Moderate-term, low-dose corticosteroids for rheumatoid arthritis

Advances in non-biological drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a complex autoimmune disease that affects millions of people worldwide, with a systemic impact. This review explores the role of non-biological conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) in its management.

AREAS COVERED

We discuss the effectiveness and safety of key csDMARDs such as Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, Hydroxychloroquine, Sulfasalazine, Methotrexate, and Leflunomide in relieving symptoms and slowing the progression of the disease. We also highlight the importance of combination therapy using csDMARDs, supported by clinical studies demonstrating the benefits of various csDMARD combinations. Early intervention with these drugs is emphasized to prevent joint damage, improve clinical symptoms, and enhance patient outcomes.

EXPERT OPINION

Overall, csDMARDs have proven pivotal in managing RA, providing cost-effective and versatile treatment options. We acknowledge the advantages of biologics but highlight the associated challenges, making the choice between non-biological and biological drugs a personalized decision. This comprehensive overview aims to provide a deeper understanding of RA treatment strategies, contributing to improving the quality of life for patients with this chronic condition.

Use of corticoids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatories in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

Evidence on the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and corticoids for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is inconclusive and is not up to date. This systematic review assessed the effectiveness and safety of these anti-inflammatories (AI) in the treatment of RA. COCHRANE (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and Virtual Health Library were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) with adults which used AI (dose represented in mg/day) compared with placebo or active controls and was carried out up to December of 2019. Reviewers, in pairs and independently, selected studies, performed the data extraction and assessed the risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was assessed by GRADE. Network meta-analyses were performed using the Stata v.14.2. Twenty-six articles were selected (NSAIDs = 21 and corticoids = 5). Naproxen 1,000 improved physical function, reduced pain and the number of painful joints compared to placebo. Etoricoxib 90 reduced the number of painful joints compared to placebo. Naproxen 750 reduced the number of swollen joints, except for etoricoxib 90. Naproxen 1,000, etoricoxib 90 and diclofenac 150 were better than placebo regarding patient assessment. Assessment physician showed that NSAIDs were better than placebo. Meta-analyses were not performed for prednisolone and prednisone. Naproxen 1,000 was the most effective drug and celecoxib 200 showed fewer adverse events. However, the low quality of the evidence observed for the outcomes with NSAIDs, the absence of meta-analyses to assess the outcomes with corticoids, as well as the risk of bias observed, indicate that future RCT can confirm such findings.

The effect of calcium and vitamin D compounds on bone mineral density in patients undergoing glucocorticoid therapies: a network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES

The objective of our systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) is to investigate which vitamin D and/or calcium regimen would yield the greatest increase in lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip bone mineral density (BMD) in adult patients undergoing glucocorticoid therapy.

METHOD

We performed NMAs based on a prospectively developed protocol. A database search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, CENTRAL and Chinese databases were conducted for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Outcomes were percentage change in lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip BMD from baseline.

RESULTS

We included 16 RCTs containing 1073 eligible patients in our analysis. We found alfacalcidol+calcium to yield the greatest percentage increase in lumbar spine BMD (MD 6.05, 95% credible interval [CrI] - 4.18 to 16.18) compared to no treatment, and calcitriol+calcium to yield the greatest percentage increase in femoral neck BMD (MD 8.46, 95% CrI - 4.74 to 21.51) compared to no treatment. Cholecalciferol+calcium ranked first in terms of its ability to increase total hip BMD; however this finding needs to be interpreted with caution due to low sample sizes in the cholecalciferol+calcium treatment arm. None of the treatment arms ruled out the possibility of no effect for any outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Alfacalcidol and calcitriol were the most efficacious treatment arms for increasing lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD, respectively. Our findings need to be validated by further investigations using larger, better-designed RCTs. Key Points •The efficacy of calcium/vitamin D compounds was examined using network meta-analyses. •Alfacalcidol + calcium yielded the greatest increase in lumbar spine BMD, calcitriol + calcium yielded the greatest increase in femoral neck BMD. •Future guidelines should place greater emphasis on the efficacy of different vitamin D compounds.

Fosdagrocorat (PF-04171327) versus prednisone or placebo in rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase IIb study

Objectives

Glucocorticoids have anti-inflammatory, transrepression-mediated effects, although adverse events (AEs; transactivation-mediated effects) limit long-term use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of fosdagrocorat (PF-04171327), a dissociated agonist of the glucocorticoid receptor, versus prednisone or placebo.

