Routine Assessment Of Patient Index Data Research Articles

Reexamination of the assessment criteria for rheumatoid arthritis disease activity based on comparison of the Disease Activity Score 28 with other simpler assessment methods

Objective To explore simpler and possibly more appropriate tools than the conventional Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) for assessing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to derive more reliable DAS28-based criteria.Methods The capabilities of assessing disease activities in 250 RA patients were compared between DAS28 and other methods, including the Simplified DA Index (SDAI), Clinical DA Index (CDAI), and Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data-3 (RAPID-3).Results SDAI and CDAI showed a good correlation and consistency with DAS28, whereas RAPID-3 yielded inferior results. In terms of remission criteria, DAS28 was less stringent than SDAI or CDAI; when RA remission was reexamined based on more stringent SDAI or CDAI criteria, cut-off values for DAS28-C-reactive protein of < 1.72 were considered to be appropriate. The conventional DAS28 was considered to be appropriate for assessing low, middle and high disease activities because it provides criteria similar to or more stringent than those of other methods, while SDAI and CDAI were considered to be simpler and more appropriate criteria for assessing remission.Conclusion For assessing remission, DAS28-CRP provides the most appropriate criterion of the methods compared when the currently used cut-off value of 2.3 is lowered to a new value of 1.72.

Patient self‐report RADAI (Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index) joint counts on an MDHAQ (Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire) in usual care of consecutive patients with rheumatic diseases other than rheumatoid arthritis

To analyze a patient self-report joint count from the Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index (RADAI) on a Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ) in a cohort of consecutive patients seen in usual rheumatology care with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), osteoarthritis (OA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and gout. Each patient completed an MDHAQ, which included a RADAI, at each visit in one usual care setting. In order to include a physician measure, a random visit at which there was a recorded physician global estimate was selected for each of 465 patients (174 patients with RA, 75 with SLE, 113 with OA, 53 with PsA, and 50 patients with gout). The RADAI was analyzed for total scores (range 0-48), number of involved joint groups (range 0-16), and each specific joint group, and then compared in the 5 diagnostic groups to one another and to other MDHAQ measures and the Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3). In patients with RA, SLE, OA, PsA, and gout, mean RADAI scores (range 0-48) were 12.4, 6.5, 10.1, 6.7, and 2.7, respectively. The mean numbers of involved joint groups (range 0-16) were 6.9, 3.8, 4.8, 4.5, and 1.7, respectively, and the median numbers were 6, 2, 4, 4, and 1, respectively. RADAI scores were correlated significantly with the physician global estimate, except in SLE, and at higher levels with the MDHAQ and RAPID3 scores in all diagnostic groups. The RADAI self-report joint counts can be used to record self-report involvement of specific joints and joint groups in patients with SLE, OA, PsA, and gout, with minimal effort on the part of the rheumatologist.

Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) is a Valid Index for Routine Care in Patients with Osteoarthritis

Background RAPID3 (routine assessment of patient index data) is an arithmetic composite index of three Core Data Set, patient self-report, measures: physical function (0-3 converted to 0-10), pain (0-10), and patient global estimate (0-10) for a total of 0-30. It can be completed in the waiting room and can be calculated in only few seconds. Objectives Aim of this study was to compare RAPID3 with the Western Ontario and Mc-Master Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) Methods patients with symptomatic knee or hip osteoarthritis as main rheumatologic diagnosis (VAS pain > 50 on a visual scale 0-100mm) according to the ACR (American College of Rheumatology) criteria and with stage 2 or 3 according to the Kellgren-Lawrence radiographic criteria were eligible. All subjects were clinically evaluated individually by an experienced rheumatologist and were asked to complete the self-report questionnaires (the original version of the WOMAC for hip or knee osteoarthritis and the RAPID3). There was no specific order in which the tests were completed; rather, each participant selected the order. Agreement between WOMAC and RAPID3 scores was estimated with rho Spearman correlation statistic. Cronbach’s alpha also was determined to evaluate the internal consistency of RAPID3 items Results 218 patients (63 males, 155 females) with hip (n=93) or knee (n=125) osteoarthritis were enrolled in daily practice clinical care during 2010-2012. Mean age (±SD) was 62±7.4 years old. Mean score was 58±8.1 for WOMAC and 7.2±1.5 for RAPID3. RAPID3 and WOMAC have shown a global correlation rho index of 0.78 (p 0.05). The Spearman’s rho was 0.78 for hip osteoarthritis (p Conclusions Up to date there’s not literature about the use of RAPID3 in patients with OA. In our study we found a strong correlation between RAPID3 and WOMAC in patients with either hip and knee OA. RAPID3 provide informative quantitative data for patient status from one visit to the next comparable to other self-reported questionnaire as WOMAC in a time sparing manner Disclosure of Interest None Declared

