A modified rheumatoid arthritis disease activity score without acute-phase reactants (mDAS28) for epidemiological research

Development and initial validation of a questionnaire to assess facilitators and barriers to physical activity for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis and/or psoriatic arthritis

To develop and validate a self-administered questionnaire to identify in people with Inflammatory arthritis (IA) Facilitators And Barriers to Physical activity (PA): the IFAB questionnaire. The development of the questionnaire included a systematic review of barriers and facilitators to PA to identify key themes, face validity assessment by 11 experts, and cognitive debriefing with 14 patients. The psychometric properties of the questionnaire were assessed by convergent validity (Spearman correlation) against the modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ), the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire subscale for PA and the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, internal consistency (Cronbach α) in 63 IA patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Reliability and feasibility were assessed in 32 IA patients. The questionnaire comprises 10 items: 4 assessing either barriers or facilitators, 3 assessing barriers, and 3 assessing facilitators. The items are related to psychological status (N = 6), social support (N = 2), disease (N = 1), environmental factors (N = 1). The validation study included 63 patients: 26 RA, 24 axSpA, 13 PsA; with mean age 52.8 (standard deviation 16.5) years, mean disease duration 12.5 (12.3) years, and 53% of women. The questionnaire was correlated (rho = 0.24) with mHAQ. Internal consistency (Cronbach α 0.69) and reliability (interclass coefficient 0.79 [95% confidence interval 0.59; 0.88]) were satisfactory, as was feasibility (missing data 12%, mean completion time < 5 min). The questionnaire allows the assessment of barriers and facilitators to PA in patients with IA. This questionnaire may guide targeted interventions to increase levels of PA in these patients.

Brief Report: Adaptation of American College of Rheumatology Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity and Functional Status Measures for Telehealth Visits

Objective

To provide guidance on the implementation of recommended American College of Rheumatology (ACR) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity and functional status assessment measures in telehealth settings.

Methods

An expert panel was assembled from the recently convened ACR RA disease activity and functional status measures working groups to summarize strategies for implementation of ACR‐recommended RA disease activity (the Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI], Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate or the C‐reactive protein level [DAS28‐ESR/CRP], Patient Activity Scale II [PAS‐II], Simplified Disease Activity Index [SDAI], and Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 [RAPID3]) and functional status (the Health Assessment Questionnaire II [HAQ‐II], Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire [MDHAQ], and PROMIS physical function 10‐item short form [PROMIS PF‐10]) measures in telehealth settings.

Results

Measures composed of patient‐reported items (disease activity: PAS‐II, RAPID3; functional status: HAQ‐II, MDHAQ, PROMIS PF‐10) require minimal modification for use in telehealth settings. Measures requiring formal joint counts (the CDAI, DAS28‐ESR/CRP, and SDAI) can be calculated using patient‐reported swollen and tender joint counts. When the feasibility of laboratory testing is limited, the CDAI can be used in place of the SDAI, and scoring modifications of the DAS28‐ESR/CRP without the acute‐phase reactant are available. Assessment of the validity of these modifications is limited. Implementation of these measures can be facilitated by electronic health record collection, mobile applications, and provider/staff administration during telehealth visits.

Conclusion

The ACR‐recommended RA disease activity and functional status measures can be adapted for use in telehealth settings to support high‐quality clinical care. Research is needed to better understand how telehealth settings may impact the validity of these measures.

Comparative effectiveness of first-line tumour necrosis factor inhibitor versus non-tumour necrosis factor inhibitor biologics and targeted synthetic agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from a large US registry study

Objectives

This study evaluated the comparative effectiveness of a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) versus a non-TNFi (biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs)) as the first-line treatment following conventional synthetic DMARDs, as well as potential modifiers of response, observed in US clinical practice.

