Rheumatoid arthritis response criteria and patient-reported improvement in arthritis activity: Is an American College of Rheumatology twenty percent response meaningful to patients?

Arthritis and Rheumatology

Volumn 66, Issue 9, 2014, Pages 2339-2343

  Ward, Michael M ^a   Guthrie, Lori C ^a   Alba, Maria I ^a  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL AND SKIN DISEASES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DISEASE MODIFYING ANTIRHEUMATIC DRUG; METHOTREXATE; PREDNISONE; TUMOR NECROSIS FACTOR ALPHA INHIBITOR; ANTIRHEUMATIC AGENT;

ADULT; AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RHEUMATOLOGY RESPONSE CRITERIA 20; AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RHEUMATOLOGY RESPONSE CRITERIA 50; AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RHEUMATOLOGY RESPONSE CRITERIA 70; ARTICLE; DISEASE ACTIVITY; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; EUROPEAN LEAGUE AGAINST RHEUMATISM RESPONSE CRITERIA; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RHEUMATIC DISEASE; RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TREATMENT RESPONSE; FOLLOW UP; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; RHEUMATOLOGY; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

ADULT; ANTIRHEUMATIC AGENTS; ARTHRITIS, RHEUMATOID; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT SATISFACTION; RHEUMATOLOGY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84907396721     PISSN: 23265191     EISSN: 23265205     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/art.38705     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Boers M, Bombardier C, Furst D, Goldsmith C, et al. American College of Rheumatology preliminary definition of improvement in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1995;38:727-35.
2. Van Gestel AM, Prevoo ML, van 't Hof MA, van Rijswijk MH, van de Putte LB, van Riel PL. 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 Rheumatism criteria. Arthritis Rheum 1996;39:34-40. (Pubitemid 26036375)
3. Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Lange ML, Wells G, LaValley MP. Should improvement in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials be defined as fifty percent or seventy percent improvement in core set measures, rather than twenty percent? Arthritis Rheum 1998;41: 1564-70. (Pubitemid 28459914)
4. American College of Rheumatology Committee to Reevaluate Improvement Criteria. A proposed revision to the ACR20: the hybrid measure of American College of Rheumatology response. Arthritis Rheum 2007;57:193-202.
5. Prevoo ML, van 't Hof MA, Kuper HH, van Leeuwen MA, van de Putte LB, van Riel PL. Modified disease activity scores that include twenty-eight-joint counts: development and validation in a prospective longitudinal study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1995;38:44-8.
6. Pincus T, Stein CM. ACR20: clinical or statistical significance? Arthritis Rheum 1999;42:1572-6.
7. Chung CP, Thompson JL, Koch GG, Amara I, Strand V, Pincus T. Are American College of Rheumatology 50% response criteria superior to 20% criteria in distinguishing active aggressive treatment in rheumatoid arthritis trials reported since 1997? A metaanalysis of discriminant capacities. Ann Rheum Dis 2006;65: 1602-7. (Pubitemid 44799672)
8. Ward MM, Guthrie LC, Alba MI. Clinically important changes in individual and composite measures of rheumatoid arthritis activity: thresholds applicable in clinical trials. Ann Rheum Dis 2014. E-pub ahead of print.
9. Arnett FC, Edworthy SM, Bloch DA, McShane DJ, Fries JF, Cooper NS, et al. The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1988;31:315-24. (Pubitemid 18091653)
10. Fries JF, Spitz PW, Kraines RG, Holman HR. Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1980;23:137-45. (Pubitemid 10164318)
11. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:407-15. (Pubitemid 20025670)
12. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61: 102-9.
13. Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Boers M, Bombardier C, Chernoff M, Fried B, et al. The American College of Rheumatology preliminary core set of disease activity measures for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. Arthritis Rheum 1993;36:729-40. (Pubitemid 23175613)
14. Ward MM. Response criteria and criteria for clinically important improvement: separate and equal? [editorial]. Arthritis Rheum 2001;44:1728-9. (Pubitemid 32758216)
15. Van Vollenhoven RF, Felson D, Strand V, Weinblatt ME, Luijtens K, Keystone EC. American College of Rheumatology hybrid analysis of certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: data from a 52-week phase III trial. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011;63:128-34. Diseases