Evaluation of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis by Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) and its correlation to Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI): an Indian experience

Serial objective assessment of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is imperative to achieve remission. Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3), an index without formal joint counts, appears attractive for evaluation of disease activity in RA patients in a busy clinical setting. This study aims to evaluate correlation and agreement of RAPID3 with Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) in RA patients. All patients completed a Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ) at each visit. A physician/assessor 28-joint count and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were completed in 200 literate patients with RA to score DAS28, CDAI, and RAPID3. RAPID3 includes the three MDHAQ patient self-report RA core dataset measures for physical function, pain, and patient global estimate. Proposed RAPID3 (range, 0-30) severity categories of high (>12), moderate (6.1-12.0), low (3.1-6.0), and near remission (≤3) were compared to DAS28 (0-10) activity categories of high (> 5.1), moderate (3.21-5.1), low (2.61-3.2), and remission (≤ 2.6), and CDAI (0-76) categories of >22, 10.1-22.0, 2.9-10.0, and ≤2.8. Statistical significance was analyzed using Spearman correlations, cross-tabulations, and kappa statistics. Comparison of RAPID3 with DAS28 and CDAI indicated Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients for DAS28 with RAPID3 of 0.910, and for CDAI with RAPID3 of 0.907, all highly significant (P < 0.001). There was substantial agreement between RAPID3 and DAS28 (kappa value = 0.634, P < 0.001) and also between RAPID3 and CDAI (kappa value = 0.690, P < 0.001). Overall, 89-94 % of patients who met DAS28 or CDAI moderate/high activity criteria met similar RAPID severity criteria and 84-88 % who met DAS28 or CDAI remission/low activity criteria also met similar RAPID criteria. RAPID3 scores provide similar quantitative information to DAS28 and CDAI, and hence, is an informative index for evaluation of disease activity in RA in busy clinical settings.

Patient's global assessment of disease activity: What are we measuring?

There is a growing interest in the use of patientreported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) clinical trials as well as in clinical practice (1). More and more, patients actively participate in shared decision-making, and these processes require outcome measures that are relevant and understandable by patients (2). It has also been shown that many patient-reported outcomes can distinguish active treatments from control treatments as effectively as “objective” measures can (3–5). Most patient-reported outcomes data are much more easily collected than are joint counts or laboratory data (6). The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) core set of disease activity measures in RA clinical trials contains 3 patient-reported outcomes: patient’s global assessment of disease activity, pain, and physical function (7,8). However, the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) initiative, which included “expert patient” representatives as workshop participants, recommended in 2006 that all trials should additionally include a measure of fatigue (9,10). This recommendation was endorsed by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the ACR in their collaborative recommendations published in 2008 (11). One of the available instruments for measuring fatigue is the recently validated Bristol RA Fatigue (BRAF) questionnaire, which was designed to measure fatigue in all its dimensions (12). Other new and promising patient-reported outcomes include the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) questionnaire, which measures the patient’s perceived impact of RA on daily health (13), and the Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID-3), an index of 3 patient measures from the core set of disease activity measures in RA clinical trials (physical function, pain, and patient’s global assessment) that was designed for use in a busy clinical setting (14). Despite the growing interest in the development and use of patient-reported outcomes in the field of rheumatology, their interpretation is not always easy.

