Development and validation of a patient-based disease activity score in rheumatoid arthritis that can be used in clinical trials and routine practice.код для вставкиСкачать
Arthritis & Rheumatism (Arthritis Care & Research) Vol. 59, No. 2, February 15, 2008, pp 192–199 DOI 10.1002/art.23342 © 2008, American College of Rheumatology ORIGINAL ARTICLE Development and Validation of a Patient-Based Disease Activity Score in Rheumatoid Arthritis That Can Be Used in Clinical Trials and Routine Practice ERNEST H. CHOY,1 BERNADETTE KHOSHABA,1 DEREK COOPER,2 ALEX MACGREGOR,3 1 AND DAVID L. SCOTT Objective. Assessor-based disease activity measures such as the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), although widely used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), have high interobserver variability. We developed and validated a patientbased disease activity score (PDAS) as an alternative assessment. Methods. Patients’ assessments of swollen or tender joints, visual analog scales for pain and general health, the Health Assessment Questionnaire, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) were used to develop the PDAS. In a developmental cohort (204 patients), regression analyses determined the best ﬁt with the DAS28. A validation cohort (322 patients) subsequently evaluated criterion and construct validity against a range of outcome measures, including the Nottingham Health Proﬁle (NHP) and Short Form 36 (SF-36). Sensitivity to change was assessed in 56 patients after 6 months of treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or biologics. Results. In the developmental cohort, the PDAS with ESR (PDAS1) and without ESR (PDAS2) achieved excellent ﬁt with the DAS28 (r ⴝ 0.88 and 0.74, respectively). In the validation cohort, the PDAS showed high criterion validity by correlation with the DAS28 (PDAS1: r ⴝ 0.89, PDAS2: r ⴝ 0.76). Construct validity was demonstrated by high correlations with a range of disease activity measures (r > 0.45), whereas low correlations (r < 0.45) with mental and social components of the SF-36 and NHP indicated divergent validity. The PDAS and DAS28 had similar sensitivity to change, determined using effect sizes (DAS28 ⴝ 1.03, PDAS1 ⴝ 1.02, PDAS2 ⴝ 0.77) or standardized response means (DAS28 ⴝ 0.79, PDAS1 ⴝ 0.77, PDAS2 ⴝ 0.73). Conclusion. The PDAS1 and PDAS2 are valid and sensitive tools to assess disease activity in RA. They appear suitable for clinical decision making, epidemiologic research, and clinical trials. INTRODUCTION Joint counts undertaken by physicians, nurses, or therapists are one cornerstone in the conventional assessment of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Substan- Supported by the Arthritis Research Campaign (UK) and the Joint Research Committee of King’s College Healthcare National Health Service Trust. 1 Ernest H. Choy, MD, FRCP, Bernadette Khoshaba, PhD, David L. Scott, MD, FRCP: King’s College London, London, UK; 2Derek Cooper, PhD: King’s College Hospital, London, UK; 3Alex MacGregor, MD, FRCP: University of East Anglia, Norfolk, and Norwich Hospital, Norwich, UK. Address correspondence to Ernest H. Choy, MD, FRCP, Sir Alfred Baring Garrod Clinical Trials Unit, Academic Department of Rheumatology, King’s College London, Weston Education Centre, Cutcombe Road, London SE5 9RJ, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Submitted for publication March 8, 2007; accepted in revised form August 17, 2007. 192 tial interobserver variation presents one substantial practical disadvantage when using such joint counts and this variability persists despite training (1–5). One limitation of this variability is the need to ensure the same assessor carries out disease activity assessments in each patient. This is generally stipulated in the protocols of clinical trials and attempted as far as possible in routine clinical practice. However, prolonged followup in trials and everyday care makes it impractical for long-term observations to be made by a single individual clinician. A second limitation is that joint counts by clinicians appear to be relatively insensitive for separating the effects of active therapy from placebo treatment compared with subjective patient-based measures such as the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) (6,7). The probable explanation for this latter ﬁnding is that clinicians overestimate placebo effects compared with patients. One approach to limiting the impact of these problems is to replace joint counts by clinicians with patient self- Patient Disease Activity Score in RA 193 Table 1. Details of patients in the different assessment groups* Variable Sex Female Male Age, mean (range) years Disease duration, mean (range) Rheumatoid factor positive Ethnicity White African Caribbean Asian DMARD therapy Biologics Oral steroids IM depomedrone NSAIDs/analgesics Study 1: model data (n ⴝ 204) Study 2: validation (n ⴝ 322) Study 3: changes with treatment (n ⴝ 56) 160 (78) 44 (22) 60.5 (21–90) 9.9 (0–54) 169 (83) 246 (76) 76 (24) 60.29 (23–87) 9.13 (0–48) 261 (81) 49 (88) 7 (12) 55.4 (20–79) 8.31 (0–40) 35 (63) 167 (82) 26 (13) 12 (5) 150 (74) 6 (3) 48 (24) 6 (3) 96 (47) 282 (88) 31 (10) 9 (3) 234 (73) 10 (3) 41 (13) 20 (6) 222 (69) 48 (86) 6 (11) 2 (3) 40 (71) 0 (0) 43 (77) 0 (0) 95 (80) * Values are the number (percentage) unless otherwise indicated. DMARD ⫽ disease-modifying antirheumatic drug; IM ⫽ intramuscular; NSAIDs ⫽ nonsteroidal antiinﬂammatory drugs. assessed joint counts. However, studies of self-assessed joint counts show that despite providing useful information, these joint counts cannot directly substitute joint counts by clinicians (8 –18). More information is gained by combining self-assessed joint counts with health status assessments in instruments such as the RA Disease Activity Index (RADAI) (19 –21). Although such measures provide much useful data, they are not directly comparable with existing integrated assessments of disease activity such as the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) (22,23) and, as a consequence, their value is restricted in situations in which a score comparable with the DAS28 is needed. One example is identifying patients who may beneﬁt from therapy with biologic treatments, for which some regulatory bodies require speciﬁc DAS28 scores. Previous work from our unit has demonstrated that selfassessed joint counts can be used to generate patient-based disease activity scores (24). However, this earlier approach was simplistic and did not involve a formal evaluation of the optimal combination of measures to reproduce the DAS28. We have therefore extended this approach by developing and validating a patient-based disease activity score (PDAS), which is comparable with the clinicianbased DAS28 using measures within the internationally agreed core data set for RA. Our goal was to design a valid, reliable, sensitive, and feasible alternative to conventional assessment by clinicians for determining individual clinical disease activity and responses to therapy with antirheumatic drugs. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients. We studied current outpatients attending specialist rheumatology clinics in southeast London who met the 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR; for- merly the American Rheumatism Association) criteria for RA (25). Three cohorts of patients were studied (Table 1). Developmental cohort. The developmental cohort comprised 204 consecutive patients with RA who completed the patient self-assessments. The initial 20 patients in this cohort were also involved in testing face validity. These 20 patients found that rating tender joints and swollen joints verbatim was confusing and preferred performing these assessments using a mannequin without grading. This is a key difference between the RADAI and PDAS. In addition, the test–retest reliability of the questionnaire was evaluated in 46 of the 204 patients who were asked to complete the questionnaire 24 hours after their initial assessment. Validation cohort. A different group of 322 consecutive patients with RA then completed the patient self-assessments and also had standard measures of disease assessed. Responsiveness cohort. The responsiveness cohort comprised 56 patients who had started disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or biologic agents and were seen 6 months apart to assess responsiveness to change. Six patients were going to start biologic agents (inﬂiximab or etanercept), 33 were going to start methotrexate, and 17 were going to start other DMARDs including combination therapies. Ethical review. The South Thames Multicentre Research Ethics Committee approved the study. All patients who were enrolled gave written informed consent. Patient self-assessments. An initial systematic review of the literature identiﬁed the most relevant patient-based disease activity assessments. These included pain score (0 –100-mm visual analog scale [VAS]), patient global assessment of disease activity (PGA; 0 –100-mm VAS), fatigue score (0 –100-mm VAS), early morning stiffness score (0 –5 scale), patient self-assessed tender joint counts and 194 swollen joint counts for up to 50 joints, HAQ, Short Form 36 (SF-36), Nottingham Health Proﬁle (NHP), and EuroQol. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) was measured on the same day as these assessments. Patient self-assessed joint counts were recorded on a self-administered questionnaire completed without speciﬁc verbal assistance; patients were asked to indicate all the joints that were painful at present using one mannequin that displayed individual joints (for tender joints) and all the joints that were swollen at present using a second mannequin of an identical design (for swollen joints). Observer-based assessments. Conventional disease outcome assessments were also performed, including tender and swollen joint counts (for 28 joints), and were used to calculate the conventional DAS28 (for 28 joints). Statistical analysis. Dispersion and distribution of the data in the self-assessment questionnaire were examined and when necessary transformed into a Gaussian distribution. Many self-assessed outcome measures showed skewed distributions; one notable exception was the HAQ, which had a Gaussian distribution. These self-assessed measures were logarithmically transformed prior to multiple regression analysis. Modeling of the PDAS was established by performing forward stepwise regression analyses. Patient-derived variables, coupled with HAQ scores and ESR results, were entered into SPSS software, version 10 (SPSS, Chicago, IL) to generate the best-ﬁt models with the DAS28. Two models were developed: PDAS1, which included