The Future of Biologic Agents in the Treatment of Sjögren’s Syndrome

The gain in knowledge regarding the cellular mechanisms of T and B lymphocyte activity in the pathogenesis of Sjögren’s syndrome (SS) and the current availability of various biological agents (anti-TNF-α, IFN- α, anti-CD20, and anti-CD22) have resulted in new strategies for therapeutic intervention. In SS, various phase I and II studies have been performed to evaluate these new strategies. Currently, B cell-directed therapies seem to be more promising than T cell-related therapies. However, large, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials are needed to confirm the promising results of these early studies. When performing these trials, special attention has to be paid to prevent the occasional occurrence of the severe side effects

Application of the health assessment questionnaire disability index to various rheumatic diseases

Purpose\ud \ud To investigate whether the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) can serve as a generic instrument for measuring disability across different rheumatic diseases and to propose a scoring method based on item response theory (IRT) modeling to support this goal.\ud \ud Methods\ud \ud The HAQ-DI was administered to a cross-sectional sample of patients with confirmed rheumatoid arthritis (n = 619), osteoarthritis (n = 125), or gout (n = 102). The results were analyzed using the generalized partial credit model as an IRT model.\ud \ud Results\ud \ud It was found that 4 out of 8 item categories of the HAQ-DI displayed substantial differential item functioning (DIF) over the three diseases. Further, it was shown that this DIF could be modeled using an IRT model with disease-specific item parameters, which produces measures that are comparable for the three diseases.\ud \ud Conclusion\ud \ud Although the HAQ-DI partially functioned differently in the three disease groups, the measurement regarding the disability level of the patients can be made comparable using IRT methods\u

The relationship between change in subjective outcome and change in disease: a potential paradox

Contains fulltext : 87756.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)BACKGROUND: Response shift theory suggests that improvements in health lead patients to change their internal standards and re-assess former health states as worse than initially rated when using retrospective ratings via the then-test. The predictions of response shift theory can be illustrated using prospect theory, whereby a change in current health causes a change in reference frame. Therefore, if health deteriorates, the former health state will receive a better rating, whereas if it improves, the former health state will receive a worse rating. OBJECTIVE: To explore the predictions of response shift and prospect theory by relating subjective change to objective change. METHODS: Baseline and 3-month follow-up data from a cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients (N = 197) starting on TNFalpha-blocking agents were used. Objective disease change was classified according to a disease-specific clinical outcome measure (DAS28). Visual analogue scales (VAS) for general health (GH) and pain were used as self-reported measures. Three months after starting on anti-TNFalpha, patients used the then-test to re-rate their baseline health with regard to general health and pain. Differences between then-test value and baseline values were calculated and tested between improved, non-improved and deteriorated patients by the Student t-test. RESULTS: At 3 months, 51 (25.9%) patients had good improvement in health, 83 (42.1%) had moderate improvement, and 63 (32.0%) had no improvement or deteriorated in health. All patients no matter whether they improved, did not improve, or even became worse rated their health as worse retrospectively. The difference between the then-test rating and the baseline value was similarly sized in all groups. CONCLUSION: More positive ratings of retrospective health are independent of disease change. This suggests that patients do not necessarily change their standards in line with their disease change, and therefore it is inappropriate to use the then-test to correct for such a change. If a then-test is used to correct for shifts in internal standards, it might lead to the paradoxical result that patients who do not improve or even deteriorate increase significantly on self-reported health and pain. An alternative explanation for differences in retrospective and prospective ratings of health is the implicit theory of change which is more successful in explaining our results than prospect theory.1 september 201