Reexamination of the assessment criteria for rheumatoid arthritis disease activity based on comparison of the Disease Activity Score 28 with other simpler assessment methods

To explore simpler and possibly more appropriate tools than the conventional Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) for assessing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to derive more reliable DAS28-based criteria. The capabilities of assessing disease activities in 250 RA patients were compared between DAS28 and other methods, including the Simplified DA Index (SDAI), Clinical DA Index (CDAI), and Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data-3 (RAPID-3). SDAI and CDAI showed a good correlation and consistency with DAS28, whereas RAPID-3 yielded inferior results. In terms of remission criteria, DAS28 was less stringent than SDAI or CDAI; when RA remission was reexamined based on more stringent SDAI or CDAI criteria, cut-off values for DAS28-C-reactive protein of <1.72 were considered to be appropriate. The conventional DAS28 was considered to be appropriate for assessing low, middle and high disease activities because it provides criteria similar to or more stringent than those of other methods, while SDAI and CDAI were considered to be simpler and more appropriate criteria for assessing remission. For assessing remission, DAS28-CRP provides the most appropriate criterion of the methods compared when the currently used cut-off value of 2.3 is lowered to a new value of 1.72.

Patient's global assessment of disease activity and patient's assessment of general health for rheumatoid arthritis activity assessment: are they equivalent?

ObjectivesTo assess (A) determinants of patient's global assessment of disease activity (PTGL) and patient's assessment of general health (GH) scores of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients; (B) whether they are equivalent...

Rheumatologists on the road: A subspecialist's role in caring for the homebound

By 2030, the number of permanently homebound individuals in the US will increase by 50% to reach 2 million. However, no medicine subspecialty consult services exist for this rising subset of the population. This pilot program establishes a rheumatology consult service for the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors, the largest primary care academic home visit program in the nation serving more than 1,000 patients in New York City. Our service addresses the unmet need for homebound patients with rheumatic diseases, and secondarily provides an educational opportunity for trainees in community-based rheumatology. Using an electronic medical record, home-based primary care physicians sent consult requests to the Rheumatology Division. Initial assessments were made using the Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) questionnaire. Over 12 months, 57 home visits were made: 31 new consults and 26 followup visits. Reasons for referral included medical management of a known connective tissue disease, question of inflammatory arthritis, and procedures. The demographics for new consults were as follows: 94% women, 45% Hispanic, and 80% between ages 60 and 101 years. Thirty-nine percent of patients had rheumatoid arthritis. Treatment interventions included addition of a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug in 11 patients, 11 procedures, nonpharmacologic management in 8 patients, and a change in the dose of the existing medication in 5 patients. At the initial evaluation, the average RAPID3 scores for patients reflected high severity of disease. The number of consults and the severity of disease seen highlight the importance of a rheumatologist's role in the community, especially because the number of homebound patients will dramatically increase in the future.

RAPID3 (Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3) severity categories and response criteria: Similar results to DAS28 (Disease Activity Score) and CDAI (Clinical Disease Activity Index) in the RAPID 1 (Rheumatoid Arthritis Prevention of Structural Damage) clinical trial of certolizumab pegol