the ESR, and PDAS2, which did not include the ESR. The internal consistency and test–retest reliability of the PDAS was tested through Cronbach’s alpha and intraclass correlation coefﬁcients. Validation of the PDAS. Criterion validity for the PDAS1 and PDAS2 developed in the ﬁrst cohort of patients was conﬁrmed by correlation with the DAS28 and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) (26) in the second validation cohort of patients. Construct validity was assessed by correlation with individual components of the internationally agreed core data set for RA, SF-36, NHP, and EuroQol-5D based on assumptions that patients with active RA have more symptoms, more disability, and reduced physical function with relatively little direct impact on mental health. In assessing construct validity, given that the PDAS is a measure of disease activity, correlation with other measures of disease activity should be higher (convergent validity) than other measures such as quality of life (divergent validity). Responsiveness and sensitivity to change of the PDAS. Patients who took part in the responsiveness/sensitivity to change study were consecutive patients who were seen twice and had started a DMARD or biologic agent. These patients were asked to return to the clinic after a period of 6 months to complete the same set of questionnaires and an assessment as detailed in study 2. The responsiveness/ sensitivity to change of the PDAS1 and PDAS2 were as- Choy et al sessed by calculating effect sizes and standardized response means. Effect size was measured by the difference between the mean baseline scores and followup scores on the measure, divided by the standard deviation of baseline scores. Standardized response mean was calculated by dividing the mean observed change by the standard deviation of the change. Patients were also asked to assess their responses to biologic agents and DMARDs at 6 months in terms of whether or not there was a response. Changes in DAS28, PDAS1, and PDAS2 were evaluated from this perspective. RESULTS Development of the PDAS. Face validity of the patient self-assessments, incorporated into a questionnaire, was evaluated by showing the questionnaire to 20 patients. Patients preferred self-assessing joint tenderness and swelling using a mannequin rather than using verbatim assessment. Many patients found grading of joint tenderness and swelling to be too complicated and time consuming, and therefore this was omitted. The questionnaire was consequently revised for use in the subsequent deﬁnitive studies; this revised format was usually completed in 7 minutes. The test–retest reliability of each item in the ﬁnalized questionnaire was assessed in 46 patients. This was graded as excellent with intraclass correlation coefﬁcients ranging from 0.76 to 0.88. The PDAS was then devised by stepwise multiple regression analysis in the full cohort of 204 patients after appropriate transformations of the various clinical variables. This analysis showed that 4 measures in the patient self-assessment questionnaire explained 79% of the variance in DAS28 scores (r ⫽ 0.89). PGA explained 44% of the variance in DAS28, logarithmically transformed ESR explained a further 28%, logarithmically transformed numbers of patient-assessed tender joints (50 joints) explained a further 5%, and the HAQ explained a ﬁnal 1%. Because the HAQ added relatively little to the variation in PDAS1, it could have been omitted, but a decision was made to retain it to ensure maximal comparison with the DAS28. The regression equation for the PDAS1 (including ESR) was as follows: PDAS1 ⫽ 0.019 ⫻ (PGA) ⫹ 0.842 ⫻ ln(ESR ⫹ 2) ⫹ 0.432 ⫻ ln(patient 50 TJC ⫹ 2) ⫹ 0.271 ⫻ (HAQ) where 50 TJC ⫽ tender joint count of 50 joints. Because ESR results may not be readily available in all clinical situations, a second model, the PDAS2 (without ESR), was also developed using a similar regression analysis. In this model 4 measures explained 55% of the variation in DAS28 (r ⫽ 0.74). PGA accounted for 44% of the variance and addition of the HAQ, patient self-assessed swollen joint count (for 28 joints), and early morning stiffness (EMS) score added a further 5%, 4%, and 1%, respectively. Because EMS added little to the total variation in PDAS2, it could have been omitted, but a decision was made to retain it to ensure maximal comparison with the Patient Disease Activity Score in RA 195 comparison, with the PDAS1 only 28 (9%) had scores ⬍3.1 and 9 (3%) had scores ⬍2.6, and with the PDAS2 there were 25 (8%) and zero, respectively, with scores in these lower ranges. The PDAS1 and PDAS2 both correlated highly with the DAS28, with Spearman’s rank correlation coefﬁcients of 0.89 and 0.76, respectively. The correlations of the PDAS1 and PDAS2 with the DAS28 are shown in Figure 2. The PDAS1 and PDAS2 also correlated highly with the CDAI, with correlation coefﬁcients of 0.69 (P ⬍ 0.0001) and 0.73 (P ⬍ 0.0001), respectively. Construct validity. The PDAS1 and PDAS2 showed convergent and divergent validity. Both showed relatively high correlations with other measures of disease activity and quality of life measures that capture arthritis symptoms such as pain and disability. These include assessor 28 tender joint counts and 28 swollen joint counts, VAS fatigue scores, VAS assessor global scores, VAS pain scores, C-reactive protein level, SF-36 