Current Rheumatology Reports

, 15:370

Outcome Assessments in Rheumatoid Arthritis

  • Katarzyna Gilek-Seibert
  • Kara Prescott
  • Salahuddin Kazi
RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (LW MORELAND, SECTION EDITOR)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Rheumatoid Arthritis

Abstract

Increasing evidence suggests low disease activity or remission is achievable in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Using a treat to target strategy (T2T) has been shown to achieve these targets of remission or low disease activity in RA. In order to successfully treat to target, rheumatologists need reliable measures of disease activity to switch and/or escalate therapy to achieve or maintain therapeutic targets. Multiple disease-activity measures have been developed for both research and clinical practice. For clinical practice, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) has recommended the PAS, PAS II, RAPID 3, CDAI, DAS 28, and SDAI for measuring disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis. Each of these measures has strengths and limitations, but they all accurately reflect disease activity, discriminate well between disease states, and are feasible to perform in the clinical setting. Implementation in the clinical setting can be optimized through leveraging technology and systems redesign. Tools such as web-based and smartphone applications have been developed to increase the ease with which these measures can be deployed. Disease-activity measurement in rheumatoid arthritis is included in the rheumatoid arthritis quality measures group in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ incentive-based Physician Quality Reporting System.

Keywords

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) Disease activity measures Outcomes Treat to target strategy Patient-reported outcomes ACR American College of Rheumatology EULAR European league against Rheumatism Guidelines RAPID 3 PAS PAS II DAS DAS 28 SDAI CDAI Medical apps 