To compare categories for activity/severity according to the Disease Activity Score 28-joint count (DAS28), the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), and the Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3), an index without formal joint counts calculated in 5 versus >100 seconds, as well as the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)- DAS28 and the RAPID3 response criteria, in the Rheumatoid Arthritis Prevention of Structural Damage (RAPID 1) clinical trial of certolizumab pegol (CZP). Post hoc analyses were performed using correlations, cross-tabulations, and kappa statistics. Patients (treated with CZP plus methotrexate [MTX] or placebo plus MTX) were classified at baseline and at 52 weeks as high, moderate, low activity/severity or remission, according to the DAS28 (>5.1, >3.2 to ≤5.1, 2.6 to ≤3.2, <2.6 [total range 0-10]), the CDAI (>22, >10 to ≤22, >2.8 to ≤10, ≤2.8 [total range 0-76]), and RAPID3 (>12, >6 to ≤12, >3 to ≤6, ≤3 [total range 0-30]), as well as for good, moderate, and poor EULAR-DAS28 and proposed RAPID3 response criteria. All measures were correlated significantly: RAPID3 with DAS28 and CDAI (rho > 0.7), higher than erythrocyte sedimentation rate with C-reactive protein level (rho = 0.47). At 52 weeks, DAS28, CDAI, and RAPID3 low activity/remission was seen in 30%, 44%, and 42% of CZP-treated patients versus 3%, 7%, and 10% of control patients. Good, moderate, and poor EULAR-DAS28 responses were seen in 30%, 51%, and 19% of CZP-treated patients versus 3%, 28%, and 70% of control patients, and for RAPID3 in 39%, 30%, and 32% of CZP-treated patients versus 8%, 16%, and 76% of control patients. Kappa and weighted kappa values ranged from 0.36-0.53, indicating fair to moderate agreement. RAPID3, DAS28, and CDAI give similar results to distinguish CZP patients from controls in the RAPID 1 clinical trial. DAS28 is specific for clinical trials; RAPID3 appears pragmatically useful for usual care.

Weekly home self-assessment of RAPID-4/3 scores in rheumatoid arthritis: A 6-month study in 26 patients

ObjectivesTo investigate whether weekly determination of Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID) scores 3 and 4 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) improved the assessment of disease activity and detected additional activity peaks (predictive of additional structural damage). MethodsEach week for 6 months, 26 patients with RA completed the patient-reported outcome questionnaires RAPID-3 and RAPID-4. During the study period, the treatment regimen for RA remained unchanged in 23 of the 26 patients. ResultsRAPID-3 was as informative as RAPID-4. Mean values were 3.85±1.66 (range: 0.72–6.85) and 3.43±1.57 (range: 0.81–6.77), respectively. The areas under the RAPID-3 score curves plotted using only the first and last weeks or all the weeks showed a statistically significant difference in 19 (73%) of the 26 patients. The difference between the highest and lowest RAPID-3 scores was greater than the clinically significant threshold of 1.2 in all 26 patients (mean difference: 2.95±0.71; range: 1.6–5.5). In 13 patients, the RAPID-3 score detected one (one patient) or several (12 patients) activity peaks. Among RAPID-3 score components, the visual analog scale (VAS) pain score had the greatest influence (37% of the total score), followed by the VAS disease-activity score (36%) then by the multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire score (27%). Scores were not influenced by patient mood at questionnaire completion. ConclusionSelf-evaluation at home using the RAPID-3 score provides additional information that should improve the accuracy of RA monitoring between physician visits and that may help to optimize visit scheduling.

RAPID3 (Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data) on an MDHAQ (Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire): Agreement with DAS28 (Disease Activity Score) and CDAI (Clinical Disease Activity Index) activity categories, scored in five versus more than ninety seconds

To compare the Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) on a Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ) with the Disease Activity Score (DAS28), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), and individual core data set measures for correlations, agreement of activity levels, and time to score. Four rheumatologists each assessed 50 patients with rheumatoid arthritis in "real-time" clinical care. Patients completed an MDHAQ. The rheumatologist then calculated RAPID3 (physical function, pain, patient global estimate), performed a 28-joint count, assigned a physician global estimate, and scored a CDAI, each timed by an observer. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) was tested on the same date, and the DAS28-ESR was computed later, again timed by an observer. Spearman's rank-order correlations and comparisons of patients classified as high activity, moderate activity, low activity, and remission according to the DAS28, CDAI, and RAPID3 were computed and compared with kappa statistics. A second study of 25 "paper patients" was also performed to compare time to score the DAS28, CDAI, and RAPID3 on a 0-10 versus 0-30 scale. Mean and median times to score each index were computed. The 3 indices were correlated significantly, including agreement for >80% of patients for high/moderate activity. The mean time to perform a 28-joint count was 94 seconds, and the mean times to score the DAS28, CDAI, RAPID3 on a 0-10 scale, and RAPID3 on a 0-30 scale were 114, 106, 9.6, and 4.6 seconds, respectively. RAPID3 scores provide similar quantitative information to DAS28 and CDAI, while calculated on a 0-30 scale in about 5% of the time.