physical component scores, NHP physical domain scores, NHP pain scores, and EuroQol scores. With the PDAS1, these correlations varied from 0.45 for assessor 28 swollen joint counts to 0.72 for VAS pain scores, and with the PDAS2, the correlations Figure 1. Distribution of the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), patient-based disease activity score with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (PDAS1), and patient-based disease activity score without erythrocyte sedimentation rate (PDAS2) in the validation study. DAS28. The regression equation for the PDAS2 (excluding ESR) was as follows: PDAS2 ⫽ 0.021 ⫻ (PGA) ⫹ 0.483 ⫻ (HAQ) ⫹ 0.033 ⫻ (patient 28 SJC) ⫹ 0.002 ⫻ (EMS) where SJC ⫽ swollen joint count. The internal consistency of the 8 items included in the questionnaire was high; this was shown using Cronbach’s alpha, which gave a value of 0.72. For the 4 items in the PDAS1 and PDAS2, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.5 and 0.4, respectively. The maximum number of joints in the patient-assessed joint counts was 50 for both tender and swollen joints. We explored the possibility of reducing this to the 28 joints used in the DAS28 score to reduce the demand on patients, but found that for the tender joint count, 50 joints performed better than 28 joints. PDAS validation. Criterion validity. The PDAS1 (with ESR) and PDAS2 (without ESR) had distributions similar to the DAS28, with some minor variations (Figure 1). Both were less sensitive for detecting low disease activity with the appearance of a ﬂoor effect. This ﬂoor effect was more marked with the PDAS2. Using the DAS28, 54 (17%) patients had scores ⬍3.1, and 29 (9%) had scores ⬍2.6. By Figure 2. Relationship of the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) with patient-based disease activity score with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (PDAS1), and patient-based disease activity score without erythrocyte sedimentation rate (PDAS2) in the validation study. 196 Choy et al Table 2. Convergent and divergent validity of the PDAS1 and PDAS2 compared with the DAS28: Spearman’s rank correlation coefﬁcients with disease activity and generic health measures in 322 patients in the validation study (study 2)* Convergent CDAI Assessor 28TJ Assessor 28SJ VAS fatigue VAS assessor global VAS pain C-reactive protein PCS (SF-36) NHP physical NHP pain EuroQol Divergent MCS (SF-36) NHP sleep NHP social NHP emotion PDAS1 PDAS2 DAS28 0.69 0.52 0.45 0.55 0.68 0.72 0.54 ⫺0.65 0.56 0.62 ⫺0.63 0.73 0.56 0.44 0.65 0.67 0.83 0.37 ⫺0.69 0.63 0.70 ⫺0.67 0.89 0.77 0.65 0.49 0.84 0.67 0.42 ⫺0.62 0.53 0.61 ⫺0.57 ⫺0.32 0.37 0.23 0.37 ⫺0.38 0.44 0.30 0.43 ⫺0.29 0.35 0.19 0.33 * There is convergent validity with other measures of disease activity and divergent validity with other measures, speciﬁcally quality of life measures. PDAS1 ⫽ patient-based disease activity score with erythrocyte sedimentation rate; PDAS2 ⫽ patient-based disease activity score without erythrocyte sedimentation rate; DAS28 ⫽ Disease Activity Score in 28 joints; CDAI ⫽ Clinical Disease Activity Index; 28TJ ⫽ 28 tender joint count; 28SJ ⫽ 28 swollen joint count; VAS ⫽ visual analog scale; SF-36 ⫽ Short Form 36; PCS ⫽ physical component summary; NHP ⫽ Nottingham Health Proﬁle; MCS ⫽ mental component summary. ranged from 0.37 for C-reactive protein level to 0.83 for VAS pain scores (Table 2). The main differences of both the PDAS1 and the PDAS2 compared with the DAS28 were higher correlations with VAS pain scores and VAS fatigue scores. In contrast, both the PDAS1 and PDAS2 showed lower correlations with measures of generic health such as sleep and social function. These correlations were ⬍0.37 with the PDAS1 and ⬍0.44 with the PDAS2 (Table 2). Responsiveness to change. The sensitivity to change of the PDAS1 and PDAS2 was evaluated in 56 patients starting a new DMARD or biologic agent who were followed up 6 months later. Effect sizes and standardized response means for the PDAS1 and PDAS2 (Table 3) showed that the PDAS1 and DAS28 had similar effect sizes (1.02 and 1.03, respectively), with the PDAS2 showing a smaller effect size (0.8). The standardized response means were similar (0.70 – 0.79). The effect size of CDAI was 0.7. The PDAS1 and PDAS2 showed correlations to the DAS28 similar to other assessments of change in these cases. There were high Spearman’s correlations with changes in VAS assessor global and VAS pain scores (ⱖ0.59), moderate correlations with changes in assessor tender joint count (ⱖ0.51), and no correlations with changes in SF-36 physical component summary and EuroQol scores. Patient self-assessment of response comprised 37 (66%) responders and 19 (34%) nonresponders. At baseline the mean DAS28 score was 6.26 for nonresponders and 5.90 for responders. At 6 months the sample mean was 5.78 for nonresponders and 4.27 for responders. The PDAS1 including the ESR produced baseline sample means of 6.2 and 5.87 for nonresponders and responders, respectively. At the 6-month assessment the sample means were 5.77 for nonresponders and 4.56 for responders. A comparison of 6-month scores for responders and nonresponders is shown in Figure 3. DISCUSSION The PDAS deﬁnes an individual patient’s disease activity on the day of his or her assessment, making it a useful measure to assess both symptom impact and