Methods

In this 12-week, phase II, randomised controlled trial, 323 patients with moderate to severe RA were randomised 1:1:1:1:1:1:1 to fosdagrocorat (1 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg or 15 mg), prednisone (5 mg or 10 mg) or placebo, once daily. The primary endpoints (week 8) were American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) responses, and percentage changes from baseline in biomarkers of bone formation (procollagen type 1 N-terminal peptide [P1NP]) and resorption (urinary N-telopeptide to urinary creatinine ratio [uNTx:uCr]). Safety was assessed.

Results

ACR20 responses with fosdagrocorat 10 mg and 15 mg were superior to placebo, and fosdagrocorat 15 mg was non-inferior to prednisone 10 mg (week 8 model-predicted ACR20 responses: 47%, 61%, 69% and 73% vs 51%, 71% and 37% with fosdagrocorat 1 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg and 15 mg vs prednisone 5 mg, 10 mg and placebo, respectively). Percentage changes from baseline in P1NP with fosdagrocorat 1 mg, 5 mg and 10 mg met non-inferiority criteria to prednisone 5 mg. Corresponding changes in uNTx:uCr varied considerably. All fosdagrocorat doses reduced glycosylated haemoglobin levels. AEs were similar between groups; 63 (19.5%) patients reported treatment-related AEs; 9 (2.8%) patients reported serious AEs. No patients had adrenal insufficiency, treatment-related significant infections or laboratory abnormalities. No deaths were reported.

Conclusion

In patients with RA, fosdagrocorat 10 mg and 15 mg demonstrated efficacy similar to prednisone 10 mg and safety similar to prednisone 5 mg.

Trial registration number

NCT01393639

Glucocorticoids, Inflammation and Bone

The current review on glucocorticoids (GCs), inflammation and bone is focused on three aspects: (1) the mutual effects between GCs, inflammation and bone in inflammatory rheumatic diseases, (2) current views on fracture risk assessment in patients using GCs and (3) non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment to prevent fractures in GC-using patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. The use of GCs results in increased risk for fractures due to both direct and indirect negative effects of GCs on bone mass, and on bone and muscle strength. However, also the underlying inflammatory rheumatic disease is associated with the increased bone loss and fracture risk due to the chronic inflammation itself, and due to disability/immobility caused by active disease or joint destruction. The rapid and strong anti-inflammatory effect of GCs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis seems to balance the negative effects of GCs on bone in the early, active phase of the disease. Recently, an update of the American College of Rheumatology guidelines for prevention and treatment of GC-induced osteoporosis was published with renewed recommendations. To prevent fractures, general measures, including treatment of the underlying inflammatory disease adequately (even with GCs when indicated), a healthy lifestyle, including adequate calcium and vitamin D supplementation, and regular weight bearing exercises are important. In rheumatic patients with high fracture risk using GCs, especially when the cumulative dose is high and/or the underlying inflammatory disease is active, treatment with anti-osteoporotic drugs, usually an oral bisphosphonate, is indicated.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Fosdagrocorat (PF-04171327), a Dissociated Glucocorticoid Receptor Agonist, in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

Dissociated agonists of the glucocorticoid receptor (DAGRs) show similar antiinflammatory effects but improved tolerability compared with standard glucocorticoid receptor (GR) agonists. The prodrug fosdagrocorat (PF‐04171327), with active DAGR metabolite PF‐00251802 (Metabolite‐1), is postulated to show superior efficacy over placebo and prednisone in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We investigated the population pharmacokinetics of active Metabolite‐1 and its active metabolite PF‐04015475 (Metabolite‐2) in patients with moderate to severe RA enrolled in a 12‐week, phase II, randomized, double‐blind study (NCT01393639). A simultaneous fit of a two‐compartment model for Metabolite‐1 and a one‐compartment model for Metabolite‐2 provided an adequate fit to the data. Significant covariates included weight, with an additional female effect on clearance of Metabolite‐1 (∼26%) and Metabolite‐2 (∼33%) compared with males. Age influenced clearance of Metabolite‐1. In combination, age, weight, and sex predicted >twofold differences in area under the concentration–time curve of Metabolite‐1 at the extremes.

Improved disease activity with fosdagrocorat (PF-04171327), a partial agonist of the glucocorticoid receptor, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a Phase 2 randomized study

AIM

To assess efficacy and safety of fosdagrocorat (PF-04171327), a potential dissociated agonist of the glucocorticoid receptor, in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

METHODS

This multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, active- and placebo-controlled Phase 2 study (NCT00938587) randomized 86 patients (1 : 1 : 1 : 1) to receive fosdagrocorat 10 mg, fosdagrocorat 25 mg, prednisone 5 mg or placebo, all with stable background methotrexate therapy. The primary outcome was change from baseline in Disease Activity Score of 28 joints (DAS28-4[C-reactive protein (CRP)]) after 2 weeks of treatment. Secondary outcomes included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates, change from baseline in ACR core components and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index.

