Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases logoLink to Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
. 2005 Mar 10;64(8):1186–1189. doi: 10.1136/ard.2004.027649

Response criteria for rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice: how useful are they?

A Gulfe 1, P Geborek 1, T Saxne 1
PMCID: PMC1755621  PMID: 15760931

Abstract

Objective: To compare the performance of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), and simple disease activity index (SDAI) response criteria for rheumatoid arthritis at the individual level in an observational cohort.

Methods: 184 outpatients were followed using a structured protocol. For each patient, the responses according to ACR 20% and 50%, EULAR moderate and good, and SDAI minor and major responses were calculated. For comparison, improvements in health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) score of 0.22 and 0.5 were calculated. The numbers of individuals fulfilling the criteria at each level were compared, and the numbers fulfilling any two sets of response criteria calculated. The EULAR "moderate" and "good" responses were grouped together as "overall," and SDAI "minor" and "major" were merged into SDAI "overall".

Results: All 94 ACR 20 responders were found in the EULAR and SDAI "overall" response groups, and 118 of 124 SDAI "overall" responders were found in the EULAR "overall" group. In contrast, of 53 ACR 50 responders, only 34 were found in the EULAR "good" or SDAI "major" group. Among the 56 patients in the EULAR "good" response group, only 26 met the SDAI "major" response. Improvement in HAQ score performed similarly to the other response criteria sets at the group levels.

Conclusions: For individual patients, agreement is good at the level of ACR 20 response, when EULAR overall, SDAI overall, or HAQ 0.22 criteria are applied. Agreement between ACR 50, EULAR good, SDAI major, and HAQ 0.5 response is poor. This should be considered when response criteria are used for clinical decisions.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (66.3 KB).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

 Proportion of patients fulfilling less strict response criteria sets at three and six months. The agreement between the different criteria sets using ACR 20% as reference is demonstrated.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

 The proportion of patients fulfilling more strict response criteria sets at three and six months. Agreement using EULAR good response is given as reference.

Selected References

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

  1. Arnett F. C., Edworthy S. M., Bloch D. A., McShane D. J., Fries J. F., Cooper N. S., Healey L. A., Kaplan S. R., Liang M. H., Luthra H. S. The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1988 Mar;31(3):315–324. doi: 10.1002/art.1780310302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ekdahl C., Eberhardt K., Andersson S. I., Svensson B. Assessing disability in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Use of a Swedish version of the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire. Scand J Rheumatol. 1988;17(4):263–271. doi: 10.3109/03009748809098795. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Felson D. T., Anderson J. J., Boers M., Bombardier C., Furst D., Goldsmith C., Katz L. M., Lightfoot R., Jr, Paulus H., Strand V. American College of Rheumatology. Preliminary definition of improvement in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1995 Jun;38(6):727–735. doi: 10.1002/art.1780380602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Ferraz M. B., Quaresma M. R., Aquino L. R., Atra E., Tugwell P., Goldsmith C. H. Reliability of pain scales in the assessment of literate and illiterate patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 1990 Aug;17(8):1022–1024. [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. Geborek P., Crnkic M., Petersson I. F., Saxne T., South Swedish Arthritis Treatment Group Etanercept, infliximab, and leflunomide in established rheumatoid arthritis: clinical experience using a structured follow up programme in southern Sweden. Ann Rheum Dis. 2002 Sep;61(9):793–798. doi: 10.1136/ard.61.9.793. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Geborek P., Saxne T. Clinical protocol for monitoring of targeted therapies in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2000 Oct;39(10):1159–1161. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/39.10.1159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kobelt G., Jönsson L., Young A., Eberhardt K. The cost-effectiveness of infliximab (Remicade) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Sweden and the United Kingdom based on the ATTRACT study. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2003 Feb;42(2):326–335. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keg107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Pincus T., Strand V., Koch G., Amara I., Crawford B., Wolfe F., Cohen S., Felson D. An index of the three core data set patient questionnaire measures distinguishes efficacy of active treatment from that of placebo as effectively as the American College of Rheumatology 20% response criteria (ACR20) or the Disease Activity Score (DAS) in a rheumatoid arthritis clinical trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2003 Mar;48(3):625–630. doi: 10.1002/art.10824. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Simonsson M., Bergman S., Jacobsson L. T., Petersson I. F., Svensson B. The prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis in Sweden. Scand J Rheumatol. 1999;28(6):340–343. doi: 10.1080/03009749950155319. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Smolen J. S., Breedveld F. C., Schiff M. H., Kalden J. R., Emery P., Eberl G., van Riel P. L., Tugwell P. A simplified disease activity index for rheumatoid arthritis for use in clinical practice. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2003 Feb;42(2):244–257. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keg072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Verhoeven A. C., Boers M., van Der Linden S. Responsiveness of the core set, response criteria, and utilities in early rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2000 Dec;59(12):966–974. doi: 10.1136/ard.59.12.966. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Wells G. A., Tugwell P., Kraag G. R., Baker P. R., Groh J., Redelmeier D. A. Minimum important difference between patients with rheumatoid arthritis: the patient's perspective. J Rheumatol. 1993 Mar;20(3):557–560. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. van Gestel A. M., Prevoo M. L., van 't Hof M. A., van Rijswijk M. H., van de Putte L. B., van Riel P. L. Development and validation of the European League Against Rheumatism response criteria for rheumatoid arthritis. Comparison with the preliminary American College of Rheumatology and the World Health Organization/International League Against Rheumatism Criteria. Arthritis Rheum. 1996 Jan;39(1):34–40. doi: 10.1002/art.1780390105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. van der Heijde D. M., van 't Hof M. A., van Riel P. L., Theunisse L. A., Lubberts E. W., van Leeuwen M. A., van Rijswijk M. H., van de Putte L. B. Judging disease activity in clinical practice in rheumatoid arthritis: first step in the development of a disease activity score. Ann Rheum Dis. 1990 Nov;49(11):916–920. doi: 10.1136/ard.49.11.916. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES