An index of the three core data set patient questionnaire measures distinguishes efficacy of active treatment from that of placebo as effectively as the American College of Rheumatology 20% response criteria (ACR20) or the Disease Activity Score (DAS) in a rheumatoid arthritis clinical trial
Open Access
- 28 February 2003
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Wiley in Arthritis & Rheumatism
- Vol. 48 (3), 625-630
- https://doi.org/10.1002/art.10824
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the capacity of a pooled index of only the 3 patient self‐report questionnaire measures among the 7 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) core data set (Core Data Set) measures to distinguish efficacy of active treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with leflunomide or methotrexate versus placebo in a randomized, controlled clinical trial, and to compare the results with those obtained using the ACR 20% response criteria (ACR20), Disease Activity Score (DAS), and other pooled indices. Methods The 7 ACR Core Data Set measures of 1) joint swelling, 2) joint tenderness, 3) physician global assessment, 4) erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), 5) functional disability, 6) pain, and 7) patient global assessment were combined into the following 5 pooled indices: “All Core Data Set” (all 7 measures), “Assessor Only” (measures 1–3), “Assessor + ESR” (measures 1–4), “Patient Only” (measures 5–7), and “Patient + ESR” (measures 4–7). The capacity of each of these 5 indices to detect differences between active treatment and placebo treatment was compared with that of the ACR20 and the DAS using 4 different analytic methods, each of which presented advantages and limitations. Agreement of the indices with one another and with the ACR20 and the DAS was analyzed according to pairwise kappa statistics and Z scores in multivariate logistic regression models. Results Each of the 5 indices, including “Patient Only,” had a similar capacity to detect greater efficacy of leflunomide and methotrexate versus placebo in this clinical trial, according to each of 4 methods, at similar levels of statistical and clinical significance. Conclusion A pooled index of patient self‐report questionnaire Core Data Set measures appears to be as informative as ACR20 responses, DAS scores, and pooled indices of all and assessor‐derived Core Data Set measures for distinguishing between active treatment and placebo treatment in this RA clinical trial.Keywords
This publication has 13 references indexed in Scilit:
- The assessment of rheumatoid arthritis and the acceptability of self‐report questionnaires in clinical practiceArthritis Care & Research, 2003
- Clinical improvement as reflected in measures of function and health-related quality of life following treatment with leflunomide compared with methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Sensitivity and relative efficiency to detect a treatment effect in a twelve-month, placebo-controlled trialArthritis & Rheumatism, 2000
- Toward a multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ): Assessment of advanced activities of daily living and psychological status in the patient-friendly health assessment questionnaire formatArthritis & Rheumatism, 1999
- American college of rheumatology preliminary definition of improvement in rheumatoid arthritisArthritis & Rheumatism, 1995
- The American college of rheumatology preliminary core set of disease activity measures for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trialsArthritis & Rheumatism, 1993
- Sensitivity to change of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and other clinical and health status measures in rheumatoid arthritis results of short‐term clinical trials and observational studies versus long‐term observational studiesArthritis & Rheumatism, 1992
- Self-Report Questionnaire Scores in Rheumatoid Arthritis Compared with Traditional Physical, Radiographic, and Laboratory MeasuresAnnals of Internal Medicine, 1989
- Assessment of patient satisfaction in activities of daily living using a modified stanford health assessment questionnaireArthritis & Rheumatism, 1983
- Measurement of patient outcome in arthritisArthritis & Rheumatism, 1980