Article Text

other Versions

PDF
Evaluation of different methods used to assess disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis: analyses of abatacept clinical trial data
  1. M Dougados (m.doug{at}cch.aphp.fr)
  1. Rene Descartes University, Medicine Faculty, France
    1. N Schmidely (nathalie.schmidely{at}bms.com)
    1. Bristol-Myers Squibb, France
      1. M Le Bars (manuela.lebars{at}bms.com)
      1. Bristol-Myers Squibb, France
        1. C Lafosse (candice.lafosse{at}bms.com)
        1. Bristol-Myers Squibb, France
          1. M Schiff (lmschiff{at}aol.com)
          1. University of Colorado, United States
            1. J S Smolen (josef.smolen{at}wienkav.at)
            1. Department of Rheumatology, Medical University of Vienna, Austria
              1. D Aletaha (daniel.aletaha{at}meduniwien.ac.at)
              1. Department of Rheumatology, Medical University of Vienna, Austria
                1. P van Riel (p.vanriel{at}reuma.umcn.nl)
                1. University Hospital Nijmegan, Netherlands
                  1. G Wells (gawells{at}ottawaheart.ca)
                  1. University of Ottawa, Canada

                    Abstract

                    Objectives: To evaluate different methods of reporting response to treatment or disease status for their ability to discriminate between active therapy and placebo, or to reflect structural progression or patient satisfaction with treatment using an exploratory analysis of the AIM (Abatacept in Inadequate responders to Methotrexate) trial.

                    Methods: A total of 424 active- (abatacept ~10 mg/kg) and 214 placebo-treated patients with RA were evaluated. Methods of reporting included: 1) response (American College of Rheumatology [ACR] criteria) versus state (Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) criteria); 2) stringency (ACR20 vs 50 vs 70; Moderate Disease Activity State [MDAS; DAS<5.1] vs Low Disease Activity State [LDAS; DAS28≤3.2] vs DAS28-defined remission [DAS28<2.6]); 3) time to onset (time to first ACR50/LDAS); and 4) sustainability of ACR50/LDAS for consecutive visits). Methods were assessed according to: 1) discriminatory capacity (number of patients needed to study [NNS]); 2) structural progression (Genant-modified Sharp score); and 3) patient satisfaction with treatment. Positive likelihood ratios (LR+) evaluated the ability of the above methods to reflect structural damage and patient satisfaction.

                    Results: MDAS and ACR20 had the highest discriminatory capacity (NNS=49 and 69). Sustained LDAS best reflected no radiographic progression (LR+ ≥2). More stringent criteria (at least ACR50/LDAS), faster onset (≤3 months) and sustainability (>3 visits) of ACR50/LDAS best reflected patient satisfaction (LR+ >10).

                    Conclusions: The optimal method for reporting a measure of disease activity may differ depending on the outcome of interest. Time to onset and sustainability can be important factors when evaluating treatment response and disease status in patients with RA.

                    Statistics from Altmetric.com

                    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.