Article Text

THU0266 Determining the Absolute Change in the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) to Define A Minimally Important Difference
  1. J.R. Curtis1,
  2. S. Yang2,
  3. L. Chen1,
  4. J.E. Pope3,
  5. E.C. Keystone4,
  6. B. Haraqui5,
  7. G. Boire6,
  8. J.C. Thorne7,
  9. D. Tin7,
  10. C.A. Hitchon8,
  11. C.O. Bingham III9,
  12. V.P. Bykerk10
  1. 1Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology
  2. 2University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
  3. 3St. Joseph Healthcare, Munt Sinai Hospital/University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
  4. 4Mt. Sinai Hospital/Univeristy of Toronto, Toronto, United States
  5. 5Centre Hospitalier de l'Univresité de Montreal, Montreal
  6. 6Rheumatology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherooke
  7. 7Southlake Regional Health Centre, Newmarket
  8. 8Univrsity of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
  9. 9Rheumatology, John Hopkins University, Baltimore
  10. 10Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, United States


Background Simplified measures to quantify rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity are increasing in clinical practice. The absolute minimally important difference (MID) in these measures, such as the clinical disease activity index (CDAI), has not been well defined in real-world settings, especially for early RA patients (ERA) with low or moderate disease activity.

Objectives To determine the MID for improvement of the CDAI in a “real world” setting using an cohort of patients with ERA.

Methods Data from the Canadian CATCH cohort of patients with ERA were used to identify pairs of rheumatology visits 3 months apart occurring within 12 months of cohort entry. Patients with concomitant fibromyalgia (8%) were excluded. Absolute change in CDAI was examined between visit pairs and correlated with relevant changes corresponding to MIDs in patient self-reported improvement (better vs. same/worse), patient pain (>1 vs. ≤1, and >2 vs. ≤2) and HAQ (>0.22 vs. ≤22, and >0.30 vs. ≤0.30). The 10th and 90th percentile of the CDAI distributions for EULAR good response vs. non-response in DAS28 ESR (>1.2 vs. <0.6 units improvement) determine proposed CDAI cutpoints to define MID, overall and stratified by initial CDAI disease activity categories (low <10; moderate 10≤–≤22; high >22). Discrimination of these cutpoints was examined using area under receiver operator curves (AUROC). These CDAI cutpoints describe the Sensitivity (Se), Specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of the CDAI cutpoints for patient pain and HAQ.

Results A total of 1191 unique CATCH patients (mean ± SD age 53.5±15.1 years; 72% women, median RA disease duration 5.8±3.0 months and contributed 3262 visit pairs within 12 months of enrollment. Among those with available serologic results (91% of cohort for RF, 67% of cohort for anti-CCP), 70% were RF positive and 60% anti-CCP antibody positive.

Overall, there was excellent discrimination between DAS28 responders using a CDAI cutpoint of 5 units; the AUROC was 0.87. CDAI cutpoints for patients who started in low, moderate, or high disease were 2, 6, and 10, respectively. The Se, Sp, PPV and NPVs for the outcomes in the Table and the alternate pain and HAQ cutpoints (not shown) had acceptable performance characteristics using these proposed CDAI cutpoints.

Conclusions These minimally important absolute differences in CDAI can be used to evaluate improvement and increase the usefulness of this clinical simplified disease activity measure in real-world settings.

Disclosure of Interest : J. Curtis Grant/research support: Roche/Genentech, UCB, Janssen, CORRONA, Amgen, Pfizer, BMS, Crescendo, AbbVie, Consultant for: Roche/Genentech, UCB, Janssen, CORRONA, Amgen, Pfizer, BMS, Crescendo, AbbVie, S. Yang: None declared, L. Chen: None declared, J. Pope: None declared, E. Keystone: None declared, B. Haraqui: None declared, G. Boire: None declared, J. Thorne: None declared, D. Tin: None declared, C. Hitchon: None declared, C. Bingham III: None declared, V. Bykerk: None declared, S. Yang: None declared

DOI 10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-eular.2945

Statistics from

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.