Methods

Data were from a large US healthcare registry (Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry). The analysis included patients (aged ≥18 years) with a documented diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a valid baseline Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score of >2.8 and no prior bDMARD or tsDMARD use. Outcomes were captured at 1-year postinitiation of a TNFi (adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab pegol, golimumab or infliximab) or a non-TNFi (abatacept, tocilizumab, rituximab, anakinra or tofacitinib) and included CDAI, 28-Joint Modified Disease Activity Score, patient-reported outcomes (including the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, EuroQol-5 Dimension score, sleep, anxiety, morning stiffness and fatigue) and rates of anaemia. Groups were propensity score-matched at baseline to account for potential confounding.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences observed between the TNFi and non-TNFi treatment groups for outcomes assessed, except the incidence rate ratio for anaemia, which slightly favoured the TNFi group (19.04 per 100 person-years) versus the non-TNFi group (24.01 per 100 person-years, p=0.03). No potential effect modifiers were found to be statistically significant.

Conclusions

The findings of no significant differences in outcomes between first-line TNF versus first-line non-TNF groups support RA guidelines, which recommend individualised care based on clinical judgement and consideration of patient preferences.

Remission in rheumatoid arthritis: is it all the same?

Remission is the key treatment goal in rheumatoid arthritis and should provide the optimal state for patients. Clinical remission criteria are based on composite scores of disease activity and are widely used in clinical practice and trials. With the use of biologic therapies and treat to target strategies, rates of clinical remission have significantly improved. Despite achieving this target, many patients demonstrate structural and functional deterioration. This raises the question regarding the validity of clinical criteria, although they have evolved significantly over the years. Imaging modalities such as ultrasound have been described as more accurate methods of assessing the remission state compared with clinical assessment alone. Furthermore, immuno-pathological assessments are gaining significant interest as this would enable assessment of disease activity at the primary site of pathology. Further research is required to develop accurate biomarkers of remission. We aimed to review the evolution of remission criteria in rheumatoid arthritis to date and to evaluate novel concepts in and the future of defining remission.

Genetic and genomic markers of anti-TNF treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis

Despite the success of anti-TNF drugs in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, a significant rate of nonresponse remains. Current clinical factors confer little power for predicting response and, in current practice, an unsatisfactory ‘trial and error’ approach governs therapeutic decisions. Candidate gene and unbiased genome-wide investigations have sought to identify genetic biomarkers that predict who will respond to anti-TNF drugs before the drug is administered. To date, few studies have yielded robust associations; herein, we discuss currently identified associations and the issues that need to be addressed in future investigations including insufficient power and an inadequate measure of disease activity. The potential for alternative predictors of anti-TNF therapy response from transcriptomic and epigenetic data will also be explored.

Clinically important changes in individual and composite measures of rheumatoid arthritis activity: thresholds applicable in clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

Thresholds of minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) are needed to plan and interpret clinical trials. We estimated MCIIs for the rheumatoid arthritis (RA) activity measures of patient global assessment, pain score, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ), Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI).

METHODS

In this prospective longitudinal study, we studied 250 patients who had active RA. Disease activity measures were collected before and either 1 month (for patients treated with prednisone) or 4 months (for patients treated with disease modifying medications or biologics) after treatment escalation. Patient judgments of improvement in arthritis status were related to prospectively assessed changes in the measures. MCIIs were changes that had a specificity of 0.80 for improvement based on receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. We used bootstrapping to provide estimates with predictive validity.

RESULTS

At baseline, the mean (±SD) DAS28-ESR (erythrocyte sedimentation rate) was 6.16±1.2 and mean SDAI was 38.6±14.8. Improvement in overall arthritis status was reported by 167 patients (66.8%). Patients were consistent in their ratings of improvement versus no change or worsening, with receiver operating characteristic curve areas ≥0.74. MCIIs with a specificity for improvement of 0.80 were: patient global assessment -18, pain score -20, HAQ -0.375, DAS28-ESR -1.2, DAS28-CRP (C-reactive protein) -1.0, SDAI -13, and CDAI -12.

CONCLUSIONS

MCIIs for individual core set measures were larger than previous estimates. Reporting the proportion of patients who meet these MCII thresholds can improve the interpretation of clinical trials in RA.

