Patient-reported outcomes in Asia: evaluation of the properties of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) score in multiethnic Asian patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Is the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) score a meaningful instrument for other inflammatory rheumatic diseases? A cross-sectional analysis of data from the German National Database

To analyse the performance of the rheumatoid arthritis impact of disease (RAID) score in patients with ankylosing spondylitis, polymyalgia rheumatica, systemic lupus erythematosus, primary Sjögren’s syndrome, idiopathic inflammatory myositis and systemic sclerosis, as compared with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

A total of 12 398 patients from the German National Database were included. For each diagnosis, we calculated age-adjusted/sex-adjusted partial correlation coefficients between RAID and patient global (PtGl) health, PtGl disease activity, physician global (PhGl) disease activity, Well-Being Index (WHO-5) and EuroQoL-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D). As a measure of agreement, the mean differences between the RAID and other outcomes were compared with the respective differences for RA. The effect of each diagnosis on the difference between RAID and the other scores was assessed with linear regression, with RA as the reference.

Results

Across all diagnoses, RAID correlated strongly with PtGl health (0.71–0.83), moderately to strongly with PtGl disease activity (0.59–0.79), WHO-5 (0.65–0.81) and EQ-5D (0.68–0.73) and weakly with PhGl disease activity (0.23–0.38). Mean differences were calculated for RAID and PtGl disease activity (0 to −0.6), PtGl health (−0.4 to −0.9), WHO-5 (−0.7 to −1.3), EQ-5D (1.1 to 1.7) and PhGl disease activity (1.4 to 2.2). Discrepancies between other scores and RAID were comparable to RA. Linear regression revealed no clinically relevant effect of any of the diagnoses on the difference between RAID and the other outcomes.

Conclusion

The RAID score performs comparably across all diagnoses investigated. This supports the use of RAID for measuring the impact also of other rheumatic diseases.

Clinical performance of rheumatoid arthritis impact of disease score: a real-life evidence from the multicenter nationwide registry BioStaR

The rheumatoid arthritis impact of disease (RAID) score was developed as a patient-derived composite response index for the evaluation of the disease impact on cases with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties and performance of RAID score in the real-life settings. Cases with RA from our multi-center, nationwide registry called Biologic and targeted Synthetic antirheumatic drugs Registry RA (BioStaR RA) were included in this cross-sectional observational study. Demographic data, disease duration, pain, patient's global assessment (PGA) and physician's global assessment (PhyGA) were recorded. DAS28-ESR, DAS28-CRP, the simplified disease activity index (SDAI) and the clinical disease activity index (CDAI) were assessed as disease activity evaluations. The health assessment questionnaire-disability index (HAQ-DI) and RAID were completed by all the participants. The construct validity was tested by the analysis of correlations between RAID score and scores of PGA, disease activity indexes and HAQ-DI. We also evaluated the discriminatory ability of RAID to distinguish patients with different levels of disease activity and disability and the cut-off values were calculated by ROC analysis. 585 cases with RA were included in this investigation. The RAID score was significantly positively correlated with PGA, all disease activity indexes and HAQ-DI (p < 0.001). The discriminatory ability of RAID score in different disease activity and disability groups was also demonstrated (p < 0.001). To estimate DAS28-ESR (remission/low + moderate + high), RAID score cut-off points were 2.88 (sensitivity 73%, specificity 62%), 3.23 (sensitivity 75%, specificity 60%) and 3.79 (sensitivity 74%, specificity 58%), respectively. Our study indicated that RAID was a reliable tool in daily clinical practice by presenting its correlations with disease activity and disability assessments and by showing its discriminatory ability in these parameters in the real-life experiences.

Validity and reliability of the EULAR instrument RAID.7 as a tool to assess individual domains of impact of disease in rheumatoid arthritis: a cross-sectional study of 671 patients

Objective

The rheumatoid arthritis impact of disease (RAID) questionnaire comprises seven patient-important domains of disease impact (pain, function, fatigue, sleep disturbance, emotional well-being, physical well-being, coping). RAID was validated as a pooled-weighted score. Its seven individual items separately could provide a valuable tool in clinical practice to guide interventions targeting the patient’s experience of the disease. The aim was to separately assess the psychometric properties of each of the seven numeric rating scale (NRS) of the RAID (RAID.7).

