Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases logoLink to Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
. 1990 Mar;49(3):196–198. doi: 10.1136/ard.49.3.196

Can we develop simple response criteria for slow acting antirheumatic drugs?

D L Scott 1, J E Dacre 1, A Greenwood 1, L Treasure 1, E C Huskisson 1
PMCID: PMC1004023  PMID: 1969728

Abstract

The conventional assessment of response to slow acting antirheumatic drugs depends on multiple clinical and laboratory measures. Each measure is analysed separately. For clinical practice and therapeutic trials a single unified classification of response is preferable, based on the most sensitive and simple current measures. Whether or not this was practical was determined in a prospective study of two cohorts of patients: 145 given penicillamine 250-500 mg daily in a single dose; 98 sulphasalazine at an initial dose of 500 mg rising after one month to 2 g daily. Both groups were followed up for 12 months. A panel of 11 clinical and laboratory measures were evaluated every three to six months. Most changes had occurred by six months, and this was the optimum time to classify response. Four measures were used to devise a five point (0-4) classification of response from no change to remission. The objective was to evaluate if this approach is appropriate; the best level of each measure to use was not determined. The response index was based on: erythrocyte sedimentation rate less than 30 mm/h; articular index less than 3; morning stiffness less than 15 min; greater than 50% reduction in joint pain. Similar results were obtained with both drugs. The other clinical and laboratory measures gave limited information. This response index is simple and appropriate. It is suitable for use in clinical practice and drug studies, though the optimal values for dividing each clinical and laboratory variable need to be determined.

Full text

PDF
196

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bampton J. L., Cawston T. E., Kyle M. V., Hazleman B. L. Measurement of rheumatoid factors by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and comparison with other methods. Ann Rheum Dis. 1985 Jan;44(1):13–19. doi: 10.1136/ard.44.1.13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bull B. S., Levy W. C., Westengard J. C., Farr M., Smith P. F., Apperley J. F., Bacon P. A., Stuart J. Ranking of laboratory tests by consensus analysis. Lancet. 1986 Aug 16;2(8503):377–380. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90063-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Dixon J. S., Hayes S., Constable P. D., Bird H. A. What are the 'best' measurements for monitoring patients during short-term second-line therapy? Br J Rheumatol. 1988 Feb;27(1):37–43. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/27.1.37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Eastgate J. A., Symons J. A., Wood N. C., Grinlinton F. M., di Giovine F. S., Duff G. W. Correlation of plasma interleukin 1 levels with disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet. 1988 Sep 24;2(8613):706–709. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(88)90185-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Fries J. F., Spitz P., Kraines R. G., Holman H. R. Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1980 Feb;23(2):137–145. doi: 10.1002/art.1780230202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Kirwan J. R., Reeback J. S. Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire modified to assess disability in British patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol. 1986 May;25(2):206–209. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/25.2.206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Mallya R. K., Mace B. E. The assessment of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis using a multivariate analysis. Rheumatol Rehabil. 1981 Feb 1;20(1):14–17. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/20.1.14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Meenan R. F., Gertman P. M., Mason J. H. Measuring health status in arthritis. The arthritis impact measurement scales. Arthritis Rheum. 1980 Feb;23(2):146–152. doi: 10.1002/art.1780230203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Pinals R. S., Masi A. T., Larsen R. A. Preliminary criteria for clinical remission in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1981 Oct;24(10):1308–1315. doi: 10.1002/art.1780241012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Scott D. L., Spector T. D., Pullar T., McConkey B. What should we hope to achieve when treating rheumatoid arthritis? Ann Rheum Dis. 1989 Mar;48(3):256–261. doi: 10.1136/ard.48.3.256. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Smythe H. A., Helewa A., Goldsmith C. H. "Independent assessor" and "pooled index" as techniques for measuring treatment effects in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 1977 Summer;4(2):144–152. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Smythe H. A., Helewa A., Goldsmith C. H. Selection and combination of outcome measures. J Rheumatol. 1982 Sep-Oct;9(5):770–774. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Woolf A. D. Setting the scene and posing the questions. Br J Rheumatol. 1988;27 (Suppl 1):1–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES