Cut-offs and response criteria for the Hospital Universitario la Princesa Index (HUPI) and their comparison to widely-used indices of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis

Objective To estimate cut-off points and to establish response criteria for the Hospital Universitario La Princesa Index (HUPI) in patients with chronic polyarthritis. Methods Two cohorts, one of early arthritis (Princesa Early Arthritis Register Longitudinal PEARL] study) and other of long-term rheumatoid arthritis (Estudio de la Morbilidad y Expresión Clínica de la Artritis Reumatoide EMECAR]) including altogether 1200 patients were used to determine cut-off values for remission, and for low, moderate and high activity through receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis. The areas under ROC (AUC) were compared to those of validated indexes (SDAI, CDAI, DAS28). ROC analysis was also applied to establish minimal and relevant clinical improvement for HUPI. Results The best cut-off points for HUPI are 2, 5 and 9, classifying RA activity as remission if =2, low disease activity if >2 and =5), moderate if >5 and <9 and high if =9. HUPI''s AUC to discriminate between low-moderate activity was 0.909 and between moderate-high activity 0.887. DAS28''s AUCs were 0.887 and 0.846, respectively; both indices had higher accuracy than SDAI (AUCs: 0.832 and 0.756) and CDAI (AUCs: 0.789 and 0.728). HUPI discriminates remission better than DAS28-ESR in early arthritis, but similarly to SDAI. The HUPI cut-off for minimal clinical improvement was established at 2 and for relevant clinical improvement at 4. Response criteria were established based on these cut-off values. Conclusions The cut-offs proposed for HUPI perform adequately in patients with either early or long term arthritis

The comparative responsiveness of Hospital Universitario Princesa Index and other composite indices for assessing rheumatoid arthritis activity

Objective To evaluate the responsiveness in terms of correlation of the Hospital Universitario La Princesa Index (HUPI) comparatively to the traditional composite indices used to assess disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to compare the performance of HUPI-based response criteria with that of the EULAR response criteria. Methods Secondary data analysis from the following studies: ACT-RAY (clinical trial), PROAR (early RA cohort) and EMECAR (pre-biologic era long term RA cohort). Responsiveness was evaluated by: 1) comparing change from baseline (Delta) of HUPI with Delta in other scores by calculating correlation coefficients; 2) calculating standardised effect sizes. The accuracy of response by HUPI and by EULAR criteria was analyzed using linear regressions in which the dependent variable was change in global assessment by physician (Delta GDA-Phy). Results Delta HUPI correlation with change in all other indices ranged from 0.387 to 0.791); HUPI's standardized effect size was larger than those from the other indices in each database used. In ACT-RAY, depending on visit, between 65 and 80% of patients were equally classified by HUPI and EULAR response criteria. However, HUPI criteria were slightly more stringent, with higher percentage of patients classified as non-responder, especially at early visits. HUPI response criteria showed a slightly higher accuracy than EULAR response criteria when using Delta GDA-Phy as gold standard. Conclusion HUPI shows good responsiveness in terms of correlation in each studied scenario (clinical trial, early RA cohort, and established RA cohort). Response criteria by HUPI seem more stringent than EULAR''s

The comparative responsiveness of Hospital Universitario Princesa Index and other composite indices for assessing rheumatoid arthritis activity

Objective To evaluate the responsiveness in terms of correlation of the Hospital Universitario La Princesa Index (HUPI) comparatively to the traditional composite indices used to assess disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to compare the performance of HUPI-based response criteria with that of the EULAR response criteria. Methods Secondary data analysis from the following studies: ACT-RAY (clinical trial), PROAR (early RA cohort) and EMECAR (pre-biologic era long term RA cohort). Responsiveness was evaluated by: 1) comparing change from baseline (Delta) of HUPI with Delta in other scores by calculating correlation coefficients; 2) calculating standardised effect sizes. The accuracy of response by HUPI and by EULAR criteria was analyzed using linear regressions in which the dependent variable was change in global assessment by physician (Delta GDA-Phy). Results Delta HUPI correlation with change in all other indices ranged from 0.387 to 0.791); HUPI's standardized effect size was larger than those from the other indices in each database used. In ACT-RAY, depending on visit, between 65 and 80% of patients were equally classified by HUPI and EULAR response criteria. However, HUPI criteria were slightly more stringent, with higher percentage of patients classified as non-responder, especially at early visits. HUPI response criteria showed a slightly higher accuracy than EULAR response criteria when using Delta GDA-Phy as gold standard. Conclusion HUPI shows good responsiveness in terms of correlation in each studied scenario (clinical trial, early RA cohort, and established RA cohort). Response criteria by HUPI seem more stringent than EULAR's