FRI0581 Validation of The Danish Version of The Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index and Determination of The Minimal Clinically Important Difference in A Cohort of Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Using The Rasch Measurement Model

2016 ◽  
Vol 75 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. 652.1-652
Author(s):  
L.M. Ørnbjerg ◽  
K. Christensen ◽  
A. Tennant ◽  
M. Hetland
2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 194-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beyza Doganay Erdogan ◽  
Ying Ying Leung ◽  
Christoph Pohl ◽  
Alan Tennant ◽  
Philip G. Conaghan

Objective.We aimed to evaluate how minimal (clinically) important differences (MCID/MID) were calculated in rheumatology in the past 2 decades and demonstrate how the calculation is compromised by the lack of interval scaling.Methods.We conducted a systematic literature review on articles reporting MCID calculation in osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from January 1, 1989, to May 9, 2014. We evaluated the methods of MCID calculation and recorded the ranges of MCID for common patient-reported outcome measures (PROM). Taking data from the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), we showed the effects of performing mathematical calculations on ordinal data.Results.A total of 330 abstracts were reviewed and 123 articles chosen for full text review. Thirty-six (19 OA, 16 RA and 1 OA-RA) articles were included in the final evaluation. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) was the most frequently reported PROM with relevant calculations in OA, and the HAQ in RA. Sixteen articles used anchor-based methods alone for calculation of MCID, and 1 article used distribution-based methods alone. Nineteen articles used both anchor and distribution-based methods. Only 1 article calculated MCID using an interval scale. Wide ranges in MCID for the WOMAC in OA and HAQ in RA were noted. Ordinal-based derivations of MCID are shown to understate true change at the margins, and overstate change in the mid-range of a scale.Conclusion.The anchor-based method is commonly used in the calculation of MCID. However, the lack of interval scaling is shown to compromise validity of MCID calculation.


Author(s):  
David Ebbevi ◽  
Anna Essén ◽  
Helena Hvitfeldt Forsberg

Background. The Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ) is widely used to measure functional ability in persons with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). The instrument was developed with limited involvement from persons with RA, and their perception of the instrument has not been studied in depth. The aim of this study was to explore how persons with RA experience the use of the HAQ in care. Methods. Forty persons with RA were purposefully recruited to participate in semi-structured interviews. The interviews were then analyzed qualitatively using thematic analysis. Results. The participants questioned the relevance of the HAQ but nevertheless experienced that the instrument had a profound effect on their understanding of health and how care is delivered. The analysis resulted in three themes: Problems with individual items, meaning of the summative score, and effects on care and health perceptions. Conclusions. To make the HAQ relevant to persons with RA, it needs to be revised or to include an option to select items most meaningful to the respondent. To ensure relevance, the HAQ update should preferably be co-created by researchers, clinicians and persons with RA.


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 599.1-600
Author(s):  
V. Strand ◽  
L. Sun ◽  
J. Ross Terres ◽  
C. L. Kannowski

Background:Baricitinib (BARI) provided rapid and sustained improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) in patients (pts) with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate responses (IR) to methotrexate (MTX) (RA-BEAM;NCT01710358)1,2and biologic DMARDs (bDMARD-IR; RA-BEACON;NCT01721044)3,4.Objectives:To determine the number needed to treat (NNT) to report improvements ≥minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) in multiple PROs at Week (Wk) 12 after treatment with BARI 4-mg in RA-BEAM and BARI 2-mg or BARI 4-mg in RA-BEACON. NNTs ≤10 vs placebo (PBO) are considered clinically meaningful.Methods:Evaluated PROs with respective MCID definitions included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA, 0-100 mm visual analog scale [VAS], MCID ≥10 mm), pain (0-100 mm VAS, MCID ≥10 mm), physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, MCID ≥0.22 points), fatigue (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue [FACIT-F], MCID≥4.0), and health-related quality of life (SF-36 physical component summary [PCS: MCID ≥2.5] and domain scores: physical function [PF], role physical [RP], bodily pain [BP], general health [GH], vitality [VT], social functioning [SF], role emotional [RE], mental health [MH], MCID ≥5.0).5The percentages of pts reporting improvements ≥MCID were determined at Wk 12. NNTs were calculated as 1/difference in response rates between BARI 2-mg or 4-mg and PBO.Results:At Wk 12, percentages of pts reporting clinically meaningful improvements were greater and statistically different from PBO (p<0.01) with BARI 2-mg and 4-mg across most PROs in both RCTs. Most NNTs were ≤10. (Figure)Conclusion:Across different populations, MTX-IR and bDMARD-IR pts with active RA reported clinically meaningful improvements in PROs after BARI treatment. The NNTs in these analyses indicate that <10 pts need to be treated with BARI 2- or 4-mg to report a clinically meaningful benefit.References:[1]Taylor et al. NEJM, 2017;376: 652-62[2]Keystone et al. Ann Rheum Dis, 2017;76:1853-61[3]Genovese et al. NEJM, 2016; 374: 1243-52[4]Smolen et al. Ann Rheum Dis, 2017; 76: 694-700[5]Strand et al. J Rheumatol, 2011; 38: 1720-27Figure.Percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥MCID with baricitinib vs placebo and associated NNTs for baricitinib in RA-BEAM and RA-BEACON. *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001. Abbreviations: BP, bodily pain; FACIT-F, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue; GH, general health; HAQ-DI, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index; MCID, minimum clinically important difference; MH, mental health; NA, not applicable (ie, difference between treatment and placebo is not statistically significant, confidence interval of NNT is not calculated); NNT, numbers needed to treat; Pain, Patient’s assessment of pain; PCS, physical component score; PF, physical function; PtGA, Patient’s Global Assessment of Disease Activity; RE, role emotional; RP, role physical; SF-36, Short Form-36; SF, social functioning; VT, vitalityDisclosure of Interests:Vibeke Strand Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celltrion, Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America, Crescendo Bioscience, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, UCB, Luna Sun Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Jorge Ross Terres Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Carol L. Kannowski Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company


