Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Rheumatology Reports
Published in: Current Rheumatology Reports 4/2015

01-04-2015 | Rheumatoid Arthritis (L Moreland, Section Editor)

Patient Reported Outcomes in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials

Authors: Ana-Maria Orbai, Clifton O. Bingham III

Published in: Current Rheumatology Reports | Issue 4/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Patient reported outcomes (PRO) are at the core of assessing RA treatment response with patient assessments of global health or disease activity, pain, and physical function included in the calculation of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses. Progress has been made in assessing PROs that include additional patient-valued aspects of disease in recent RA randomized clinical trials (RCTs), particularly fatigue. Importantly, the National Institute of Health (NIH)—Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) development of psychometrically advanced generic health measures that span the range of symptoms potentially affected in RA, with high precision across the entire range of a symptom are undergoing additional study in RA and other rheumatologic diseases to establish their construct validity, responsiveness, and clinically meaningful cutoffs. PRO measures that are currently used and widely available can provide important perspectives not captured in composite clinical response criteria with the potential of better informing treatment decisions in clinical practice.
Literature
1.••
Boers M, Kirwan JR, Wells G, et al. Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT filter 2.0. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:745–53. The newly endorsed OMERACT Filter 2.0 provides a framework and methodology for selecting RCT core sets.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Tugwell PS, Petersson IF, Boers M, et al. Domains selection for patient-reported outcomes: current activities and options for future methods. J Rheumatol. 2011;38:1702–10.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Frank L, Forsythe L, Ellis L, Schrandt S, Sheridan S, Gerson J, et al. Conceptual and practical foundations of patient engagement in research at the patient-centered outcomes research institute. Quality of life research: an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation. 2015 Jan 6.
4.
Frank L, Basch E, Selby JV. The PCORI perspective on patient-centered outcomes research. JAMA. 2014;312(15):1513–4.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Boers M, Tugwell P, Felson DT, et al. World Health Organization and International League of Associations for Rheumatology core endpoints for symptom modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. J Rheumatol Suppl. 1994;41:86–9.PubMed
6.
Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Boers M, et al. The American college of rheumatology preliminary core set of disease activity measures for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. The committee on outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. Arthritis Rheum. 1993;36:729–40.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Kirkham JJ, Boers M, Tugwell P, et al. Outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis randomised trials over the last 50 years. Trials. 2013;14:324.CrossRefPubMedCentral
8.
Boers M, Brooks P, Strand CV, et al. The OMERACT filter for Outcome Measures in Rheumatology. J Rheumatol. 1998;25:198–9.PubMed
9.
van Tuyl LH, Hewlett S, Sadlonova M, Davis B, Flurey C, Hoogland W, et al. The patient perspective on remission in rheumatoid arthritis: ‘You’ve got limits, but you’re back to being you again’. Annals of the rheumatic diseases. 2014 Feb 12.
10.
Bingham 3rd CO, Alten R, Bartlett SJ, et al. Identifying preliminary domains to detect and measure rheumatoid arthritis flares: report of the OMERACT 10 RA Flare Workshop. J Rheumatol. 2011;38:1751–8.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Bingham 3rd CO, Alten R, de Wit MP. The importance of patient participation in measuring rheumatoid arthritis flares. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71:1107–9.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Bartlett SJ, Hewlett S, Bingham 3rd CO, et al. Identifying core domains to assess flare in rheumatoid arthritis: an OMERACT international patient and provider combined Delphi consensus. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71:1855–60.CrossRefPubMed
13.
de Wit M, Abma T, Koelewijn-van Loon M, et al. Involving patient research partners has a significant impact on outcomes research: a responsive evaluation of the international OMERACT conferences. BMJ Open. 2013;3(5).
14.
Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care. 2007;45(5 Suppl 1):S3–11.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
15.
16.
17.
Frost MH, Reeve BB, Liepa AM, et al. What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures? Value Health. 2007;10 Suppl 2:S94–105.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Coons SJ, Kothari S, Monz BU, et al. The patient-reported outcome (PRO) consortium: filling measurement gaps for PRO end points to support labeling claims. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;90:743–8.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:22.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
20.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res: Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil. 2010;19:539–49.CrossRef
21.
Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, et al. Content validity–establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 1–eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health: J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2011;14:967–77.CrossRef
22.
Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, et al. Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force report: part 2—assessing respondent understanding. Value Health: J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2011;14:978–88.CrossRef
23.
Reeve BB, Wyrwich KW, Wu AW, et al. ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Qual Life Res: Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil. 2013;22:1889–905.CrossRef
24.
Brundage M, Blazeby J, Revicki D, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in randomized clinical trials: development of ISOQOL reporting standards. Qual Life Res: Int J Qual LIfe Asp Treat Care Rehabil. 2013;22:1161–75.CrossRef
25.
Wyrwich KW, Norquist JM, Lenderking WR, et al. Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res: Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil. 2013;22:475–83.CrossRef
26.
Snyder CF, Aaronson NK, Choucair AK, et al. Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerations. Qual Life Res: Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil. 2012;21:1305–14.CrossRef
27.
de Wit MP, Berlo SE, Aanerud GJ, et al. European league against rheumatism recommendations for the inclusion of patient representatives in scientific projects. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:722–6.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Gossec L, Paternotte S, Aanerud GJ, et al. Finalisation and validation of the rheumatoid arthritis impact of disease score, a patient-derived composite measure of impact of rheumatoid arthritis: a EULAR initiative. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:935–42.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Gossec L, de Wit M, Kiltz U, et al. A patient-derived and patient-reported outcome measure for assessing psoriatic arthritis: elaboration and preliminary validation of the Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID) questionnaire, a 13-country EULAR initiative. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73:1012–9.CrossRefPubMed
30.•
Castrejon I, Gossec L, Carmona L. The EULAR outcome measures library: an evolutional database of validated patient-reported instruments. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74:475–6. This article describes the EULAR electronic resource of patient reported outcome measures.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Methodology Committee of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research I. Methodological standards and patient-centeredness in comparative effectiveness research: the PCORI perspective. JAMA. 2012;307:1636–40.CrossRef
32.
Her M, Kavanaugh A. Patient-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2012;24:327–34.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Fleischmann R, Kremer J, Cush J, et al. Placebo-controlled trial of tofacitinib monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med. 2012;9(367):495–507.CrossRef
34.
van Vollenhoven RF, Fleischmann R, Cohen S, et al. Tofacitinib or adalimumab versus placebo in rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med. 2012;9(367):508–19.CrossRef
35.
Burmester GR, Blanco R, Charles-Schoeman C, et al. Tofacitinib (CP-690,550) in combination with methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis with an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors: a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2013;381:451–60.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Lee EB, Fleischmann R, Hall S, et al. Tofacitinib versus methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:2377–86.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Weinblatt ME, Schiff M, Valente R, et al. Head-to-head comparison of subcutaneous abatacept versus adalimumab for rheumatoid arthritis: findings of a phase IIIb, multinational, prospective, randomized study. Arthritis Rheum. 2013;65:28–38.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
38.
Schiff M, Weinblatt ME, Valente R, et al. Head-to-head comparison of subcutaneous abatacept versus adalimumab for rheumatoid arthritis: two-year efficacy and safety findings from AMPLE trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73:86–94.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
39.
Gabay C, Emery P, van Vollenhoven R, et al. Tocilizumab monotherapy versus adalimumab monotherapy for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (ADACTA): a randomised, double-blind, controlled phase 4 trial. Lancet. 2013;381:1541–50.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Kavanaugh A, Fleischmann RM, Emery P, et al. Clinical, functional and radiographic consequences of achieving stable low disease activity and remission with adalimumab plus methotrexate or methotrexate alone in early rheumatoid arthritis: 26-week results from the randomised, controlled OPTIMA study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72:64–71.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
41.
Smolen JS, Emery P, Fleischmann R, et al. Adjustment of therapy in rheumatoid arthritis on the basis of achievement of stable low disease activity with adalimumab plus methotrexate or methotrexate alone: the randomised controlled OPTIMA trial. Lancet. 2014;383:321–32.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Bingham 3rd CO, Pohl C, Woodworth TG, et al. Developing a standardized definition for disease “flare” in rheumatoid arthritis (OMERACT 9 Special Interest Group). J Rheumatol. 2009;36:2335–41.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Hewlett S, Sanderson T, May J, et al. ‘I’m hurting, I want to kill myself’: rheumatoid arthritis flare is more than a high joint count—an international patient perspective on flare where medical help is sought. Rheumatology (Oxford, England). 2012;51:69–76.CrossRef
44.