Reevaluation of the Role of Duration of Morning Stiffness in the Assessment of Rheumatoid Arthritis Activity

To evaluate the utility of the duration of morning stiffness (MS), as a patient-reported outcome (PRO), in assessing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity. We acquired information on 5439 patients in QUEST-RA, an international database of patients with RA evaluated by a standard protocol. MS duration was assessed from time of waking to time of maximal improvement. Ability of MS duration to differentiate RA activity states, based on Disease Activity Score (DAS)28, was assessed by analysis of variance; and a receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted for discriminating clinically active (DAS28 > 3.2) from less active (DAS28 <or= 3.2) RA. Mixed-effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to assess the utility of adding MS duration to Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID)3, a PRO index based on physical function, pain, and general health (GH), in predicting the 3-variable DAS28 (DAS28v3). MS duration had moderate correlation (r = 0.41-0.48) with pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire, and GH; and weak correlation (r = 0.23-0.39) with joint counts and erythrocyte sedimentation rate. MS duration differed significantly among patients with different RA activity (p < 0.001). The area under the ROC curve of 0.74 (95% CI 0.72-0.75) showed moderate ability of MS duration to differentiate clinically active from less active RA. ANCOVA showed significant interactive effects between RAPID3 and the MS duration categories (p = 0.0005) in predicting DAS28v3. The effect of MS was found to be clinically important in patients with the low RAPID3 scores (< 6) in whom the presence of MS may indicate clinically active disease (DAS28v3 > 3.2). MS duration has a moderate correlation with RA disease activity. Assessment of MS duration may be clinically helpful in patients with low RAPID3 scores.

A comparison of patient questionnaires and composite indexes in routine care of rheumatoid arthritis patients

ObjectiveTo evaluate the agreement between the Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID-3) and a modified version of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index (RADAI-5), as well as the Disease Activity Score including a 28 joint count (DAS28-ESR) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) in daily routine. MethodsOne hundred and twenty-eight rheumatoid arthritis (RA) out-patients completed the RADAI-5 and the RAPID-3. Simultaneously, the DAS28-ESR and the CDAI were applied. Cronbach's Alpha as a measure for reliability was calculated and factorial analysis was performed. For agreement analysis, Kendall's Tau was calculated. ResultsTime to score the questionnaires was 25seconds. The median RADAI-5 was 2.8 (0–9.2), the median RAPID-3 3.3 (0–8.6), the median DAS28-ESR 2.95 (0.43–6.24), and the median CDAI 5.6 (0–37.5). Cronbach's Alpha for the RADAI-5 was 0.906 and 0.871 for the RAPID-3, however, only 0.165 for the DAS28-ESR and 0.210 for the CDAI, respectively. Factorial analysis revealed that both questionnaires and the DAS28-ESR, but not the CDAI, constitute mono-dimensional instruments. Tau for the agreement between the RADAI-5 and the RAPID-3 appeared to be 0.587 (p<0.001), and to be 0.582 (p<0.001) between the DAS28-ESR and the CDAI, while it was lower for the relationship between the questionnaires and the composite indexes. ConclusionReliability of the RAPID-3 and RADAI-5 was significantly higher than of the indexes. The questionnaires as well as the indexes proved to be in highly moderate agreement, while agreement between the questionnaires and the indexes appeared to be lower.

