J Timothy Harrington1. 1. Rheumatology Division, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin 53715, USA. tim.harrington@uwmf.wisc.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the uses of quantitative disease activity scoring and a physician global assessment of disease activity for managing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in rheumatology practice. METHODS: The Global Arthritis Score (GAS) and a physician global assessment (Physician Global) were determined during each office visit for a community practice RA population. The GAS was calculated from patients' self-reported pain, functional assessment, and tender joint count. The Physician Global was recorded on a 10-point visual analog scale. The correlation of these 2 disease activity measures was determined for the most recent office visit of 185 patients with RA, and the reasons for discordant results were identified by chart review. RESULTS: The GAS and Physician Global were concordant for active or inactive disease in 126 of 185 patients (68%) and were discordant in 59 (32%). Forty-five of these discordant patients had a high GAS while their Physician Global indicated inactive disease. Their GAS values were high because of osteoarthritis, back pain, soft tissue rheumatism, and/or prior joint damage rather than active RA. The other 14 patients had a low GAS with an uncontrolled Physician Global for a variety of reasons. CONCLUSION: (1) An RA disease activity score and a quantitative Physician Global can be measured during rheumatology office visits to document patients' disease status. (2) Disease activity scoring contributes valuable information, but should not replace the Physician Global in guiding RA patient management or reimbursement decisions.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the uses of quantitative disease activity scoring and a physician global assessment of disease activity for managing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in rheumatology practice. METHODS: The Global Arthritis Score (GAS) and a physician global assessment (Physician Global) were determined during each office visit for a community practice RA population. The GAS was calculated from patients' self-reported pain, functional assessment, and tender joint count. The Physician Global was recorded on a 10-point visual analog scale. The correlation of these 2 disease activity measures was determined for the most recent office visit of 185 patients with RA, and the reasons for discordant results were identified by chart review. RESULTS: The GAS and Physician Global were concordant for active or inactive disease in 126 of 185 patients (68%) and were discordant in 59 (32%). Forty-five of these discordant patients had a high GAS while their Physician Global indicated inactive disease. Their GAS values were high because of osteoarthritis, back pain, soft tissue rheumatism, and/or prior joint damage rather than active RA. The other 14 patients had a low GAS with an uncontrolled Physician Global for a variety of reasons. CONCLUSION: (1) An RA disease activity score and a quantitative Physician Global can be measured during rheumatology office visits to document patients' disease status. (2) Disease activity scoring contributes valuable information, but should not replace the Physician Global in guiding RApatient management or reimbursement decisions.
Authors: Leslie R Harrold; J Timothy Harrington; Jeffrey R Curtis; Daniel E Furst; Mary Jane Bentley; Ying Shan; George Reed; Joel Kremer; Jeffrey D Greenberg Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2012-03
Authors: Tim Pickles; Rhiannon Macefield; Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi; Claire Beecher; Mike Horton; Karl Bang Christensen; Rhiannon Phillips; David Gillespie; Ernest Choy Journal: RMD Open Date: 2022-03
Authors: Margot J M Walter; Adriaan Van't Spijker; Annelieke Pasma; Johanna M W Hazes; Jolanda J Luime Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 4.147