Bykerk VP, Lie E, Bartlett SJ, Alten R, Boonen A, Christensen R, et al. Establishing a core domain set to measure rheumatoid arthritis flares: report of the OMERACT 11 RA flare Workshop. J Rheumatol. 2014;41:799–809.CrossRefPubMedCentral
45.
Kirwan JR, Minnock P, Adebajo A, et al. Patient perspective: fatigue as a recommended patient centered outcome measure in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2007;34:1174–7.PubMed
46.
Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Boers M, et al. American College of Rheumatology. Preliminary definition of improvement in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1995;38:727–35.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Felson DT, Smolen JS, Wells G, et al. American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism provisional definition of remission in rheumatoid arthritis for clinical trials. Arthritis Rheum. 2011;63:573–86.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
48.
Fries JF, Spitz P, Kraines RG, et al. Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1980;23:137–45.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Pincus T, Summey JA, Soraci SA, et al. Assessment of patient satisfaction in activities of daily living using a modified Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum. 1983;26:1346–53.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Keystone EC, Genovese MC, Hall S, et al. Golimumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy: results through 2 years of the GO-FORWARD study extension. J Rheumatol. 2013;40:1097–103.CrossRefPubMed
51.
de Jong PH, Hazes JM, Han HK, et al. Randomised comparison of initial triple DMARD therapy with methotrexate monotherapy in combination with low-dose glucocorticoid bridging therapy; 1-year data of the tREACH trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73:1331–9.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
52.
Fries JF, Cella D, Rose M, et al. Progress in assessing physical function in arthritis: PROMIS short forms and computerized adaptive testing. J Rheumatol. 2009;36:2061–6.CrossRefPubMed
53.
54.•
Ward MM, Guthrie LC, Alba MI. Clinically important changes in individual and composite measures of rheumatoid arthritis activity: thresholds applicable in clinical trials. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014 May 1. This article redefines the minimally clinically important improvement in RA for the health assessment questionnaire at higher levels.
55.
Ward MM, Guthrie LC, Alba MI. Clinically important changes in individual and composite measures of rheumatoid arthritis activity: thresholds applicable in clinical trials. Annals of the rheumatic diseases. 2014May 1.
56.•
Hays RD, Spritzer KL, Fries JF, et al. Responsiveness and minimally important difference for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) 20-item physical functioning short form in a prospective observational study of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74:104–7. This article defines the minimally clinically important difference in RA for the PROMIS 20 item physical functioning form.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Oude Voshaar MA, Ten Klooster PM, Glas CA, et al. Relative performance of commonly used physical function questionnaires in rheumatoid arthritis and a patient-reported outcomes measurement information system computerized adaptive test. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken, NJ). 2014;66:2900–8.
58.
Bartlett SJ, Orbai AM, Duncan T, et al. How well do generic patient reported outcomes measurement information system instruments capture health status in rheumatoid arthritis? Arthritis Rheum. 2013;65(10 Suppl):972.
59.
Broderick JE, Schneider S, Junghaenel DU, et al. Validity and reliability of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system instruments in osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2013;65(10):1625–33.
60.
Khanna D, Maranian P, Rothrock N, et al. Feasibility and construct validity of PROMIS and “legacy” instruments in an academic scleroderma clinic. Value Health: J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcome Res. 2012;15:128–34.CrossRef
61.
Pincus T, Bergman MJ, Yazici Y, et al. 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. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2008;47:345–9.CrossRef
62.
Pincus T, Swearingen C, Wolfe F. Toward a multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ): assessment of advanced activities of daily living and psychological status in the patient-friendly health assessment questionnaire format. Arthritis Rheum. 1999;42:2220–30.CrossRefPubMed
63.
Pincus T, Yazici Y, Castrejon I. Pragmatic and scientific advantages of MDHAQ/ RAPID3 completion by all patients at all visits in routine clinical care. Bull NYU Hosp Joint Dis. 2012;70 Suppl 1:30–6.
64.
Pincus T, Furer V, Keystone E, et al. 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. Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63:1142–9.CrossRef
65.
Pincus T, Swearingen CJ, Bergman MJ, et al. 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. Arthritis Care Res. 2010;62:181–9.CrossRef
66.
