Aspects of early arthritis. Traditional DMARD therapy: is it sufficient?

There is increasing evidence for beneficial effects of early DMARD (disease-modifying antirheumatic drug) therapy over delayed treatment in patients who present with arthritis of recent onset. However, no universal consensus exists concerning the choice of initial drug or whether single drugs or combinations should be given as initial treatments. Recent studies have focused on the benefits of various strategies in which treatments were tailored to achieve low levels of disease activity, as assessed using validated response criteria. These studies demonstrated superiority of 'aggressive' over 'conventional' approaches. Whether the inclusion of tumour necrosis factor antagonists or other biologic targeted therapies in such strategies confers additional benefits in terms of improved long-term outcomes must be clarified by further studies. Assessment of risks in the individual patient, allowing individual 'tailoring' of the initial treatment, would be desirable.

Remission and active disease in rheumatoid arthritis: defining criteria for disease activity states.

OBJECTIVE: Several composite scores are available to assess the activity of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Criteria for remission and active RA based on these continuous scores are important for use in clinical practice and clinical trials. We aimed to reevaluate or to define such criteria for the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) and the Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI). METHODS: We sampled patient profiles from an observational RA database that included clinical and laboratory variables. Thirty-five rheumatology experts classified these profiles into 1 of 4 categories: remission, low, moderate, or high disease activity. Cutoff values were estimated by mapping scores on the DAS28 and SDAI to these ratings, and analyses of agreement (kappa statistics) and a diagnostic testing approach (receiver operating characteristic curves) were used to validate the estimates. The final criteria were validated using 2 observational cohorts (a routine cohort of 767 patients and an inception cohort of 91 patients). RESULTS: Results from the 3 analyses were very similar and were integrated. The criteria for separating remission, low, moderate, and high disease activity based on the SDAI were scores of 3.3, 11, and 26, respectively; those based on the DAS28 were scores of 2.4, 3.6, 5.5, respectively. In the routine cohort, these cutoff values showed substantial agreement (weighed kappa = 0.70) and discriminated between groups of patients with clearly different functional capacities (P < 0.001). In the inception cohort, these cutoff scores differentiated responders (those with a 20% response on the American College of Rheumatology improvement criteria) from nonresponders (P < 0.01), as well as patients with and without radiologic progression (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: New criteria for levels of RA disease activity were determined and internally validated. These criteria, which are based on current and explicit expert judgment, are valuable in this era of rapidly advancing therapeutic approaches.

Acute phase reactants add little to composite disease activity indices for rheumatoid arthritis: validation of a clinical activity score.

INTRODUCTION: Frequent assessments of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity allow timely adaptation of therapy, which is essential in preventing disease progression. However, values of acute phase reactants (APRs) are needed to calculate current composite activity indices, such as the Disease Activity Score (DAS)28, the DAS28-CRP (i.e. the DAS28 using C-reactive protein instead of erythrocyte sedimentation rate) and the Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI). We hypothesized that APRs make limited contribution to the SDAI, and that an SDAI-modification eliminating APRs - termed the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI; i.e. the sum of tender and swollen joint counts [28 joints] and patient and physician global assessments [in cm]) - would have comparable validity in clinical cohorts. METHOD: Data sources comprised an observational cohort of 767 RA patients (average disease duration 8.1 +/- 10.6 years), and an independent inception cohort of 106 patients (disease duration 11.5 +/- 12.5 weeks) who were followed prospectively. RESULTS: Our clinically based hypothesis was statistically supported: APRs accounted only for 15% of the DAS28, and for 5% of the SDAI and the DAS28-CRP. In both cohorts the CDAI correlated strongly with DAS28 (R = 0.89-0.90) and comparably to the correlation of SDAI with DAS28 (R = 0.90-0.91). In additional analyses, the CDAI when compared to the SDAI and the DAS28 agreed with a weighted kappa of 0.70 and 0.79, respectively, and comparably to the agreement between DAS28 and DAS28-CRP. All three scores correlated similarly with Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores (R = 0.45-0.47). The average changes in all scores were greater in patients with better American College of Rheumatology response (P < 0.0001, analysis of variance; discriminant validity). All scores exhibited similar correlations with radiological progression (construct validity) over 3 years (R = 0.54-0.58; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: APRs add little information on top (and independent) of the combination of clinical variables included in the SDAI. A purely clinical score is a valid measure of disease activity and will have its greatest merits in clinical practice rather than research, where APRs are usually always available. The CDAI may facilitate immediate and consistent treatment decisions and help to improve patient outcomes in the longer term.

Validating the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Comprehensive Core Set for Rheumatoid Arthritis from the patient perspective: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To validate the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Comprehensive Core Set for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) from the patient perspective. METHODS: Patients with RA were interviewed about their problems in daily functioning. Interviews were tape recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interview texts were divided into meaning units. The concepts contained in these meaning units were linked to the ICF according to 10 established linking rules. Of the transcribed data, 15% were analyzed and linked by a second health professional. The degree of agreement was calculated using the kappa statistic. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were interviewed. Two hundred twenty different concepts contained in 367 meaning units were identified in the qualitative analysis of the interviews and linked to 109 second-level ICF categories. Of the 76 second-level categories from the ICF RA Core Set, 63 (83%) were also found in the interviews. Twenty-five second-level categories, which are not part of the current ICF RA Core Set, were identified in the interviews. The result of the kappa statistic for agreement was 0.62 (95% boot-strapped confidence interval 0.59-0.66). CONCLUSION: The validity of the ICF RA Core Set was supported by the perspective of individual patients. However, some additional issues raised in this study but not covered in the current ICF RA Core Set need to be investigated.