Literature DB >> 10090187

ACR and EULAR improvement criteria have comparable validity in rheumatoid arthritis trials. American College of Rheumatology European League of Associations for Rheumatology.

A M van Gestel1, J J Anderson, P L van Riel, M Boers, C J Haagsma, B Rich, G Wells, M L Lange, D T Felson.   

Abstract

We compared the validity of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European League of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) definitions of response in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) clinical trials. US: ACR and EULAR improvement criteria were calculated in 7 large randomized RA clinical trials. The discriminant validity of the response criteria between treatment groups was studied using the Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared value. To compare both sets of criteria the chi-squared ratio was determined for each trial. Europe: In 2 large randomized RA clinical trials, ACR and EULAR criteria were calculated, once with extensive and once with 28 joint counts. The classification of patients with these 4 criteria were compared with each other using cross tables. We further studied the difference in response between treatment groups per trial, the association of response with patient and investigator assessment of improvement, and the association of response with radiological progression. US: The chi-squared ratio for most trials was close to 1. There was no clear pattern suggesting that the discriminant validity of the ACR criteria was stronger than the discriminant validity of the EULAR definition of response or vice versa. Europe: Conflicting results between ACR and EULAR were present in only 3% of patients in both trials. The discriminant validity of all 4 criteria (ACR and EULAR with reduced and extensive joint counts) was comparable. All criteria were related with the overall assessment of improvement by both investigator and patient. The association with radiographic progression was comparable for EULAR and ACR improvement criteria. There is a high level of agreement between ACR and EULAR improvement classification, and their validity is equivalent. The discriminating potential of the criteria between treatment groups is comparable, as is the association with patient's and investigator's overall assessment and with radiographic progression.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10090187

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Rheumatol        ISSN: 0315-162X            Impact factor:   4.666


  66 in total

Review 1.  Clinical outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  P L van Riel; A M van Gestel
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 19.103

Review 2.  Consensus statement on the initiation and continuation of tumour necrosis factor blocking therapies in rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  J S Smolen; F C Breedveld; G R Burmester; B Combe; P Emery; J R Kalden; L Klareskog; R N Maini; R Numo; L B van De Putte; P L van Riel; V Rodriguez-Valverde
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 19.103

3.  Radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis: does it reflect outcome? Does it reflect treatment?

Authors:  D van der Heijde
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 19.103

4.  The challenge of following process, damage, and function in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in clinical care.

Authors:  Josef S Smolen; Daniel Aletaha
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 4.592

5.  Patients with rheumatoid arthritis in clinical care.

Authors:  J S Smolen; D Aletaha
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 19.103

6.  Is DAS28-CRP with three and four variables interchangeable in individual patients selected for biological treatment in daily clinical practice?

Authors:  Ole Rintek Madsen
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2011-09-29       Impact factor: 2.980

7.  Homeopathy has clinical benefits in rheumatoid arthritis patients that are attributable to the consultation process but not the homeopathic remedy: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Sarah Brien; Laurie Lachance; Phil Prescott; Clare McDermott; George Lewith
Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)       Date:  2010-11-13       Impact factor: 7.580

8.  Patient- and clinician-reported outcomes for patients with new presentation of inflammatory arthritis: observations from the National Clinical Audit for Rheumatoid and Early Inflammatory Arthritis.

Authors:  Joanna M Ledingham; Neil Snowden; Ali Rivett; James Galloway; Zoe Ide; Jill Firth; Elizabeth MacPhie; Ngianga Kandala; Elaine M Dennison; Ian Rowe
Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)       Date:  2016-10-01       Impact factor: 7.580

9.  Comparison of composite measures of disease activity in an early seropositive rheumatoid arthritis cohort.

Authors:  Veena K Ranganath; Jeonglim Yoon; Dinesh Khanna; Grace S Park; Daniel E Furst; David A Elashoff; Damini Jawaheer; John T Sharp; Richard H Gold; Edward C Keystone; Harold E Paulus
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2007-05-01       Impact factor: 19.103

10.  Leflunomide in active rheumatoid arthritis: a prospective study in daily practice.

Authors:  E N Van Roon; T L Th A Jansen; L Mourad; P M Houtman; G A W Bruyn; E N Griep; B Wilffert; H Tobi; J R B J Brouwers
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.335

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.