changes in activity. The PDAS1 and PDAS2 have good psychometric Table 3. Effect size and standardized response mean of the PDAS1 and PDAS2 in 56 patients concerning changes with treatment study* Change Mean ⫾ SD change Effect size Standardized response mean Correlations Assessor 28TJ Assessor 28SJ VAS fatigue VAS assessor global VAS pain C-reactive protein PCS (SF-36) NHP physical NHP pain EuroQol PDAS1 PDAS2 DAS28 CDAI 1.00 ⫾ 1.30 1.02 0.77 0.73 ⫾ 1.10 0.007 0.73 1.20 ⫾ 1.50 1.03 0.79 9.7 ⫾ 13.9 0.7 0.7 0.53 0.38 0.49 0.59 0.79 0.35 0.11 0.37 0.56 0.04 0.51 0.25 0.48 0.60 0.69 0.41 0.03 0.46 0.59 0.03 0.76 0.51 0.53 0.72 0.64 0.37 0.05 0.33 0.49 0.01 0.87 0.73 0.53 0.82 0.63 0.28 0.31 0.3 0.35 0.26 * Effect size was calculated as the difference between mean baseline scores and followup scores divided by the standard deviation of baseline scores. Standardized response mean was calculated as the mean observed change divided by the standard deviation of the change. See Table 2 for deﬁnitions. Patient Disease Activity Score in RA Figure 3. Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), patientbased disease activity score with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (PDAS1), and patient-based disease activity score without erythrocyte sedimentation rate (PDAS2) at 6 months in the responsiveness study. properties and both meet the requirements of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) ﬁlters as they are true (valid), show discrimination (sensitivity to change), and are feasible. They are tools that could be adopted in future clinical trials, epidemiologic research, and routine practice. Although both measures could be further simpliﬁed, for example, by removing the HAQ from the PDAS1 because it contributes only minimally to the overall variance, there is little beneﬁt to such omissions because the HAQ is included in the OMERACT and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) core data set. For the PDAS2, EMS score can be omitted without signiﬁcantly affecting the validity and sensitivity of the instrument. Use of the HAQ to assess disease activity could be criticized because HAQ scores are also inﬂuenced by structural damage; however, there is good evidence from secondary evaluations of clinical trial data that HAQ scores are sensitive indicators of disease activity (6) and we consider these scores suitable for use in this context. It is interesting that the patient-derived joint counts were not entirely equivalent to the clinician-derived counts in the modeling of the PDAS; instead, the HAQ seemed to be an indicator of more importance, particularly in the PDAS2 model without the ESR. Our initial assumption was that patient-derived joint counts could simply substitute for those made by clinicians (24), but this proved incorrect. However, we have demonstrated that using a combination of self-assessment items, it is possible to measure disease activity in a manner that is as efﬁcient as the DAS28. As with all clinical measures there are likely to be substantial differences in the judgments of individual clinicians and patients about whether or not active disease is present; this has been previously studied in detail by Kirwan and colleagues using “paper patients” to evaluate clinicians’ views (27). The use of laboratory measures in assessing disease activity in RA is complex. We developed 2 PDAS models, one with ESR and the other without ESR. On a superﬁcial level, leaving out the ESR may be relatively disadvantageous for clinical trials and epidemiologic studies because its inclusion provides a more representative reﬂection of the conven- 197 tional DAS28. However, there is considerable evidence that patient-derived measures provide a better assessment of clinical outcomes than laboratory measures (7,26,28,29). The balance of evidence indicates that a pooled index of patient self-report questionnaire measures is equally as informative as ACR 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) responses (30), DAS28 scores, and pooled indices of all and assessor-derived measures in the core data set for RA in distinguishing active treatment from placebo. The PDAS instruments we have developed reﬂect the beneﬁts of patient self-assessments. It is interesting that the PDAS1 uses patient-derived tender joint counts in preference to patient-derived swollen joint counts because a recent study of 82 patients with RA demonstrated that within-patient and patient-physician correlations for joint tenderness counts were high whereas patient-physician correlations for joint swelling counts, although signiﬁcant, were much lower (31). This study together with our own ﬁndings imply that patient-assessed joint tenderness is the key measure. There is debate about the value of summated assessment measures in clinical practice and the levels of activity they should represent (32). The DAS28 is widely used in much of Europe, although there are simpliﬁed alternatives, including the Simpliﬁed Disease Activity Index reported by Smolen et al (33), the Patient Activity Scales (PAS and PAS-II) reported by Wolfe et al (34), the CDAI (26), and the patient self-report questionnaire Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID) score reported by Pincus et al (35). Some of these scales, such as the RAPID score, involve patient self-assessment. Interestingly, when