Article Text

Download PDFPDF

THU0145 Impact of different formulations of “patient global assessment” on remission classification by disease activity indices in rheumatoid arthritis
  1. G Eugénio1,
  2. R Ferreira1 2,
  3. C Silva3,
  4. C Medeiros1,
  5. JAP Silva1 3,
  6. C Duarte1 3
  1. 1CHUc-Huc
  2. 2UICiSA:E
  3. 3FMUC, Coimbra, Portugal


Background Patient global assessment (PGA) of disease activity is included in a large number of composite indices of disease activity and definitions of remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). However, the actual question is formulated in a variety of different ways according to the instrument considered.

Objectives To evaluate how 6 different formulations of PGA affect patient estimates and impact upon disease activity and remission rates as assessed by 4 Disease Activity Indices.

Methods Consecutive RA patients followed in a Rheumatology outpatient department were included in this cross-sectional study. Data collection comprised: 28 joint counts (tender and swollen), C-reactive protein (CRP) and 6 different PGA formulations. The chosen formulations were the ones stated in the: v1) Portuguese National Registry, the locally used formulation; v2) ACR/EULAR provisional definition of remission (considered in this study as the “standard”); v3) CDAI and SDAI; v4) Disease Activity Score (DAS28) assessment of general health; v5) DAS28 assessment of disease activity (the currently used); v6) one, exploratory, developed by the investigators, including idiomatic cultural expressions. ACR/EULAR Boolean criteria, CDAI, SDAI, and DAS28-CRP (4v) were used to test how these 6 PGA formulations change the rates of remission. PGA differences were assessed by descriptive analyses (including patients with PGA ≤10 and ≤20mm) and Bland-Altman test.

Results In total, 193 patients were included (82% female, mean (SD) age of 59 (13) years, mean disease duration of 12 (9) years and 31% under biologics). The average PGA ranged from 42.3 (25.3) to 48.1 (26.7)mm as measured in different formulations. The ACR/EULAR (v2) formulation yielded the largest proportion of patients scoring ≤10mm (16.1%), corresponding to a difference of up to 4.7% versus other PGAs. Similar results were found for the ≤20 cut-off (Table 1).

By using different PGA's formulations the rates of remission calculated with different indices can vary between 4.7% and 6.7% (Table 2).

Bland-Altman chart confirmed the low agreement between ACR/EULAR formulation and the other PGA formulations (p<.05), except for the DAS “general health” (p=.054).

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics of the 6 PGA's formulations (n=193)

Table 2.

Remission rates according to four composite indexes with the 6 PGA's formulations (n=193)

Conclusions The use of different PGA formulations has clinical implications in disease activity, which, in turn, can influence therapeutic decisions. The establishment of a single standardised formulation seems warranted.

Disclosure of Interest None declared

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.