RESULTS

At week 2, improvements from baseline in DAS28-4(CRP) with fosdagrocorat 10 and 25 mg, prednisone 5 mg and placebo were -1.69, -2.22, -1.17 and -0.96, respectively, and were statistically significantly greater for both fosdagrocorat doses versus placebo (P < 0.05) and for fosdagrocorat 25 mg versus prednisone 5 mg (P < 0.001). The effects of fosdagrocorat on secondary outcomes were generally consistent with those observed for the primary outcome. Adverse events (AEs) were reported for eight (38%), three (14%), four (19%) and 12 (55%) patients treated with fosdagrocorat 10 and 25 mg, prednisone 5 mg and placebo, respectively. Most AEs were mild in severity. Four patients discontinued treatment due to AEs (fosdagrocorat 10 mg, n = 2; placebo, n = 2). There were no serious AEs.

CONCLUSION

Fosdagrocorat 10 and 25 mg demonstrated efficacy in improving signs and symptoms in RA patients, with manageable AEs. Additional studies are needed to assess the longer-term safety and efficacy of fosdagrocorat.

The value of glucocorticoid co-therapy in different rheumatic diseases--positive and adverse effects

Glucocorticoids play a pivotal role in the management of many inflammatory rheumatic diseases. The therapeutic effects range from pain relief in arthritides, to disease-modifying effects in early rheumatoid arthritis, and to strong immunosuppressive actions in vasculitides and systemic lupus erythematosus. There are multiple indications that adverse effects are more frequent with the longer use of glucocorticoids and use of higher dosages, but high-quality data on the occurrence of adverse effects are scarce especially for dosages above 10 mg prednisone daily. The underlying rheumatic disease, disease activity, risk factors and individual responsiveness of the patient should guide treatment decisions. Monitoring for adverse effects should also be tailored to the patient. Continuously balancing the benefits and risks of glucocorticoid therapy is recommended. There is an ongoing quest for new drugs with glucocorticoid actions without the potential to cause harmful effects, such as selective glucocorticoid receptor agonists, but the application of a new compound in clinical practice will probably not occur within the next few years. In the meantime, basic research on glucocorticoid effects and detailed reports on therapeutic efficacy and occurrence of adverse effects will be valuable in weighing benefits and risks in clinical practice.

Efficacy, safety and mechanism of action of modified-release prednisone in rheumatoid arthritis

Glucocorticoids (GCs) provide a powerful and widely used anti-inflammatory and disease-modifying therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, concerns about adverse effects are driving efforts to find 'safer' GC or GC analogues. One novel approach has been to change the timing of GC delivery, targeting the early hours of the morning to suppress the observed circadian peak in interleukin-6 (IL-6). The CAPRA-1 study has shown that this produces a clinically useful beneficial improvement in morning stiffness and mechanistic studies have shown that this correlates with a strong suppression of the IL-6 early morning peak. With no obvious additional adverse reactions, this improvement in the therapeutic ratio offers additional treatment options in RA, and perhaps in other inflammatory diseases that show circadian variation in symptoms.

Effects of long-term corticosteroid usage on functional disability in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis, regardless of controlled disease activity

We investigated the effect of long-term corticosteroid usage in suppressing the progression of functional disability in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We studied 3,982 RA patients, who had continuous enrollment for at least 3 years, among 9,132 RA patients enrolled in an observational cohort study, IORRA, in Tokyo, Japan, from 2000 to 2007. The DAS28 and Japanese version of Health Assessment Questionnaire (J-HAQ) scores were collected at 6-month intervals (each phase). Among these patients, those with DAS28 values under 3.2 in all phases and RA disease duration under 2 years at study entry were selected as "early RA patients with well-controlled disease". These patients were further classified into 3 groups based on average months of steroid usage per year: Non-users, Medium-users, and Frequent-users. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to study the relationship between steroid usage and the final J-HAQ scores. Among the 3,982 patients, 109 had DAS28 values under 3.2 in all the phases and were selected as study cohort. The average Final J-HAQ in Non-user (N = 64), in Medium-user (N = 25), in Frequent-user group (N = 20) was 0.04, 0.06, and 0.33, respectively. Multiple linear regression analysis after adjusting for all potential covariates confirmed that frequent steroid usage was the most significant factor associated with higher final J-HAQ scores (P < 0.05). Frequent steroid usage was associated with significantly higher final J-HAQ scores in early RA patients, even though their disease was managed efficiently by maintaining the DAS28 values under 3.2 over a long-term period.