Gulfe and colleagues (36) compared ACR20 responses, DAS28 responses, and RAPID to identify individual responses in 184 outpatients, they found good agreement at the ACR20 level but poor agreement at the ACR50 level. They recommended that this discordance should be taken into account when using response criteria to guide clinical decisions. Similar concerns have been expressed about using the DAS28 to deﬁne the need for tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (37,38). Despite these concerns, the DAS28 is recommended for use in clinical practice in the UK (39,40) and the balance of evidence indicates its use is beneﬁcial for routine practice (41– 43). There is no doubt that patient-based assessments, which have been championed for many years by Pincus and Sokka (44,45), are of key importance. In this context it is relevant to consider the relative merits of using existing self-assessed measures with joint counts (such as the RADAI ), without joint counts (such as the patient activity scale ), and the PDAS score we have developed. In this context Wolfe and colleagues have argued that the simplicity of instruments such as the PAS makes them particularly useful in the clinic (34). Interestingly, there is also evidence that the HAQ alone performs well in aiding clinical assessments of disease activity (6). On balance we consider there is no single strong reason to prefer one measure to another. They are all likely to have beneﬁts and drawbacks. Instead, we suggest that their use must reﬂect the circumstances in which patients are being assessed. In a clinical environment when a physicianbased composite measure such as the DAS28 has been widely used, it would be possible to replace it with the PDAS without a major change in the nature of the data being col- 198 lected. One speciﬁc difﬁculty with patient-based measures, highlighted by Kievit and colleagues (46), is the concept of response shift. Kievit et al studied 624 newly diagnosed patients with RA who had completed 3 years of followup and found that although the DAS28 and the VAS assessment for global health were signiﬁcantly associated, the explained variance was low (6.7%). Longitudinal regression modeling showed that VAS assessment for global health improved during the course of RA, independent of change in DAS28 score, and this was in keeping with a change in patients’ perceptions of the disease. They consider that this type of response shift mitigates against using patient-generated scores. One important beneﬁt of replacing the DAS28 with the PDAS is that the PDAS will involve patients far more directly in assessing their disease, which is widely considered to be important in optimizing care (47,48). Measures such as the PDAS could also be used in Web-based recording of disease activity, which may well become of growing importance in future years. Interactive technology including touch-screen programs and Internet access to questionnaires may also facilitate the assessment of disease activity. Greenwood and colleagues have demonstrated that touch-screen computer systems can be used in rheumatology clinics as a means of collecting reliable, user-friendly outcome data from patients (49). Athale et al (50) showed that Web-based computer health assessment surveys could be undertaken by patients with RA and that they provided information comparable with paper versions. The PDAS could readily be adopted in such a Web-based system for patient assessment. We recognize that in some speciﬁc circumstances, such as the recognition of near remission, other patient-generated assessments, such as the RAPID score proposed by Pincus et al (35), may have advantages, particularly as we have not evaluated the ability of the PDAS to detect remission or near remission in RA. We believe the PDAS is a suitable clinical tool to highlight individual patient concerns and help monitor progress, including the effectiveness of treatments over time. It could also be used in epidemiologic studies, and may even be converted into an economic utility tool. Single-handed practitioners and clinicians working in an environment in which resources are limited could adopt patient-derived measures of disease activity such as the PDAS. Overall, the PDAS shows good reliability, validity, and responsiveness. The main area in which this type of assessment appears to be of limited use is in determining the presence of low disease states or remission. Further work is needed to establish the smallest detectable difference and minimal clinically important difference, low disease activity, and disease remission of the PDAS, as well as cross-cultural validation. It may also be important to elicit patients’ views on completing such questionnaires, and whether or not they believe such an approach can enhance their involvement in managing their own disease. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Professor G. S. Panayi and Dr. B. Kirkham (Guy’s Hospital, London) and Dr. N. Chung (Queen Mary Hospital, Sidcup) for their help. Choy et al AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS Dr. Choy had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study design. Choy, MacGregor, Scott. Acquisition of data. Choy, Khoshaba. Analysis and interpretation of data. Choy, Khoshaba. Manuscript preparation. Choy, Khoshaba, Scott. Statistical analysis. Choy, Cooper, MacGregor. REFERENCES 1. Hanson MT, Keiding S, Lauritzen SL, Manthorpe R, Sorensen SF, Wiik A. Clinical assessment of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol 1979;8:101–5. 