Disease activity level, remission and response in established rheumatoid arthritis: Performance of various criteria sets in an observational cohort, treated with anti-TNF agents

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Most composite indices of disease activity and response criteria in RA have been validated and compared in clinical trials rather than routine care. We therefore wanted to compare the performance of the DAS28, SDAI and CDAI activity indices, their activity states, their response criteria, and also compare with the ACR response criteria in an observational clinical setting.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Agreement between the criteria sets was investigated using κ statistics in a non-randomized cohort of 1789 RA patients from southern Sweden, starting their first course of anti-TNF-treatment. Mean disease duration was 12 years. Completer analysis was used.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Agreement between high, moderate and low activity states was moderate or substantial, with κ = 0.5 or better for all criteria. Agreement between SDAI and CDAI disease states was > 90% in these categories with κ > 0.8. DAS28 original and modified cut point remission had good agreement (κ = 0.91). Agreement between responses was substantial at the overall/ACR20 level (about 95%, κ = 0.7 or better) for all criteria. By contrast, agreement was poor between moderate and high level responses.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Disease activity states according to the various indices perform similarly and show substantial agreement at all levels except remission. Agreement between SDAI and CDAI states is excellent. Response criteria, applied at the individual patient level, are hard to interpret and show poor agreement, except at the lowest level of response. Thus, they should not be applied uncritically in clinical practice.</p

Large-scale, prospective, observational studies in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: A systematic and critical review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Observational studies, if conducted appropriately, play an important role in the decision-making process providing invaluable information on effectiveness, patient-reported outcomes and costs in a real-world environment. We conducted a systematic review of large-scale, prospective, cohort studies with the aim of (a) summarising design characteristics, the interventions or aspects of the disease studied and the outcomes measured and (b) investigating methodological quality.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We included prospective, cohort studies which included at least 100 adults with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis. Studies were identified through searches in electronic databases (Pubmed, Medline, Cochrane library, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination). Information on study characteristics were extracted and tabulated and quality assessment, using a checklist of 18 questions, was conducted.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Thirty five papers covering 16 cohorts met the inclusion criteria. There were ten treatment-related studies, only two of which provided a comparison between treatments, and six non-treatment studies which examined a number of characteristics of the disease including mortality, morbidity, cost of illness and health-related quality of life. All studies included a clinical outcome measure and 11 included patient-reported outcomes, however only two studies reported information on patient utilities and two on costs. The quality of the assessed studies varied widely. Studies did well on a number of quality assessment questions including having clear objectives, documenting selection criteria, providing a representative sample, defining interventions/characteristics under study, defining and using appropriate outcomes, describing results clearly and using appropriate statistical tests. The quality assessment criteria least adhered to involved questions regarding sample size calculations, describing potential selection bias, defining and adjusting for confounders and losses to follow-up, and defining and describing a comparison group.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The review highlights the need for well designed prospective observational studies on the effectiveness, patient-reported outcomes and economic impact of treatment regimes for patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in a real-world environment.</p

Response criteria for rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice: how useful are they?

Objective: To compare the performance of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), and simple disease activity index (SDAI) response criteria for rheumatoid arthritis at the individual level in an observational cohort. Methods: 184 outpatients were followed using a structured protocol. For each patient, the responses according to ACR 20% and 50%, EULAR moderate and good, and SDAI minor and major responses were calculated. For comparison, improvements in health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) score of 0.22 and 0.5 were calculated. The numbers of individuals fulfilling the criteria at each level were compared, and the numbers fulfilling any two sets of response criteria calculated. The EULAR "moderate" and "good" responses were grouped together as "overall," and SDAI "minor" and "major" were merged into SDAI "overall". Results: All 94 ACR 20 responders were found in the EULAR and SDAI "overall" response groups, and 118 of 124 SDAI "overall" responders were found in the EULAR "overall" group. In contrast, of 53 ACR 50 responders, only 34 were found in the EULAR "good" or SDAI "major" group. Among the 56 patients in the EULAR "good" response group, only 26 met the SDAI "major" response. Improvement in HAQ score performed similarly to the other response criteria sets at the group levels. Conclusions: For individual patients, agreement is good at the level of ACR 20 response, when EULAR overall, SDAI overall, or HAQ 0.22 criteria are applied. Agreement between ACR 50, EULAR good, SDAI major, and HAQ 0.5 response is poor. This should be considered when response criteria are used for clinical decisions

Tumour necrosis factor blockers do not increase overall tumour risk in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, but may be associated with an increased risk of lymphomas

Objective: To determine whether TNF blockers increase tumour risk in patients with RA. Material and methods: The South Swedish Arthritis Treatment Group register (SSATG) comprises over 90% of anti-TNF treated patients with RA in the area. 757 patients treated with etanercept or infliximab included between 1 February 1999 and 31 December 2002 were identified. 800 patients with conventional antirheumatic treatment in a community based cohort served as a comparison cohort. Tumours and deaths were identified in the cancer registry and population census registers. Patients were followed up from initiation of anti-TNF treatment or 1 July 1997 for the comparison group, until death or 31 December 2002. Results: In the anti-TNF group, 16 tumours (5 lymphomas) were identified in 1603 person-years at risk, and in the comparison group 69 tumours (2 lymphomas) in 3948 person-years. Standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) for total tumour relative risk for the anti-TNF group and the comparison group were 1.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.6 to 1.8) and 1.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.8), respectively. The lymphoma relative risk (RR) was 11.5 (95% CI 3.7 to 26.9) and 1.3 (95% CI 0.2 to 4.5), respectively The total tumour RR excluding lymphoma was 0.79 (95% CI 0.4 to 1.42) and 1.39 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.76), respectively. Proportional hazard analysis for lymphomas yielded RR 4.9 (95% CI 0.9 to 26.2) in anti-TNF treated versus untreated patients. Conclusion: Community based patients with RA treated conventionally had an increased overall tumour risk compared with the background population. A possible additional increased risk for lymphoma associated with TNF blockers was based on few cases and needs confirmation