R Landewé1, D van der Heijde, S van der Linden, M Boers. 1. Department of Internal Medicine/Rheumatology, University Hospital Maastricht, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, Netherlands. rlan@sint.azm.nl
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare 28 joint disease activity score (DAS28) remission with comprehensive joint count DAS remission in rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: 620 actually measured paired observations of DAS28 and DAS were analysed in 155 patients. Discordant observations (either DAS or DAS28 below remission cut off level: 1.6 for DAS and 2.6 for DAS28) and concordant observations (both DAS and DAS28 below their remission cut off level) were analysed separately. RESULTS: 91 of 620 paired DAS observations (15%) were discordant; 87 (in 53 patients) comprised observations in which the DAS28 remission criterion, but not the DAS remission criterion, was met. The reverse was found in only four observations, which were therefore omitted. With the original DAS as standard, DAS28 sensitivity was 95% and specificity 84%. Probability plots showed a swollen joint count >0 in 75% of discordant pairs v 48% of concordant pairs. The same was found for total joint count (TJC >0 in 90% v 40%; median TJC, 0 v 6) and patient global assessment, but not for ESR. Individual joint analysis showed that 51% of discordant v 18% of concordant observations (p<0.0005) had involvement of lower extremity joints that are not included in the DAS28. CONCLUSIONS: DAS remission is more conservative than DAS28 remission. Activity (tenderness and swelling) in joints not included in the reduced joint counts (ankles, feet) mainly account for the discrepancy between the two assessments. DAS28 remission at a cut off level of 2.6 has insufficient construct validity and should be used with caution in clinical practice and clinical trials.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare 28 joint disease activity score (DAS28) remission with comprehensive joint count DAS remission in rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: 620 actually measured paired observations of DAS28 and DAS were analysed in 155 patients. Discordant observations (either DAS or DAS28 below remission cut off level: 1.6 for DAS and 2.6 for DAS28) and concordant observations (both DAS and DAS28 below their remission cut off level) were analysed separately. RESULTS: 91 of 620 paired DAS observations (15%) were discordant; 87 (in 53 patients) comprised observations in which the DAS28 remission criterion, but not the DAS remission criterion, was met. The reverse was found in only four observations, which were therefore omitted. With the original DAS as standard, DAS28 sensitivity was 95% and specificity 84%. Probability plots showed a swollen joint count >0 in 75% of discordant pairs v 48% of concordant pairs. The same was found for total joint count (TJC >0 in 90% v 40%; median TJC, 0 v 6) and patient global assessment, but not for ESR. Individual joint analysis showed that 51% of discordant v 18% of concordant observations (p<0.0005) had involvement of lower extremity joints that are not included in the DAS28. CONCLUSIONS: DAS remission is more conservative than DAS28 remission. Activity (tenderness and swelling) in joints not included in the reduced joint counts (ankles, feet) mainly account for the discrepancy between the two assessments. DAS28 remission at a cut off level of 2.6 has insufficient construct validity and should be used with caution in clinical practice and clinical trials.
Authors: Robert B M Landewé; Maarten Boers; Arco C Verhoeven; Rene Westhovens; Mart A F J van de Laar; Harry M Markusse; J Christiaan van Denderen; Marie Louise Westedt; Andre J Peeters; Ben A C Dijkmans; Piet Jacobs; Annelies Boonen; Désirée M F M van der Heijde; Sjef van der Linden Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2002-02
Authors: Y P M Goekoop-Ruiterman; J K de Vries-Bouwstra; C F Allaart; D van Zeben; P J S M Kerstens; J M W Hazes; A H Zwinderman; H K Ronday; K H Han; M L Westedt; A H Gerards; J H L M van Groenendael; W F Lems; M V van Krugten; F C Breedveld; B A C Dijkmans Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2005-11
Authors: M Boers; P Tugwell; D T Felson; P L van Riel; J R Kirwan; J P Edmonds; J S Smolen; N Khaltaev; K D Muirden Journal: J Rheumatol Suppl Date: 1994-09
Authors: Lilian H D van Tuyl; David T Felson; George Wells; Josef Smolen; Bin Zhang; Maarten Boers Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2010-01-15 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Siri Lillegraven; Nina Paulshus Sundlisæter; Anna-Birgitte Aga; Joseph Sexton; Inge C Olsen; Hallvard Fremstad; Cristina Spada; Tor Magne Madland; Christian A Høili; Gunnstein Bakland; Åse Lexberg; Inger Johanne Widding Hansen; Inger Myrnes Hansen; Hilde Haukeland; Maud-Kristine Aga Ljoså; Ellen Moholt; Till Uhlig; Daniel H Solomon; Désirée van der Heijde; Tore K Kvien; Espen A Haavardsholm Journal: JAMA Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Simon J Otter; Kevin Lucas; Kate Springett; Ann Moore; Kevin Davies; Liz Cheek; Adam Young; Karen Walker-Bone Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2009-12-08 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Christian Buchbender; Axel Scherer; Falk Miese; Philipp Sewerin; Alexandra Haferkamp; Ralph Brinks; Hans-Joerg Wittsack; Gerald Antoch; Matthias Schneider; Benedikt Ostendorf Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2013-01-03 Impact factor: 2.631