2. Hart LE, Tugwell P, Buchanan WW, Norman GR, Grace EM, Southwell D. Grading of tenderness as a source of interrater error in the Ritchie articular index. J Rheumatol 1985;12: 716 –7. 3. Klinkhoff AV, Bellamy N, Bombardier C, Carette S, Chalmers A, Esdaile JM, et al. An experiment in reducing interobserver variability of the examination for joint tenderness. J Rheumatol 1988;15:492– 4. 4. Scott DL, Choy EH, Greeves A, Isenberg D, Kassinor D, Rankin E, et al. Standardising joint assessment in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol 1996;15:579 – 82. 5. Thompson PW, Hart LE, Goldsmith CH, Spector TD, Bell MJ, Ramsden MF. Comparison of four articular indices for use in clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis: patient, order and observer variation. J Rheumatol 1991;18:661–5. 6. Scott DL, Strand V. The effects of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs on the Health Assessment Questionnaire score: lessons from the leﬂunomide clinical trials database. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2002;41:899 –909. 7. Strand V, Cohen S, Crawford B, Smolen JS, Scott DL, and the Leﬂunomide Investigators Groups. Patient-reported outcomes better discriminate active treatment from placebo in randomized controlled trials in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2004;43:640 –7. 8. Abraham N, Blackmon D, Jackson JR, Bradley LA, Lorish CD, Alarcon GS. Use of self-administered joint counts in the evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis patients. Arthritis Care Res 1993;6:78 – 81. 9. Alarcon GS, Tilley BC, Li S, Fowler SE, Pillemer S, and the MIRA Trial Group. Self-administered joint counts and standard joint counts in the assessment of rheumatoid arthritis: minocycline in RA. J Rheumatol 1999;26:1065–7. 10. Calvo FA, Calvo A, Berrocal A, Pevez C, Romero F, Vega E, et al. Self-administered joint counts in rheumatoid arthritis: comparison with standard joint counts. J Rheumatol 1999;26: 536 –9. 11. Escalante A. What do self-administered joint counts tell us about patients with rheumatoid arthritis? Arthritis Care Res 1998;11:280 –90. 12. Hanly JG, Mosher D, Sutton E, Weerasinghe S, Theriault D. Self-assessment of disease activity by patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 1996;23:1531– 8. 13. Prevoo ML, Kuper IH, van ‘t Hof MA, van Leeuwen MA, van de Putte LB, van Riel PL. Validity and reproducibility of self-administered joint counts: a prospective longitudinal followup study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 1996;23:841–5. 14. Stewart MW, Palmer DG, Knight RG, Highton J. A self-report articular index: relationship to variations in mood and disease activity measures. Br J Rheumatol 1993;32:631–2. 15. Stewart MW, Palmer DG, Knight RG. A self-report articular index measure of arthritic activity: investigations of reliability, validity and sensitivity. J Rheumatol 1990;17:1011–5. 16. Taal E, Abdel-Nasser AM, Rasker JJ, Wiegman O. A self-report Thompson articular index: what does it measure? Clin Rheumatol 1998;17:125–9. 17. Ward MM. Are patient self-report measures of arthritis activ- Patient Disease Activity Score in RA 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. ity confounded by mood? A longitudinal study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 1994;21:1046 –50. Wong AL, Wong WK, Harker J, Sterz M, Bulpitt K, Park G, et al, and the Western Consortium of Practicing Rheumatologists. Patient self-report tender and swollen joint counts in early rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 1999;6:551– 61. Mason JH, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF, Haralson KM, LewisStevens D, Kaine JL. The rapid assessment of disease activity in rheumatology (radar) questionnaire: validity and sensitivity to change of a patient self-report measure of joint count and clinical status. Arthritis Rheum 1992;35:156 – 62. Stucki G, Liang MH, Stucki S, Bruhlmann P, Michel BA. A self-administered rheumatoid arthritis disease activity index (RADAI) for epidemiologic research: psychometric properties and correlation with parameters of disease activity. Arthritis Rheum 1995;38:795– 8. Fransen J, Langenegger T, Michel BA, Stucki G. Feasibility and validity of the RADAI, a self-administered rheumatoid arthritis disease activity index. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2000; 39:321–7. 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. Van Riel PL, Scott DL. EULAR handbook of clinical assessment in rheumatoid arthritis. Alphen Aan Den Rijn (The Netherlands): Van Zuiden Communications; 2000. Houssien DA, Stucki G, Scott DL. A patient-derived disease activity score can substitute for a physician-derived disease activity score in clinical research. Rheumatology (Oxford) 1999;38:48 –52. 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. 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. Kirwan JR, Chaput de Saintonge DM, Joyce CR, Currey HL. Clinical judgment in rheumatoid arthritis. II. Judging ‘current disease activity’ in clinical practice. Ann Rheum Dis 1983;42: 648 –51. Pincus T, Strand V, Koch G, Amara I, Crawford B, Wolfe F, et al. 