0.62, p<0.001). Linear regressions explained 55-73% of PROMIS-29 T-score variation by MDHAQ scores and 56%-70% of MDHAQ score variation by PROMIS-29 T-scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Scores for 7 PROMIS-29 domains and MDHAQ were highly correlated. The MDHAQ is effective to assess HRQL and offers incremental medical information, including FAST4 screening. The results indicate the importance of assessing comorbidities such as fibromyalgia screening in interpreting PROMIS-29 T-scores.

Physician estimate of inflammation vs global assessment in explaining variations in swollen joint counts in rheumatoid arthritis patients

Objective

To analyse patients with RA for inflammatory activity by physician estimate of global assessment (DOCGL) vs an estimate of inflammatory activity (DOCINF) to explain variation in the swollen joint count (SJC).

Methods

Patients with RA were studied at routine care visits. Patients completed a multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ) and the physician completed a 28-joint count for swollen (SJC), tender (TJC) and deformed (DJC) joints and a RheuMetric checklist with a 0-10 DOCGL visual numeric scale (VNS) and 0-10 VNS estimates of inflammation (DOCINF), damage (DOCDAM) and patient distress (DOCSTR). The disease activity score in 28 joints with ESR (DAS28-ESR), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) were calculated. Individual scores and RA indices were compared according to Spearman correlation coefficients and regression analyses.

Results

A total of 104 unselected patients were included, with a median age and disease duration of 54.5 and 5 years, respectively. The median DAS28-ESR was 2.9 (Q1-Q3: 2.0-3.7), indicating low activity. DOCINF was correlated significantly with DOCGL (ρ = 0.775). Both DOCGL and DOCINF were correlated significantly with most other measures; correlations with DOCGL were generally higher than with DOCINF other than for SJC. In regression analyses, DOCINF was more explanatory of variation in SJC than DOCGL and other DAS28-ESR components.

Conclusions

Variation in SJC is explained more by a 0-10 DOCINF VNS than the traditional DOCGL or any other measure in RA patients seen in routine care. DOCINF on a RheuMetric checklist can provide informative quantitative scores concerning inflammatory activity in RA patients monitored over long periods.

Screening for Anxiety in Patients With Inflammatory Arthritis Using the Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ) in screening for anxiety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), compared to the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) as the reference standard.

METHODS

Patients with a physician diagnosis of RA or PsA were invited to complete the MDHAQ and HADS at their routine rheumatology clinic visit. Sensitivity, specificity, percent agreement, and [Formula: see text] statistics were used to evaluate agreement between 2 MDHAQ items for anxiety and HADS subscale for Anxiety (HADS-A) score of ≥ 8. The first item is a question asked on a 4-point scale (0-3.3), and the second is a yes or no (blank) question asked within a 60-item review of symptoms (ROS) checklist.

RESULTS

The study included 183 participants, of whom 126 (68.9%) had RA and 57 (31.1%) had PsA. The mean age was 57.3 years and 66.7% were female. Positive screening for anxiety according to a HADS-A score of ≥ 8 was seen in 39.3% of patients. Compared to those with a HADS-A score of ≥ 8, patients with an MDHAQ score of ≥ 2.2 or a positive on ROS had a sensitivity of 69.9%, specificity of 73.6% and substantial agreement (agreement 80.9%, [Formula: see text] 0.59).

CONCLUSION

The MDHAQ provides information similar to the HADS in screening for anxiety in patients with RA and PsA. The use of this single questionnaire, which can also be used to monitor clinical status and to screen for fibromyalgia and depression without requiring multiple questionnaires, may prove a valuable tool in routine clinical practice.

RheuMetric Quantitative 0 to 10 Physician Estimates of Inflammation, Damage, and Distress in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Validation Against Reference Measures

OBJECTIVE

To analyze a RheuMetric checklist, which includes four feasible physician 0 to 10 scores for DOCGL, inflammation (DOCINF), damage (DOCDAM), and distress (DOCSTR) for criterion and discriminant validity against standard reference measures.

METHODS

A prospective, cross-sectional assessment was performed at one routine care visit at Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, Australia. Rheumatologists recorded DOCGL, DOCINF, DOCDAM, DOCSTR, and 28 joint counts for swelling (SJC), tenderness (TJC), and limited motion/deformity (DJC). Patients completed a multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ), which includes routine assessment of patient index data (RAPID3), fibromyalgia assessment screening tool (FAST4), and MDHAQ depression screen (MDS2). Laboratory tests and radiographic scores were recorded. RheuMetric estimates of inflammation, damage, and distress were compared with reference and other measures using correlations and linear regressions.

RESULTS

In 173 patients with RA, variation in RheuMetric DOCINF was explained significantly by SJC and inversely by disease duration; variation in DOCDAM was explained significantly by DJC, radiographic scores, and physical function; and variation in DOCSTR was explained significantly by fibromyalgia and depression.

CONCLUSION

RheuMetric DOCINF, DOCDAM, and DOCSTR estimates were correlated significantly and specifically with reference measures of inflammation, damage, and distress, documenting criterion and discriminant validity.

Researchers in rheumatology should avoid categorization of continuous predictor variables

BACKGROUND

Rheumatology researchers often categorize continuous predictor variables. We aimed to show how this practice may alter results from observational studies in rheumatology.