Pharmacogenetics of rheumatoid arthritis: Potential targets from susceptibility genes and present therapies

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic heterogeneous autoimmune disorder of unknown etiology resulting in inflammation in the synovium, cartilage, and bone. Genetic factors play an important role in susceptibility to RA as the heritability of RA is between 50% and 60%, with the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) locus accounting for at least 30% of overall genetic risk. Outside the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) region, six additional risk loci have been identified and validated including PTPN22, STAT4, PADI4, CTLA4, TNFAIP3-OLIG3, and TRAF1/C5. Genetic factors are also important in RA pharmacotherapy due to the gene-dependent activity of enzymes involved in the pharmacokinetics and/or pharmacodynamics of RA medications. Indeed, there is great variability in drug efficacy as well as adverse events associated with any anti-rheumatic therapy and genetics is thought to contribute significantly to this inter-individual variability in response. This review will summarize the genetic factors that have been implicated in the pathogenesis of RA, and how these determinants may factor into the potential pharmacogenetics of this disease. We will also review the therapeutic agents that are currently being utilized or presently being evaluated in the treatment of RA, along with potential pharmacogenetic markers that have been proposed for such medications.

Effects of glucocorticoids on radiological progression in rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Glucocorticoid use in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is widespread. Two Cochrane Reviews have been published examining the short term clinical benefit of low dose glucocorticoids compared to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and demonstrate good short term and medium term clinical benefits. The possibility that glucocorticoids may have a fundamental 'disease modifying' effect in RA, which would be seen by a reduction in the rate of radiological progression, has been raised by several authors.

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic review of studies evaluating glucocorticoid efficacy in inhibiting the progression of radiological damage in rheumatoid arthritis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A search of MEDLINE (from 1966 to 22 February 2005) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register was undertaken, using the terms 'corticosteroids' and 'rheumatoid arthritis' expanded according to the Cochrane Collaboration recommendations. Identified abstracts were reviewed and appropriate reports obtained in full. Additional reports were identified from the reference lists and from expert knowledge.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled or cross-over trials in adults with a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis in which prednisone or a similar glucocorticoid preparation was compared to either placebo controls or active controls (i.e. comparative studies) and where there was evaluation of radiographs of hands, or hands and feet, or feet by any standardised technique. Eligible studies had at least one treatment arm with glucocorticoids and one without glucocorticoids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Standardised data extraction obtain the mean and standard deviation (SD) of change in erosion scores over 1 year or 2 years. (Where SD for change was not given a conservative estimate was taken from baseline data.) At least two authors selected the studies and extracted the data. Radiographic erosion scores were expressed as a percentage of the maximum possible score for the method used. The results were pooled after weighting in a random effects model to provide a standardised mean difference (SMD).

MAIN RESULTS

The initial search produced 217 citations, and 15 were added from experts, abstracts and review of reference lists. Authors of 4 trials being prepared for publication (and subsequently published) kindly shared their data. After application of eligibility criteria 15 studies and 1,414 patients were included. The majority of trials studied early RA (disease duration up to 2 yrs), and the mean cumulative dose of glucocorticoid was 2,300 mg prednisone equivalent (range 270 mg - 5,800 mg) over the first year. Glucocorticoids were mostly added to other disease modifying anti-rheumatoid drug (DMARD) treatment. The standardised mean difference in progression was 0.40 in favour of glucocorticoids (95% CI 0.27, 0.54). In studies lasting 2 years (806 patients included), the standardised mean difference in progression in favour of glucocorticoids at 1 year was 0.45 (0.24, 0.66) and at 2 years was 0.42 (0.30, 0.55). All studies except one showed a numerical treatment effect in favour of glucocorticoids. The beneficial effects of glucocorticoids were generally achieved when used in conjunction with other DMARD treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Even in the most conservative estimate, the evidence that glucocorticoids given in addition to standard therapy can substantially reduce the rate of erosion progression in rheumatoid arthritis is convincing. There remains concern about potential long-term adverse reactions to glucocorticoid therapy, such as increased cardiovascular risk, and this issue requires further research.

A two year randomised controlled trial of intramuscular depot steroids in patients with established rheumatoid arthritis who have shown an incomplete response to disease modifying antirheumatic drugs

BACKGROUND

In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), intramuscular (IM) pulsed depomedrone expedites an immediate response to disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Although IM depomedrone is also widely used to treat disease flares in patients treated with DMARDs, its effect on radiological progression has not been assessed.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the benefits of 120 mg IM depomedrone versus placebo in patients with established RA whose disease was inadequately controlled by existing DMARDs.