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. Arthritis Rheum 2003;48:625–30. Cohen SB, Strand V, Aguilar D, Ofman JJ. Patient- versus physician-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with recombinant interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (anakinra) therapy. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2004;43:704 –11. 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. Figueroa F, Braun-Moscovici Y, Khanna D, Voon E, Gallardo L, Luinstra D, et al. Patient self-administered joint tenderness counts in rheumatoid arthritis are reliable and responsive to changes in disease activity. J Rheumatol 2007;34:54 – 6. Aletaha D, Ward MM, Machold KP, Nell VP, Stamm T, Smolen JS. Remission and active disease in rheumatoid arthritis: deﬁning criteria for disease activity states. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:2625–36. Smolen JS, Breedveld FC, Schiff MH, Kalden JR, Emery P, Eberl G, et al. A simpliﬁed disease activity index for rheumatoid arthritis for use in clinical practice. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2003;42:244 –57. Wolfe F, Michaud K, Pincus T. A composite disease activity scale for clinical practice, observational studies, and clinical 199 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. trials: the patient activity scale (PAS/PAS-II). J Rheumatol 2005;32:2410 –5. Pincus T, Yazici Y, Bergman M, Swearingen C, Harrington T. A proposed approach to recognise “near-remission” quantitatively without formal joint counts or laboratory tests: a patient self-report questionnaire routine assessment of patient index data (RAPID) score as a guide to a “continuous quality improvement” s. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2006;24 Suppl 43:S60 –5. Gulfe A, Geborek P, Saxne T. Response criteria for rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice: how useful are they? Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:1186 –9. Wolfe F, Michaud K, Pincus T, Furst D, Keystone E. The disease activity score is not suitable as the sole criterion for initiation and evaluation of anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy in the clinic: discordance between assessment measures and limitations in questionnaire use for regulatory purposes. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:3873–9. Gardiner PV, Bell AL, Taggart AJ, Wright G, Kee F, Smyth A, et al. A potential pitfall in the use of the Disease Activity Score (DAS28) as the main response criterion in treatment guidelines for patients with rheumatoid arthritis [letter]. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:506 –7. British Society for Rheumatology. Guidelines for prescribing TNF-␣ blockers in adults with rheumatoid arthritis: report of a working party of the British Society for Rheumatology. London: BSR; 2001. Deighton CM, George E, Kiely PD, Ledingham J, Luqmani RA, Scott DG. Updating the British Society for Rheumatology guidelines for anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy in adult rheumatoid arthritis (again). Rheumatology (Oxford) 2006;45: 649 –52. Kee F, Sheehy N, O’Hare L, Bane C, Bell A, Dempster M, et al. Rheumatologists’ judgements about the efﬁcacy of anti-TNF therapy in two neighbouring regions. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2005;44:1407–13. Kay LJ, Grifﬁths ID, and the BSR Biologics Register Management Committee. UK consultant rheumatologists’ access to biological agents and views on the BSR Biologics Register. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2006;45:1376 –9. Hyrich KL, Symmons DP, Watson KD, Silman AJ, on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register. Comparison of the response to inﬂiximab or etanercept monotherapy with the response to cotherapy with methotrexate or another disease-modifying antirheumatic drug in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register. Arthritis Rheum 2006;54: 1786 –94. Pincus T, Sokka T. Quantitative measures for assessing rheumatoid arthritis in clinical trials and clinical care. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2003;17:753– 81. Pincus T, Sokka T. Complexities in the quantitative assessment of patients with rheumatic diseases in clinical trials and clinical care. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2005;23 Suppl 39:S1–9. Kievit W, Welsing PM, Adang EM, Eijsbouts AM, Krabbe PF, van Riel PL. Comment on the use of self-reporting instruments to assess patients with rheumatoid arthritis: the longitudinal association between the DAS28 and the VAS general health. Arthritis Rheum 2006;55:745–50. Carr A, Hewlett S, Hughes R, Mitchell H, Ryan S, Carr M, et al. Rheumatology outcomes: the patient’s perspective. J Rheumatol 2003;30:880 –3. Hewlett S, Carr M, Ryan S, Kirwan J, Richards P, Carr A, et al. Outcomes generated by patients with rheumatoid arthritis: how important are they? Musculoskeletal Care 2005;3:131– 42. Greenwood MC, Hakim AJ, Carson E, Doyle DV. Touch-screen computer systems in the rheumatology clinic offer a reliable and user-friendly means of collecting quality-of-life and outcome data from patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2006;45:66 –71. Athale N, Sturley A, Skoczen S, Kavanaugh A, Lenert L. A web-compatible instrument for measuring self-reported disease activity in arthritis. J Rheumatol 2004;31:223– 8.