Determining the Minimally Important Difference in the Clinical Disease Activity Index for Improvement and Worsening in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients

Arthritis Care and Research

Volumn 67, Issue 10, 2015, Pages 1345-1353

  Curtis, J R ^a   Yang, S ^a   Chen, L ^a   Pope, J E ^b   Keystone, E C ^c   Haraoui, B ^d   Boire, G ^e   Thorne, J C ^f   Tin, D ^f   Hitchon, C A ^g   Bingham, C O ^h   Bykerk, V P ⁱ  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

^b ST JOSEPH S HEALTH CENTRE   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d CENTRE HOSPITALIER DE L UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^e CENTRE HOSPITALIER UNIVERSITAIRE DE SHERBROOKE   (Canada)

^f SOUTHLAKE REGIONAL HEALTH CENTRE   (Canada)

^g UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA   (Canada)

^h JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

ⁱ HOSPITAL FOR SPECIAL SURGERY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

METHOTREXATE; ANTIRHEUMATIC AGENT;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANADA; CLINICAL DISEASE ACTIVITY INDEX; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DAS28; DISEASE ACTIVITY; DISEASE DURATION; DISEASE EXACERBATION; ERYTHROCYTE SEDIMENTATION RATE; FEMALE; GOLD STANDARD; HEALTH ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PREDICTIVE VALUE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS; SELF REPORT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VALIDATION PROCESS; AGE; AGED; ARTHRITIS, RHEUMATOID; DISABILITY; DISEASE COURSE; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; EVALUATION STUDY; FACTUAL DATABASE; JOINT CHARACTERISTICS AND FUNCTIONS; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROGNOSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SEX DIFFERENCE; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; ANTIRHEUMATIC AGENTS; ARTHRITIS, RHEUMATOID; CANADA; COHORT STUDIES; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DISABILITY EVALUATION; DISEASE PROGRESSION; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; PROGNOSIS; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROC CURVE; SELF REPORT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SEX FACTORS; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84942091352     PISSN: 2151464X     EISSN: 21514658     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acr.22606     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Smolen JS, Landewe R, Breedveld FC, Buch M, Burmester G, Dougados M, et al., EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2013 update. Ann Rheum Dis 2014; 73: 492-509.
2. Singh JA, Furst DE, Bharat A, Curtis JR, Kavanaugh AF, Kremer JM, 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: 625-39.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Van der Heijde D, Keystone EC, Curtis JR, Landewe RB, Schiff MH, Khanna D, et al., Timing and magnitude of initial change in disease activity score 28 predicts the likelihood of achieving low disease activity at 1 year in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with certolizumab pegol: a post-hoc analysis of the RAPID 1 trial. J Rheumatol 2012; 39: 1326-33.
6. Uhlig T, Kvien TK, Pincus T., Test-retest reliability of disease activity core set measures and indices in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2009; 68: 972-5.
7. Aletaha D, Nell VP, Stamm T, Uffmann M, Pflugbeil S, Machold K, 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: R796-806.
8. Aletaha D, Martinez-Avila J, Kvien TK, Smolen JS., Definition of treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis based on the simplified and the clinical disease activity index. Ann Rheum Dis 2012; 71: 1190-6.
9. Alten R, Pohl C, Choy EH, Christensen R, Furst DE, Hewlett SE, et al., Developing a construct to evaluate flares in rheumatoid arthritis: a conceptual report of the OMERACT RA Flare Definition Working Group. J Rheumatol 2011; 38: 1745-50.
10. Bingham CO III, Pohl C, Woodworth TG, Hewlett SE, May JE, Rahman MU, et al., Developing a standardized definition for disease "flare" in rheumatoid arthritis (OMERACT 9 Special Interest Group). J Rheumatol 2009; 36: 2335-41.
11. Bykerk VP, Jamal S, Boire G, Hitchon CA, Haraoui B, Pope JE, et al., The Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH): patients with new-onset synovitis meeting the 2010 ACR/EULAR classification criteria but not the 1987 ACR classification criteria present with less severe disease activity. J Rheumatol 2012; 39: 2071-80.
12. Lee YC, Lu B, Boire G, Haraoui BP, Hitchon CA, Pope JE, et al., Incidence and predictors of secondary fibromyalgia in an early arthritis cohort. Ann Rheum Dis 2013; 72: 949-54.
13. Youden W., Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 1950; 3: 32-5.
14. Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G, Falissard B, Logeart I, Bellamy N, et al., Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement. Ann Rheum Dis 2005; 64: 29-33.
15. Wells GA, Tugwell P, Kraag GR, Baker PR, Groh J, Redelmeier DA., Minimum important difference between patients with rheumatoid arthritis: the patient's perspective. J Rheumatol 1993; 20: 557-60.
16. Greenwood MC, Doyle DV, Ensor M., Does the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire have potential as a monitoring tool for subjects with rheumatoid arthritis? Ann Rheum Dis 2001; 60: 344-8.
17. Bruce B, Fries JF., The Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire: a review of its history, issues, progress, and documentation. J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 167-78.
18. Van Gestel AM, Haagsma CJ, van Riel PL., Validation of rheumatoid arthritis improvement criteria that include simplified joint counts. Arthritis Rheum 1998; 41: 1845-50.
19. Moreland LW, O'Dell JR, Paulus HE, Curtis JR, Bathon JM, St Clair EW, et al., A randomized comparative effectiveness study of oral triple therapy versus etanercept plus methotrexate in early aggressive rheumatoid arthritis: the treatment of Early Aggressive Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial. Arthritis Rheum 2012; 64: 2824-35.
20. McNeil BJ, Hanley JA., Statistical approaches to the analysis of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Med Decis Making 1984; 4: 137-50.
21. Aletaha D, Funovits J, Ward MM, Smolen JS, Kvien TK., Perception of improvement in patients with rheumatoid arthritis varies with disease activity levels at baseline. Arthritis Rheum 2009; 61: 313-20.
22. Zhang J, Shan Y, Reed G, Kremer J, Greenberg JD, Baumgartner S, et al., Thresholds in disease activity for switching biologics in rheumatoid arthritis patients: experience from a large US cohort. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011; 63: 1672-9.
23. Greenberg JD, Harrold LR, Bentley MJ, Kremer J, Reed G, Strand V., Evaluation of composite measures of treatment response without acute-phase reactants in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2009; 48: 686-90.
24. Ranganath VK, Yoon J, Khanna D, Park GS, Furst DE, Elashoff DA, et al., Comparison of composite measures of disease activity in an early seropositive rheumatoid arthritis cohort. Ann Rheum Dis 2007; 66: 1633-40.
25. Wells G, Beaton D, Shea B, Boers M, Simon L, Strand V, et al., Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol 2001; 28: 406-12.
26. 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.
27. Colangelo KJ, Pope JE, Peschken C., The minimally important difference for patient reported outcomes in systemic lupus erythematosus including the HAQ-DI, pain, fatigue, and SF-36. J Rheumatol 2009; 36: 2231-7.
28. Wheaton L, Pope J., The minimally important difference for patient-reported outcomes in spondyloarthropathies including pain, fatigue, sleep, and Health Assessment Questionnaire. J Rheumatol 2010; 37: 816-22.