Visualization of DAS28, SDAI, and CDAI: the magic carpets of rheumatoid arthritis

There has been continuous debate regarding the applicability of various composite measures for the assessment of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In order to further dissect this issue, we numerically and graphically modeled 28-joint disease activity scale (DAS28), simplified disease activity index (SDAI), and clinical disease activity index (CDAI) by three-dimensional (3D) plotting. We wished to graphically visualize the relative contribution of various elements in the three activity indices to each other. We calculated DAS28 (3 variables), SDAI, and CDAI by the standard equations. We plotted 3D "carpets" showing all combinations of the corresponding variables yielding to DAS28 = 5.1, DAS28 = 3.2, DAS28 = 2.6, SDAI = 26, SDAI = 11, and SDAI = 3.3. We also plotted the 3D carpet for CDAI. In patients with high or moderate disease activity, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) or C-reactive protein (CRP) was not a major confounding factor when calculating DAS28 and SDAI, respectively. In contrast, ESR and CRP highly overshadowed changes in joint counts and global assessments in patients with low disease activity (LDA) or those in remission. No reliable assessment of LDA can be performed in cases where ESR >54 mm/h or CRP >20 mg/dl. Similarly, remission cannot be determined if ESR >19 mm/h or CRP >5 mg/dl. As CDAI does not include acute phase reactants, CDAI may be a useful tool even in states of remission or LDA. Our results suggest that acute phase reactants are indeed major confounding factors and should be omitted when assessing RA disease activity at least in special cases.

The comparative effectiveness of abatacept versus anti-tumour necrosis factor switching for rheumatoid arthritis patients previously treated with an anti-tumour necrosis factor

Objective

We compared the effectiveness of abatacept (ABA) versus a subsequent anti-tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (anti-TNF) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with prior anti-TNF use.

Methods

We identified RA patients from a large observational US cohort (2/1/2000–8/7/2011) who had discontinued at least one anti-TNF and initiated either ABA or a subsequent anti-TNF. Using propensity score (PS) matching (n:1 match), effectiveness was measured at 6 and 12 months after initiation based on mean change in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), modified American College of Rheumatology (mACR) 20, 50 and 70 responses, modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ) and CDAI remission in adjusted regression models.

Results

The PS-matched groups included 431 ABA and 746 anti-TNF users at 6 months and 311 ABA and 493 anti-TNF users at 12 months. In adjusted analyses comparing response following treatment with ABA and anti-TNF, the difference in weighted mean change in CDAI (range 6–8) at 6 months (0.46, 95% CI −0.82 to 1.73) and 12 months was similar (−1.64, 95% CI −3.47 to 0.19). The mACR20 responses were similar at 6 (28–32%, p=0.73) and 12 months (35–37%, p=0.48) as were the mACR50 and mACR70 (12 months: 20–22%, p=0.25 and 10–12%, p=0.49, respectively). Meaningful change in mHAQ was similar at 6 and 12 months (30–33%, p=0.41 and 29–30%, p=0.39, respectively) as was CDAI remission rates (9–10%, p=0.42 and 12–13%, p=0.91, respectively).

Conclusions

RA patients with prior anti-TNF exposures had similar outcomes if they switched to a new anti-TNF as compared with initiation of ABA.

Association of rheumatoid arthritis risk alleles with response to anti-TNF biologics: results from the CORRONA registry and meta-analysis

In this study, we investigated whether genetic variants known to be related with susceptibility to rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are also associated with response to therapy with anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) biologics; 233 patients enrolled in the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America (CORRONA) RA registry were studied. Findings were combined with results from an international collaborative study (N = 1,283) in a meta-analysis (N = 1,516). Multivariate models investigating the association between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and change in RA disease activity were adjusted for age, gender, concomitant methotrexate, and baseline disease activity. In the CORRONA cohort, nominal associations with disease activity improvement were observed for the rs1980422 SNP of the CD28 gene in multivariate models (coefficient -0.377, p = 0.005) but were not significant after adjustment for multiple comparisons (q = 0.10). In the meta-analysis, the only SNP with nominal associations with change in DAS28 was the rs2812378 SNP of the CCL21 gene (coefficient 1.9195, p = 0.0068). This association was not significant after adjustment for multiple comparisons (q = 0.143). We conclude that the established RA risk alleles studied were not significantly associated with response to anti-TNF biologics in the CORRONA cohort or the meta-analysis.