METHODS

In a 2 year prospective randomised controlled trial patients were assessed using the ILAR/WHO core dataset, disease activity score (DAS28), x ray examination of hands and feet scored by Larsen's method, and bone densitometry.

RESULTS

291 patients with RA were screened, 166 were eligible, and 91 consented and were randomised. Disease activity improved more rapidly in the steroid treated patients than with placebo, but after 6 months no difference remained. A small but significant reduction in erosive damage in the steroid group compared with placebo was also found. More adverse reactions occurred in the steroid treated group than in the placebo patients (55 v 42), especially those reactions traditionally related to steroids (16 v 2), including vertebral fracture, diabetes, and myocardial infarction. Hip bone density fell significantly in steroid treated but not placebo patients.

CONCLUSIONS

IM depomedrone improved disease activity in the short term and produced a small reduction in bone erosion at the cost of a significant increase in adverse events. Despite the initial benefit of IM depomedrone, when patients respond suboptimally to a DMARD they should not be given long term additional steroids but should be treated with alternative or additional DMARDs.

Short-term low-dose corticosteroids vs placebo and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

The effect of low dose corticosteroids, equivalent to 15 mg prednisolone daily or less, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis has been questioned. We performed a systematic review of trials which compared corticosteroids with placebo or non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether short-term (i.e. as recorded within the first month of therapy), oral low-dose corticosteroids (corresponding to a maximum of 15 mg prednisolone daily) is superior to placebo and non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

PubMed, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL ), reference lists were searched until February 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised studies comparing an oral corticosteroid (not exceeding an equivalent of 15 mg prednisolone daily) with placebo or a non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drug were eligible if they reported clinical outcomes within one month after start of therapy. For adverse effects, long-term trials and matched cohort studies were also selected.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Decisions on which trials to include were made independently by two observers based on the methods sections of the trials. Standardised mean difference (random effects model) was used for the statistical analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies, involving 320 patients, were included. Prednisolone had a marked effect over placebo on joint tenderness (standardised mean difference 1.30, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.83), pain (1.75, 0.87 to 2.64) and grip strength (0.41, 0.13 to 0.69). Measured in the original units, the differences were 12 tender joints (6 to 18) and 22 mm Hg (5 to 40) for grip strength. Prednisolone also had a greater effect than non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs on joint tenderness (0.63, 0.11 to 1.16) and pain (1.25, 0.26 to 2.24), whereas the difference in grip strength was not significant (0.31, -0.02 to 0.64). Measured in the original units, the differences were 9 tender joints (5 to 12) and 12 mm Hg (-6 to 31). The risk of adverse effects, also during moderate- and long-term use, seemed acceptable.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Prednisolone in low doses (not exceeding 15 mg daily) may be used intermittently in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, particularly if the disease cannot be controlled by other means. Since prednisolone is highly effective, short-term placebo controlled trials studying the clinical effect of low-dose prednisolone or other oral corticosteroids are no longer necessary.

Patient education for adults with rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Because of the unpredictability people with arthritis face on a daily basis, patient education programmes have become an effective complement to traditional medical treatment giving people with arthritis the strategies and the tools necessary to make daily decisions to cope with the disease.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of patient education interventions on health status in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. A selection of review articles (see references) were examined to identify further relevant publications. There was no language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCT's) evaluating patient education interventions that included an instructional component and a non-intervention control group; pre- and post-test results available separately for RA, either in the publication or from the studies' authors; and study results presented in full, end-of-study report.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-four studies with relevant data were included. We found significant effects of patient education at first follow-up for scores on disability, joint counts, patient global assessment and psychological status. Physician global assessment was not assessed in any of the included studies. The two separate dimensions of psychological status: anxiety and depression showed no significant effects, nor did the dimensions of pain and disease activity. At final follow up no significant effects of patient education were found.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Patient education as provided in the studies reviewed here had moderate short-term effects on patient global assessment, and small short-term effects on disability, joint counts and psychological status. There were no long-term benefits.

A classification scheme for outcome indicators

PURPOSE

To provide a framework for classifying outcome indicators for a more comprehensive view of outcomes and quality.

METHODS

Review of outcomes literature published since 1974 from medicine, nursing, and health services research to identify indicators. Outcome indicators were clustered inductively.

FINDINGS

Three groups of outcome indicators were identified: patient-focused, provider-focused, and organization-focused. Although investigators tend to focus on a select few outcome indicators, such as patient satisfaction, quality of life, and mortality, many indicators exist to measure outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Selecting and integrating a wide array of outcome indicators from the various categories will provide a more balanced view of health care delivery as compared with focusing on a few common indicators or only one category.