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Firestein G. “Kelly’s textbook of rheumatology” chapter 66 and 67 Clinical features of rheumatoid arthritis and treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. 2009;1087–1139.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    • Felson DT et al. American College of Rheumatology/European League against Rheumatism provisional definition of remission in rheumatoid arthritis for clinical trials. Arthritis Rheum. 2011;63(3):573–86. The most current definition of remission in rheumatoid arthritis is described as a collaborative effort between both the ACR and EULAR.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    •• Singh JA et al. 2012 update of the 2008 American College of Rheumatology recommendations for the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012;64(5):625–39. An ACR update of the pharmocotherapy used to treat RA and pertinent treatment algorithms.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    • Smolen JS et al. Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: recommendations of an international task force. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69(4):631–7. Evidence-based recommendations for a treat to target strategy.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grigor C et al. Effect of a treatment strategy of tight control for rheumatoid arthritis (the TICORA study): a single-blind randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;364(9430):263–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goekoop-Ruiterman YP et al. DAS-driven therapy versus routine care in patients with recent-onset active rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69(1):65–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Curtis JR et al. Predicting low disease activity and remission using early treatment response to antitumour necrosis factor therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: exploratory analyses from the TEMPO trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71(2):206–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    •• Anderson J et al. Rheumatoid arthritis disease activity measures: American College of Rheumatology recommendations for use in clinical practice. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012;64(5):640–7. A description of the six disease-activity tools endorsed by the ACR.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Henkel G. Rheumatology’s divergent thinkers: OMERACT Selects Outcome Measures with an Egalitarian Process. The Rheumatologist. 2008;2008:20–1.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Outcome measures in rheumatology http://www.omeract.org/index.html.
  11. 11.
    Lansbury J. Quantitation of the activity of rheumatoid arthritis. 5. A method for summation of the systemic indices of rheumatoid activity. Am J Med Sci. 1956;232(3):300–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boers M et al. Randomised comparison of combined step-down prednisolone, methotrexate and sulphasalazine with sulphasalazine alone in early rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet. 1997;350(9074):309–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Verhoeven AC et al. Responsiveness of the core set, response criteria, and utilities in early rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2000;59(12):966–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Felson DT et al. The American College of Rheumatology preliminary core set of disease activity measures for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. The Committee on Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials. Arthritis Rheum. 1993;36(6):729–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    PROMIS instruments http://www.nihpromis.org.
  16. 16.
    Curtis J. “How much patient reported outcomes improve among rheumatoid arthritis patients who have a clinical response to biologic therapy but have not attained low disease activity.” 2012. [Abstract #2101] Presented at ACR Annual Meeting, Washington DC, USA November 10–14, 2012.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Basch E “Toward patient-centered drug development in oncology.” N Eng J Med. 2013 Jul 3Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bruce B, Fries JF. The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005;23(5 Suppl 39):S14–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kazi S. ’Early experience with the ACR Clinical Registry (RCR). Arthritis Rheum. 2010;62 Suppl 10:993.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    •• Anderson JK et al. Measures of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity: Patient (PtGA) and Provider (PrGA) Global Assessment of Disease Activity, Disease Activity Score (DAS) and Disease Activity Score with 28-Joint Counts (DAS28), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Patient Activity Score (PAS) and Patient Activity Score-II (PASII), Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID), Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index (RADAI) and Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index-5 (RADAI-5), Chronic Arthritis Systemic Index (CASI), Patient-Based Disease Activity Score With ESR (PDAS1) and Patient-Based Disease Activity Score without ESR (PDAS2), and Mean Overall Index for Rheumatoid Arthritis (MOI-RA). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63 Suppl 11:S14–36. The most consolidated, evidence-based and ACR expert-reviewed description of each disease activity tool available until 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Inoue E et al. Comparison of Disease Activity Score (DAS)28- erythrocyte sedimentation rate and DAS28- C-reactive protein threshold values. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66(3):407–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Landewe R et al. Twenty-eight-joint counts invalidate the DAS28 remission definition owing to the omission of the lower extremity joints: a comparison with the original DAS remission. Ann Rheum Dis. 2006;65(5):637–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Smolen JS et al. A simplified disease activity index for rheumatoid arthritis for use in clinical practice. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2003;42(2):244–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Aletaha D, Smolen JS. Remission of rheumatoid arthritis: should we care about definitions? Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2006;24(6 Suppl 43):S-45–51.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Balsa A et al. Superiority of SDAI over DAS-28 in assessment of remission in rheumatoid arthritis patients using power Doppler ultrasonography as a gold standard. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2010;49(4):683–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Aletaha D et al. Acute phase reactants add little to composite disease activity indices for rheumatoid arthritis: validation of a clinical activity score. Arthritis Res Ther. 2005;7(4):R796–806.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Parekh K, Taylor WJ. The patient activity scale-II is a generic indicator of active disease in patients with rheumatic disorders. J Rheumatol. 2010;37(9):1932–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Felson DT et al. The American College of Rheumatology preliminary core set of disease activity measures for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. The Committee on Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials. Arthritis Rheum. 1993;36(6):729–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wolfe F et al. A composite disease activity scale for clinical practice, observational studies, and clinical trials: the patient activity scale (PAS/PAS-II). J Rheumatol. 2005;32(12):2410–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pincus T et al. RAPID3 (Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3), a rheumatoid arthritis index without formal joint counts for routine care: proposed severity categories compared to disease activity score and clinical disease activity index categories. J Rheumatol. 2008;35(11):2136–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Callahan LF et al. Self-report questionnaires in five rheumatic diseases: comparisons of health status constructs and associations with formal education level. Arthritis Care Res. 1989;2(4):122–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yazdany J et al. Choosing wisely: the American College of Rheumatology's Top 5 list of things physicians and patients should question. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2013;65(3):329–39.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sobo EJ et al. Behind the scenes in health care improvement: the complex structures and emergent strategies of Implementation Science. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(10):1530–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Robbins J et al. How high-performance work systems drive health care value: an examination of leading process improvement strategies. Qual Manag Health Care. 2012;21(3):188–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Collins T. “Tech Talk: apps put more rheumatology information at fingertips” The Rheumatologist. 2012. June.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pincus T. “The Science of MDHAQ/RAPID3 Scores. Do patient self-reports provide valid data for evidence-based care in rheumatology practice?” The Rheumatologist. 2011. Dec.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katarzyna Gilek-Seibert
    • 1
  • Kara Prescott
    • 1
  • Salahuddin Kazi
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Rheumatic DiseasesUT Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations