Abstract
Rheumatoid arthritis is a heterogeneous and progressive autoimmune disease, and patients with this condition show varied responses to treatment. Practical, reliable, individually tailored measures of disease activity and treatment responses are needed. Outcome measures used in randomized, controlled trials, including American College of Rheumatology response criteria and Disease Activity Scores, identify when treatment should be initiated or changed, but can be time consuming and impractical in daily practice. Simplified disease activity indices, abbreviated joint counts and patient-report questionnaires are more-convenient ways to assess therapeutic responses in the clinic. Patient-reported measures of physical function, pain and global disease activity best differentiate the results of active treatment from those of placebo treatment in randomized, controlled trials. Improvements in physical function closely reflect changes in health-related quality of life. Recent trials have demonstrated limited correlations between clinical responses and radiographically demonstrated responses; both should be assessed on a regular basis. It is recommended that three domains be assessed in the clinic for therapeutic responses: patient-reported measures of physical function and/or global disease activity; physician assessment of disease activity; and imaging of the hands and/or feet on a biannual basis. Problematic joints and cervical spine involvement should be followed as clinically indicated. Measures of improvement for individually relevant physical activities need to be defined for each patient.
Key Points
-
Randomized, controlled trials can significantly inform clinical practice
-
The American College of Rheumatology response criteria were developed to distinguish the results of active treatment from those of placebo treatment in randomized, controlled trials, and have facilitated the approval of six new disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs
-
The Disease Activity Score measures current disease activity, as well as improvements
-
Simplified disease-activity indices, which are the sum of the components of the Disease Activity Score have been developed for routine clinical use
-
Patient-reported measures of physical function, pain and global disease activity are important assessments of response, and best differentiate changes due to active treatment from changes due to placebo treatment in randomized, controlled trials.
-
The Health Assessment Questionnaire is a simple, effective, and accurate measure of physical function
-
Regular X-rays of the hands and feet provide an objective measure of progression of joint damage; recent randomized, controlled trials have demonstrated a partial correlation between clinical and radiographically assessed responses
-
To monitor disease activity in clinical practice, three domains should be assessed: patient-reported physical function or global disease activity; physician assessment of disease activity; and imaging of the hands on a regular basis, including evaluation of problematic joints
-
Measures of outcomes that are relevant to the individual patient need to be incorporated in current methods
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Felson DT et al. (1995) American College of Rheumatology preliminary definition of improvement in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 38: 727–735
Chung C et al.: Similarity of American College of Rheumatology 50% and 20% responses (ACR 50 and ACR 20) to distinguish active from comparator treatment in contemporary rheumatoid arthritis clinical trial reports: a composite review. Ann Rheum Dis, in press
Smolen JS et al. (2005) Validity and reliability of the twenty-eight-joint count for the assessment of rheumatoid arthritis activity. Arthritis Rheum 38: 38–43
Ward MM (2004) Clinical and laboratory measures. In Rheumatoid Arthritis, 51–63 (Eds St Clair EW et al.) Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Van Gestel AM et al. (1998) Validation of rheumatoid arthritis improvement criteria that include simplified joint counts. Arthritis Rheum 41: 1845–1850
Fuchs HA and Pincus T (1994) Reduced joint counts in controlled clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 37: 470–475
Puolakka K et al. (2005) Early suppression of disease activity is essential for maintenane of work capacity in patients with recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis: five-year experience from the FIN-RACo trial. Arthritis Rheum 52: 36–41
Houssien DA et al. (1999) A patient-derived disease activity score can substitute for a physician-derived disease activity score in clinical research. Rheumatology 38: 48–52