METHODS

We conducted and compared the results of two analyses of the association between our predictor variable (percentage change in body mass index [BMI] from baseline to four years) and two outcome variable domains of structure and pain in knee and hip osteoarthritis. These two outcome variable domains covered 26 different outcomes for knee and hip combined. In the first analysis (categorical analysis), percentage change in BMI was categorized as ≥ 5% decrease in BMI, < 5% change in BMI, and ≥ 5% increase in BMI, while in the second analysis (continuous analysis), it was left as a continuous variable. In both analyses (categorical and continuous), we used generalized estimating equations with a logistic link function to investigate the association between the percentage change in BMI and the outcomes.

RESULTS

For eight of the 26 investigated outcomes (31%), the results from the categorical analyses were different from the results from the continuous analyses. These differences were of three types: 1) for six of these eight outcomes, while the continuous analyses revealed associations in both directions (i.e., a decrease in BMI had one effect, while an increase in BMI had the opposite effect), the categorical analyses showed associations only in one direction of BMI change, not both; 2) for another one of these eight outcomes, the categorical analyses suggested an association with change in BMI, while this association was not shown in the continuous analyses (this is potentially a false positive association); 3) for the last of the eight outcomes, the continuous analyses suggested an association of change in BMI, while this association was not shown in the categorical analyses (this is potentially a false negative association).

CONCLUSIONS

Categorization of continuous predictor variables alters the results of analyses and could lead to different conclusions; therefore, researchers in rheumatology should avoid it.

Patient global assessment is elevated by up to 5 of 10 units in patients with inflammatory arthritis who screen positive for fibromyalgia (by FAST4) and/or depression (by MDS2) on a single MDHAQ

BACKGROUND

Patient global assessment (PATGL) is a component of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis (SpA) activity indices, reflecting inflammation in selected clinical trial patients. In routine care, PATGL often may be elevated independently of inflammatory activity by fibromyalgia (FM) and/or depression, leading to complexities in interpretation. A feasible method to screen for FM and/or depression could help to clarify interpretation of high PATGL and index scores, including explanation of apparent limited responses to anti-inflammatory therapies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with RA or SpA in routine care in Barcelona, Chicago, and Sydney complete a 2-page multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ) in 5-10 min. The MDHAQ includes PATGL and three indices, RAPID3 (routine assessment of patient index data) to assess clinical status, FAST4 (0-4 fibromyalgia assessment screening tool) and MDS2 (0-2 MDHAQ depression screen). PATGL was compared for each diagnosis at each site and pooled data in FAST4 positive (+) vs negative (-) and/or MDS2+ vs MDS2- patients using medians and median regressions.

RESULTS

Median PATGL was 5.0 in 393 RA and 175 SpA patients; 2.0-3.0 in 305 (58.9%) FAST4-,MDS2- patients, 5.5-6.0 in 71 (13.7%) FAST4-,MDS2+ patients, 7.0-7.5 in 50 (9.7%) FAST4+,MDS2- patients, and 7.0-8.0 in 92 (17.8%) FAST4+,MDS2+ patients. Positive FAST4 and/or MDS2 screens were seen in 41% of patients. Results were similar in RA and SpA at 3 settings on 3 continents.

CONCLUSION

Median 0-10 PATGL varied from 2-3/10 to 5.5-8/10, according to negative vs positive screening for FM and/or depression on a single MDHAQ for busy clinical settings.

Should Quantitative Measures and Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis Include More Than Control of Inflammatory Activity?

We agree strongly with Kremer et al that "metrics are essential for evaluating disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)."¹ Nonetheless, data reported from the Corrona and the Brigham and Women's Rheumatoid Arthritis Sequential Study (BRASS) registries for Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) are quite similar to those reported in the initial 2008 RAPID3 report.².

A Self-Report Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ) for Face-To-Face or Telemedicine Encounters to Assess Clinical Severity (RAPID3) and Screen for Fibromyalgia (FAST) and Depression (DEP)

Purpose of Review

To update the clinical value of a patient self-report multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ).

Recent Findings

The MDHAQ includes 10 individual quantitative scores for physical function, pain, patient global assessment, fatigue, sleep, anxiety, depression, morning stiffness, change in status, and exercise status, and 5 indices, RAPID3 (routine assessment of patient index data) to assess clinical status in all diseases studied, FAST3 (fibromyalgia assessment screening tool) and MDHAQ-Dep (depression) to screen for fibromyalgia and/or depression, RADAI self-report of specific painful joints and joint count, and a symptom checklist for review of systems, and recognition of flares and medication adverse events. The MDHAQ also uniquely queries traditional “medical” information concerning comorbidities, falls, trauma, new symptoms, illnesses, surgeries, hospitalizations, emergencies, medication changes, and medication side effects. Three MDHAQ versions include long for new patients, short for new and return patients, and telemedicine. An electronic MDHAQ (eMDHAQ) has been developed with software that can interface with any electronic medical record (EMR) through the HL7 FHIR standard. However, EMR collaboration and implementation have proven difficult.

Summary

An MDHAQ provides a quantitative overview of patient status with far more information and documentation than an interview, involving minimal extra work for the physician.