RAPID3 (Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3), a Rheumatoid Arthritis Index Without Formal Joint Counts for Routine Care: Proposed Severity Categories Compared to Disease Activity Score and Clinical Disease Activity Index Categories

To compare 4 categories (high, moderate, and low severity, and near-remission) of RAPID3 (Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3), an index without formal joint counts, which is scored in < 10 seconds to 4 categories of the Disease Activity Score (DAS28) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). All patients complete a Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ) at each visit. A physician/assessor 28-joint count and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) were completed in 285 patients with RA in usual care by 3 rheumatologists to score DAS28, CDAI, and RAPID3. RAPID3 includes the 3 MDHAQ patient self-report RA Core Data Set measures for physical function, pain, and patient global estimate. Proposed RAPID3 (range 0-10) severity categories of high (> 4), moderate (2.01-4), low (1.01-2), and near-remission (< or = 1) were compared to DAS (0-10) activity categories of high (> 5.1), moderate (3.21-5.1), low (2.61-3.2), and remission (< or = 2.6), and CDAI (0-76) categories of > 22, 10.1-22.0, 2.9-10.0, and < or = 2.8. Additional RAPID scores, which add to RAPID3 a physician/assessor or patient self-report joint count and/or assessor global estimate, were also analyzed. Statistical significance was analyzed using Spearman correlations, cross-tabulations, and kappa statistics. All RAPID scores were correlated significantly with DAS28 and CDAI (rho > 0.65, p < 0.001). Overall, 78%-84% of patients who met DAS28 or CDAI moderate/high activity criteria met similar RAPID severity criteria, and 68%-77% who met DAS28 or CDAI remission/low activity criteria also met similar RAPID criteria. RAPID3 was as informative as other indices. RAPID3 provides a feasible, informative quantitative index for busy clinical settings.

Remission and rheumatoid arthritis: Data on patients receiving usual care in twenty‐four countries

To compare the performance of different definitions of remission in a large multinational cross-sectional cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The Questionnaires in Standard Monitoring of Patients with RA (QUEST-RA) database, which (as of January 2008) included 5,848 patients receiving usual care at 67 sites in 24 countries, was used for this study. Patients were clinically assessed by rheumatologists and completed a 4-page self-report questionnaire. The database was analyzed according to the following definitions of remission: American College of Rheumatology (ACR) definition, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), clinical remission assessed using 42 and 28 joints (Clin42 and Clin28), patient self-report Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3), and physician report of no disease activity (MD remission). The overall remission rate was lowest using the ACR definition of remission (8.6%), followed by the Clin42 (10.6%), Clin28 (12.6%), CDAI (13.8%), MD remission (14.2%), and RAPID3 (14.3%); the rate of remission was highest when remission was defined using the DAS28 (19.6%). The difference between the highest and lowest remission rates was >or=15% in 10 countries, 5-14% in 7 countries, and <5% in 7 countries (the latter of which had generally low remission rates [<5.5%]). Regardless of the definition of remission, male sex, higher education, shorter disease duration, smaller number of comorbidities, and regular exercise were statistically significantly associated with remission. The use of different definitions of RA remission leads to different results with regard to remission rates, with considerable variation among countries and between sexes. Reported remission rates in clinical trials and clinical studies have to be interpreted in light of the definition of remission that has been used.

An index of only patient-reported outcome measures, routine assessment of patient index data 3 (RAPID3), in two abatacept clinical trials: similar results to disease activity score (DAS28) and other RAPID indices that include physician-reported measures

To analyse the capacity of routine assessment of patient index data 3 (RAPID3), an index of only the three patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in the RA Core Data Set-physical function, pain and global status-to distinguish abatacept from control treatments in two clinical trials, and to compare RAPID3 results with the disease activity score 28 (DAS28) and RAPID-based indices that add a tender or swollen joint count and/or physician/assessor global estimate of status. Clinical trial data from AIM (Abatacept in Inadequate response to Methotrexate) and ATTAIN [Abatacept Trial in Treatment of Anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) INadequate responders] were reanalysed. Mean values were computed at baseline, endpoint and for change between baseline and endpoint for RAPID3, DAS28 and additional RAPID indices to study whether they had greater capacity to distinguish abatacept from control therapy. RAPID4TJC adds to RAPID3 a tender joint count; RAPID4SJC, a swollen joint count; RAPID4MD, a physician/assessor global estimate; and RAPID5 adds both a tender joint count and physician/assessor global estimate. RAPID2 includes only physician/assessor and patient global estimates. All indices indicated significant differences of 19-28% between abatacept and control groups. Results were similar for RAPID3 of only patient measures, compared to DAS28 and other RAPID-based indices. A RAPID3 'patient-only' index, without a joint count or any measure from a health professional or laboratory, distinguishes active from control treatments in two abatacept clinical trials, at levels similar to DAS28 and to other RAPID-based indices that add physician-reported measures.

