Which outcome measures should be used in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials?.

Wiley - Tập 38 Số 11 - Trang 1568-1580 - 1995
Rachelle Buchbinder1, Claire Bombardier2, Maria Yeung2, Peter Tugwell3
1Wellesley Hospital Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (currently with Monash University, Melbourne, Australia)
2Wellesley Hospital Research Institute, University of Toronto
3University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Tóm tắt

AbstractObjective. To determine the discriminant validity of the core set of outcome measures proposed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the Outcome Measures in Clinical Trials (OMERACT) conference committee to be used in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods. Utilizing data from a multicenter randomized double‐blind clinical trial of low‐dose cyclosporine and placebo in RA, we estimated the relative efficiency (RE) of measures to detect a treatment effect (relative to tender joint count, which was assigned a value of 1). Four pain measures (10‐cm visual analog scale [VAS], 5‐point categorical scale, Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ] pain index, Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales [AIMS] pain score) and 3 quality‐of‐life measures (Problem Elicitation Technique [PET], HAQ, AIMS) were compared.Results. Physician and patient global measures were the most responsive instruments, although neither was statistically superior to tender joint count. Swollen joint count, grip strength, pain measured on a 10‐cm VAS, and functional status as measured by the PET and HAQ were all of intermediate responsiveness. Morning stiffness, 5‐point pain scale, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were the least responsive instruments.Conclusion. This study provides further evidence to support the core set of outce measures proposed by the ACR and OMERACT.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1002/art.1780360601

Tugwell P, 1993, Developing consensus on preliminary core efficacy endpoints for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials, J Rheumatol, 20, 555

10.1016/0021-9681(85)90005-0

10.1016/0140-6736(90)92630-Z

10.1002/art.1780230202

10.1002/art.1780230203

Tugwell P, 1987, The MACTAR Patient Preference Disability Questionnaire: an individualized functional priority approach for assessing improvement in physical disability in clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis, J Rheumatol, 14, 446

10.1002/art.1780310302

Klinkhoff A, 1988, An experiment in reducing observer variability of the examination of joint tenderness, J Rheumatol, 15, 492

Huskisson EC, 1982, Measurement of pain, J Rheumatol, 5, 768

Fries JF, 1982, The dimensions of health outcomes: the Health Assessment Questionnaire, disability and pain scales, J Rheumatol, 9, 789

10.1016/0002-9343(86)90539-5

10.1002/art.1780271204

10.1002/art.1780250903

10.1002/art.1780280513

10.1002/anr.1780320907

10.1016/S0197-2456(05)80028-5

10.1016/0895-4356(90)90097-9

10.1001/archinte.150.1.59

10.1001/jama.1949.02900430001001

10.1016/0021-9681(87)90069-5

Anderson JJ, 1989, Sensitivity of a health status measure to short‐term clinical changes in arthritis, Arthritis Rheum, 32, 844, 10.1002/j.2326-5205.1989.tb00015.x

Wolfe F, 1991, Clinical and health status measures over time: prognosis and outcome assessment in rheumatoid arthritis, J Rheumatol, 18, 1290

Kolodny AL, 1988, Two double‐blind trials of diclofenac sodium with aspirin and with naproxen in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, J Rheumatol, 15, 1205

Spiegel JS, 1987, What are we measuring? An examination of walk time and grip strength, J Rheumatol, 14, 80

10.1016/0049-0172(88)90013-3

Wolfe F, 1991, The assessment and prediction of functional disability in rheumatoid arthritis, J Rheumatol, 18, 1298

Bellamy N, 1991, Rheumatoid arthritis antirheumatic drug trials. I. Effects of standardization procedures on observer dependent outcome measures, J Rheumatol, 18, 1893

10.1002/art.1780331001

10.1002/art.1790050304

10.1016/S0197-2456(05)80029-7

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Wiley

Tập 38 Số 11

1568-1580

Thông tin tác giả