Material and methods

Post hoc analyses of data from the cross-sectional RAID study and from the Rainbow study, an open-label 12-week trial of etanercept in patients with RA. Construct validity of each NRS was assessed cross-sectionally in the RAID data set by Spearman’s correlation with the respective external instrument of reference. Using the rainbow data set, we assessed reliability through intraclass correlation coefficient between the screening and the baseline visits and responsiveness (sensitivity to change) by standardised response mean between baseline and 12 weeks.

Results

A total of 671 patients with RA with features of established disease were analysed, 563 and 108 from RAID and Rainbow, respectively. The NRS correlated moderately to strongly with the respective external instrument of reference (r=0.62–0.81). Reliability ranged from 0.64 (0.51–0.74) (pain) to 0.83 (0.76–0.88) (sleep disturbance) and responsiveness from 0.93 (0.73–1.13) (sleep disturbance) to 1.34 (1.01–1.64) (pain).

Conclusion

The separate use of the individual NRS of RAID (RAID.7) is valid, feasible, reliable and sensitive to change, representing an opportunity to improve the assessment and treatment of disease impact with minimal questionnaire burden.

Trial registration number

NCT00768053.

Patient-reported outcomes from a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, phase III study of baricitinib versus placebo in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate therapy: results from the RA-BALANCE study

INTRODUCTION

To assess the effect of baricitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX).

METHODS

This was a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, phase III study in patients with RA who had an inadequate response to MTX. Patients (n = 290) receiving stable background MTX were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive placebo or baricitinib 4 mg once daily with a primary endpoint at week 12. PROs assessed included Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity, patient's assessment of pain, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Level index scores and visual analogue scale, and measures collected in electronic patient daily diaries: duration of morning joint stiffness, Worst Tiredness, and Worst Joint Pain. Treatment comparisons were made with logistic regression and analysis of covariance models for categorical and continuous variables, respectively.

RESULTS

Statistically significant (p ⩽ 0.05) improvements in all PROs were observed in the baricitinib 4 mg group compared to placebo as early as week 1 to week 4; and were sustained to week 24. These improvements were maintained until week 52 for the baricitinib group. A significantly larger proportion of patients met or exceeded the minimum clinically important difference for HAQ-DI (⩾0.22) and FACIT-F (3.56) profiles in the baricitinib group.

CONCLUSION

Baricitinib provided significant improvements in PROs compared to placebo to 52 weeks of treatment in patients with RA who had an inadequate response to MTX.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02265705; NCT02265705; RA-BALANCE. Registered 13 October 2014.

Effects of Sarilumab on Rheumatoid Arthritis as Reported by Patients Using the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease Scale

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the effect of sarilumab on patient-perceived impact of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using the 7-domain RA Impact of Disease (RAID) scale.

METHODS

Two phase III, randomized, controlled trials of sarilumab in patients with active, longstanding RA were analyzed: (1) sarilumab 150 mg and 200 mg every 2 weeks plus conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (+csDMARD) versus placebo + csDMARD [TARGET (NCT01709578)]; and (2) sarilumab 200 mg versus adalimumab (ADA) 40 mg monotherapy [MONARCH (NCT02332590)]. Least-squares mean (LSM) differences in RAID total score (range 0-10) and 7 key RA symptoms, including pain and fatigue (baseline to Weeks 12 and 24), were compared. "Responders" by RAID total score were defined by improvements from baseline ≥ minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and ≥ patient-acceptable symptom-state (PASS) at endpoint.

RESULTS

Sarilumab 150 mg and 200 mg + csDMARD were nominally superior (p < 0.05) versus placebo + csDMARD and 200 mg sarilumab versus ADA 40 mg in LSM differences for RAID total score at weeks 12 (-0.93 and -1.13; -0.49, respectively) and 24 (-0.75 and -1.01; -0.78), and all effects of RA (except functional impairment in MONARCH Week 12). Effects were greater in physical domains (e.g., pain) than mental domains (e.g., emotional well-being). More patients receiving sarilumab versus placebo or ADA reported improvements ≥ MCID and PASS in total RAID scores at both assessments.

CONCLUSION

Based on the RAID, sarilumab + csDMARD or as monotherapy reduced the effect of RA on patients' lives to a greater extent than placebo + csDMARD or ADA monotherapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01709578 and NCT02332590).