A proposed continuous quality improvement approach to assessment and management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis without formal joint counts, based on quantitative routine assessment of patient index data (RAPID) scores on a multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ)

A continuous quality improvement approach is proposed for the assessment and management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) based on scores on a one-page patient self-report multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ), without formal joint counts. The approach includes five simple steps before the patient is seen by the physician: (1) an MDHAQ is completed by every patient at every visit; (2) scores are calculated for patient function, pain, and global estimate, with options for a self-report joint count and other scales; (3) scores are entered on flow sheets with data from prior visits, which might also include laboratory and medication information; (4) scores are compiled into an index termed Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID), analogous to a Disease Activity Score (DAS); (5) RAPID scores are classified to guide treatment decisions. RAPID 3 includes the three patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in the RA Core Data Set - physical function, pain, and global estimate. RAPID 4 adds a self-report joint count, and RAPID 5, a physician global estimate. RAPID 3 can be calculated in about 10 seconds, RAPID 4 in about 19 seconds, and RAPID 5 in about 20 seconds. RAPID 3, RAPID 4, and RAPID 5 give similar results to distinguish active from control treatments in RA clinical trials, at levels similar to American College of Rheumatology or DAS improvement criteria, and are all correlated significantly with DAS28 (rho=0.62-0.64, P<0.001). A proposed classification of RAPID scores, analogous to four DAS28 categories, includes: 'near remission' (0-1), 'low severity' (1.01-2), 'moderate severity' (2.01-4), and 'high severity' (>4). RAPID scoring is feasible in standard clinical care to support continuous quality improvement.

A practical guide to scoring a Multi-Dimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ) and Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID) scores in 10–20seconds for use in standard clinical care, without rulers, calculators, websites or computers

The American College of Rheumatology Core Data Set for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) includes 3 measures which are found on a patient self-report questionnaire, physical function, pain, and patient estimate of global status. These measures are included in all clinical trials, but not assessed at most encounters in standard rheumatology care. Rheumatologists may have experience with lengthy research questionnaires in clinical trials and other clinical research, which (appropriately) are regarded as relatively cumbersome research tools and do not contribute to clinical care. A format of a questionnaire known as the multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ) has been developed for standard rheumatology care to contribute to rheumatology clinical care in daily practice. The 3 scores for physical function, pain, and global status can be "eyeballed" in a second or two and formally scored into a composite index known as rheumatology assessment patient index data (RAPID) in about 10 seconds. This chapter provides a brief tutorial designed to instruct rheumatologists and their staffs regarding how to use and score the MDHAQ and RAPID in standard clinical care.

Can a Multi-Dimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ) and Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID) scores be informative in patients with all rheumatic diseases?

A multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ) is useful in standard care of patients with all rheumatic diseases in a busy clinical setting. The MDHAQ was adapted from the classical health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) for feasibility in standard clinical care, with reduction of the number of activities from 20 to 10, visual analog scales (VAS) as 21 circles rather than 10 cm lines, availability of all core data set patient self-report measures and scoring templates on the front side, and a review of systems symptom checklist and review of recent medical history on the reverse side of a single page. Scoring templates are also available for routine assessment of patient index data (RAPID) scores, based on a composite of the three patient reported outcome (PRO) measures from the core data set included on the HAQ and MDHAQ, physical function pain, and patient estimate of global status. Flow sheets illustrating use of the MDHAQ in standard clinical care of patients with various rheumatic diseases, including psoriatic arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, ankylosing spondylitis, gout, scleroderma, vasculitis, fibromyalgia, inflammatory bowel disease arthritis, Behcet's syndrome, and familial Mediterranean fever, are presented to illustrate use of this simple questionnaire to add to clinical decisions and document patient courses and outcomes in standard clinical care of patients with all rheumatic diseases.