2020 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. S652
Author(s):  
M. Péntek ◽  
G. Poór ◽  
V. Brodszky ◽  
Z. Zrubka ◽  
L. Gulácsi ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. jrheum.200927
Author(s):  
Weiyu Ye ◽  
Simon Hackett ◽  
Claire Vandevelde ◽  
Sarah Twigg ◽  
Philip S. Helliwell ◽  
...  

Objective To compare physical function scales of the Multi-Dimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ) to the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQDI) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and examine whether either questionnaire is less prone to ‘floor effects’. Methods Data were collected prospectively from 2018 to 2019 across three UK hospitals. All patients completed physical function scales within the MDHAQ and HAQDI in a single clinic visit. Agreement was assessed using medians and the Bland-Altman method. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to assess test-retest reliability. Results 210 patients completed the clinic visit; one withdrew consent thus 209 were analysed. 60.0% were male, with mean age of 51.7 years and median disease duration of 7 years. In clinic, median MDHAQ and HAQDI including/excluding aids scores were 0.30, 0.50 and 0.50 respectively. Although the median score for HAQDI is higher than MDHAQ, the difference between the two mostly lies within 1.96 standard deviations from the mean suggesting good agreement. The ICCs demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability for both HAQ questionnaires.Similar numbers of patients scored ‘0’ on the MDHAQ and HAQDI including/excluding aids (48, 47, and 49 respectively). Using a score of ≤0.5 as a cut-off for minor functional impairment, 23 patients had a MDHAQ ≤0.5 when their HAQDI including aids >0.5. Conversely, 4 patients had a MDHAQ > 0.5 when the HAQDI including aids ≤0.5. ConclusionBoth HAQ questionnaires appear to be similar in detecting floor effects in patients with PsA.


2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 204-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick Wolfe ◽  
Brian Walitt ◽  
Johannes J. Rasker ◽  
Winfried Häuser

Objective.Polysymptomatic distress (PSD) is the underlying metric of fibromyalgia (FM), and levels of PSD can identify criteria-positive FM with > 90% accuracy. We used levels of the PSD scale to test whether symptom levels in primary FM (PFM) and secondary FM (SFM) were the same and whether symptoms were equivalent in persons not meeting FM criteria.Methods.We studied 1525 patients with a clinical diagnosis of FM and 12,037 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We used regression models to compare patients with potential and actual PFM to RA patients with potential and actual SFM for 17 key clinical variables.Results.When controlled for PSD values, the widespread pain index, symptom severity scale, and pain, global, quality of life, and physical and mental component scores were essentially the same or only slightly different in PFM and SFM. Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index scores were slightly higher in SFM (0.21 units), as was the painful joint count (1.6 joints). Overall, higher PSD scores were associated with more severe symptoms or abnormal status. PSD scores in patients not satisfying FM criteria and in patients satisfying criteria operated similarly.Conclusion.PFM and SFM are equivalent regarding symptom burden. PSD scores are more informative about severity and severity within diagnosis than dichotomization into FM/non-FM. Studies of FM versus “healthy individuals,” or FM versus other diseases, are inherently defective, while studies of FM and PSD in RA offer the opportunity to have meaningful comparison groups, because there are no readily available unbiased appropriate controls for PFM.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document