Ward MM (2001) Response criteria and criteria for clinically important improvement: separate and equal? Arthritis Rheum 44: 1728–1729
Van Riel PLCM (1992) Provisional guidelines for measuring disease activity in clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol 31: 793–794
Irvine S and Capell HC (2005) Great expectations of modern RA treatment. Ann Rheum Dis 64: 1249–1251
Nicolau G et al. (2004) Sources of discrepancy in patient and physican global assessments of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity. J Rheumatol 31: 1293–1296
Gardiner PV et al. (2005) 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. Ann Rheum Dis 64: 506–507
Grigor C et al. (2004) Effect of a treatment strategy of tight control of rheumatoid arthritis (the TICORA study): a single-blind randomized controlled trial. Lancet 364: 263–269
Fransen J et al. (2005)Effectiveness of systematic monitoring of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity in daily practice: a multicenter, cluster randomized controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis 64: 1294–1298
van Riel PLCM and Fransen J (2005) To be in remission or not: is that the question? Ann Rheum Dis 64: 1389–1390
Pincus T et al. (2003) 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 48: 625–630
Strand V : Modern endpoints in rheumatoid arthritis: from trials to the clinic. J Rheum, in press
Smolen JS et al. (2003) A simplified disease activity index for rheumatoid arthritis for use in clinical practice. Rheumatology (Oxford) 42: 244–257
Aletaha D et al. (2005) Acute phase reactants add little to composite disease activity indices for rheumatoid arthritis: validation of a clinical activity score. Arthritis Res Ther 7: R796–R806
Aletaha D and Smolen J (2005) The simplified disease activity index (SDAI) and clinical disease activity index (CDAI): a review of their usefulness and validity in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheum 23 (Suppl 39): S100–S108
Makinen H et al. (2005) Is DAS28 an appropriate tool to assess remission in rheumatoid arthritis? Ann Rheum Dis 64: 1410–1413
Wells GA et al. (2005) Minimal disease activity for rheumatoid arthritis: a preliminary definition. J Rheumatol 32: 2016–2024
Aletaha D et al. (2005) Remission and active disease in rheumatoid arthritis: defining criteria for disease activity states. Arthritis Rheum 52: 2652–2636
Bruce B and Fries JF (2003) The Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire: a review of its history, issues, progress, and documentation. J Rheumatol 30: 167–178
Fischer D et al. (1999) Capturing the patient's view of change as a clinical outcome. JAMA 282: 1157–1162
Strand V (2004) Longer term benefits of treating rheumatoid arthritis: Assessment of radiographic damage and physical function in clinical trials. Clin Exp Rheumatol 22: S57–S64
Pincus T et al. (1983) Assessment of patient satisfaction in activities of daily living using a modified Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum 26: 1346–1353
Pincus T et al. (1999) Toward a multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ): Assessment of advanced activities of daily living and psychological status in the patient friendly health assessment questionnaire format. Arthritis Rheum 42: 2220–2230
Aletaha D and Ward M (2006) Duration of rheumatoid arthritis influences the degree of functional improvement in clinical trials. Ann Rheum Dis 65: 227–233
Wells G et al. (2001) Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheum 28: 406–412
Strand V and Pincus T (2003) The health assessment questionnaire provides a single effective measure to discriminate active from placebo treatment in randomized controlled trials in rheumatoid arthritis [abstract]. Arthritis Rheum 48: a3646
Strand V et al. (2004) Patient-reported outcomes better discriminate active treatment from placebo in randomized controlled trials in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 43: 640–647
Cohen SB et al. (2004) Patient- versus physician-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with recombinant interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (anakinra) therapy. Rheumatology (Oxford) 43: 640–647
Buchbinder R et al. (1995) Which outcome measures should we use in rheumatoid arthritis trials? Clinical and quality-of-life measures responsiveness to treatment in a randomized clinical trial. Arthritis Rheum 38: 1568–1580
Tugwell P et al. (2000) Clinical improvement as reflected in measures of function and health-related quality of life following treatment with leflunomide compared with methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: sensitivity and relative efficiency to detect a treatment effect in a twelve-month, placebo-controlled trial. Leflunomide Rheumatoid Arthritis Investigators Group. Arthritis Rheum 43: 506–514
Strand V and Sharp JT (2003) Radiographic data from recent randomized controlled trials in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 48: 21–34
Ory PA (2003) Interpreting radiographic data in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 62: 597–604
Strand V (2005) Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biological therapy in prevention of bone erosions. In Bone Disease in Rheumatology, 125–130 (Eds Maracic M and Gluck OS) Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
McQueen FM et al. (2001) What is the fate of erosions in early rheumatoid arthritis? Tracking individual lesions using x-rays and magnetic resonance imaging over the first two years of disease. Ann Rheum Dis 60: 859–868
McGonagle D et al. (1999) The relationship between synovitis and bone changes in early untreated rheumatoid arthritis: a controlled magnetic resonance imaging study. Arthritis Rheum 42: 1706–1711
Sharp JT et al. (1971) Methods of scoring the progression of radiologic changes in rheumatoid arthritis. Correlation of radiologic, clinical and laboratory abnormalities. Arthritis Rheum 14: 706–720
van der Heijde DM et al. (1995) Radiographic progression on radiographs of the hands and feet during the first 3 years of rheumatoid arthritis measured according to Sharp's method (van der Heijde modification). J Rheumatol 22: 1792–1796
Genant HK et al. (1998) Assessment of rheumatoid arthritis using a modified scoring method on digitized and original radiographs. Arthritis Rheum 41: 1583–1590
Scott DL et al. (1995) Proposed modification to Larsen's scoring method for hand and wrist radiographs. Br J Rheumatol 34: 56
Scott DL et al. (2000) The links between joint damage and disability in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology 39: 122–132
Scott DL et al. (2003) Joint damage and disability in rheumatoid arthritis: an updated systematic review. Clin Exp Rheumatol 21: S20–S27
Smolen JS et al. (2005) Evidence of radiographic benefit of treatment with infliximab plus methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis patients who had no clinical improvement: a detailed subanalysis of data from the anti-tumor necrosis factor trial in rheumatoid arthritis with concomitant therapy study. Arthritis Rheum 52: 1020–1030
Breedveld FC et al. (2005) Association between baseline radiographic damage and improvement in physical function after treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 64: 52–55
Bruynesteyn K et al. (2002) Determination of the minimal clinically important difference in rheumatoid arthritis joint damage of the Sharp/van der Heijde and Larsen/Scott scoring methods by clinical experts and comparison with the smallest detectable difference. Arthritis Rheum 46: 913–920
van der Heijde D et al. (1999) Reading radiographs in chronological order, in pairs or as single films has important implications for the discriminative power of rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. Rheumatology 38: 1213–1220
Sharp JT et al. (2003) Repair of erosions in rheumatoid arthritis does occur. Results from 2 studies by the OMERACT Subcommittee on Healing of Erosions. J Rheumatol 30: 1102–1107
Smolen JS et al. (2005) Evidence of radiographic benefit of treatment with infliximab plus methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis patients who had no clinical improvement: a detailed subanalysis of data from the anti-tumor necrosis factor trial in rheumatoid arthritis with concomitant therapy study. Arthritis Rheum 52: 1020–1030
Scott D (2004) Pursuit of optimal outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis. Pharmacoeconomics 22: 13–26
Aisen AM et al. (1987) Cervical spine involvement in rheumatoid arthritis: MR imaging. Radiology 165: 159–163
Menezes AH et al. (1985) Odontoid upward migration in rheumatoid arthritis. An analysis of 45 patients with “cranial settling”. J Neurosurg 63: 500–509
Pellicci PM et al. (1981) A prospective study of the progression of rheumatoid arthritis of the cervical spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 63: 342–350
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zatarain, E., Strand, V. Monitoring disease activity of rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice: contributions from clinical trials. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2, 611–618 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncprheum0246
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncprheum0246
This article is cited by
-
Patient-centered psoriatic arthritis (PsA) activity assessment by Stockerau Activity Score for Psoriatic Arthritis (SASPA)
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders (2015)