Yazici Y, Curtis JR, Ince A, et al. Efficacy of tocilizumab in patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis and a previous inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: the ROSE study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71(2):198–205.CrossRefPubMed
67.
Gossec L, Dougados M, Rincheval N, et al. Elaboration of the preliminary Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) score: a EULAR initiative. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68:1680–5.CrossRefPubMed
68.
Boers M. RAID: a valid tool to quantify the impact of rheumatoid arthritis. But what impact will it have on the core set for trials? Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:884–5.CrossRefPubMed
69.
Heiberg T, Austad C, Kvien TK, et al. Performance of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) score in relation to other patient-reported outcomes in a register of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:1080–2.CrossRefPubMed
70.•
Dougados M, Brault Y, Logeart I, et al. Defining cut-off values for disease activity states and improvement scores for patient-reported outcomes: the example of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID). Arthritis Res Ther. 2012;14:R129. This article defines the minimally clinically important difference for the RAID questionnaire.CrossRefPubMedCentral
71.
Ware Jr JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–83.CrossRefPubMed
72.
Kosinski M, Zhao SZ, Dedhiya S, et al. Determining minimally important changes in generic and disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2000;43:1478–87.CrossRefPubMed
73.
Busija L, Pausenberger E, Haines TP, et al. Adult measures of general health and health-related quality of life: Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36-Item (SF-36) and Short Form 12-Item (SF-12) Health Surveys, Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 6D (SF-6D), Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3), Quality of Well-Being Scale (QWB), and Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL). Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63 Suppl 11:S383–412.CrossRef
74.
Hays RD, Morales LS. The RAND-36 measure of health-related quality of life. Ann Med. 2001;33:350–7.CrossRefPubMed
75.
Ware Jr J, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220–33.CrossRefPubMed
76.
Gandek B, Ware JE, Aaronson NK, et al. Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 Health Survey in nine countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1171–8.CrossRefPubMed
77.
Hays RD, Liu H, Spritzer K, et al. Item response theory analyses of physical functioning items in the medical outcomes study. Med Care. 2007;45(5 Suppl 1):S32–8.CrossRefPubMed
78.
Whalley D, McKenna SP, de Jong Z, et al. Quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol. 1997;36:884–8.CrossRef
79.
Kirwan JR, Hewlett S. Patient perspective: reasons and methods for measuring fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2007;34:1171–3.PubMed
80.
Sanderson T, Calnan M, Morris M, et al. Shifting normalities: interactions of changing conceptions of a normal life and the normalisation of symptoms in rheumatoid arthritis. Sociol Health Illn. 2011;33:618–33.CrossRef
81.
Bartlett SJ, Orbai AM, Duncan T, et al. Can generic PROMIS measures adequately capture fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis? Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73 Suppl 2:1167.CrossRef
82.
Yellen SB, Cella DF, Webster K, et al. Measuring fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) measurement system. J Pain Symptom Manag. 1997;13:63–74.CrossRef
83.
Cella D, Yount S, Sorensen M, et al. Validation of the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy fatigue scale relative to other instrumentation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2005;32:811–9.PubMed
84.
Hewlett S, Hehir M, Kirwan JR. Measuring fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of scales in use. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57:429–39.CrossRef
85.
Nicklin J, Cramp F, Kirwan J, et al. Measuring fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis: a cross-sectional study to evaluate the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multi-Dimensional questionnaire, visual analog scales, and numerical rating scales. Arthritis Care Res. 2010;62:1559–68.CrossRef
86.
Dures EK, Hewlett SE, Cramp FA, et al. Reliability and sensitivity to change of the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue scales. Rheumatology (Oxford, England). 2013;52:1832–9.CrossRef
87.
Oude Voshaar MA, Ten Klooster PM, Bode C, et al. Assessment of Fatigue in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Psychometric Comparison of Single-item, Multiitem, and Multidimensional Measures. J Rheumatol. 2015 Jan 15.
88.
Oude Voshaar MA, Ten Klooster PM, Bode C, Vonkeman HE, Glas CA, Jansen T, et al. Assessment of Fatigue in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Psychometric Comparison of Single-item, Multiitem, and Multidimensional Measures. The Journal of rheumatology. 2015 Jan 15.
89.•
Orbai AM, Smith KC, Bartlett SJ, et al. “Stiffness has different meanings, I think, to everyone”. examining stiffness from the perspective of people living with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2014 May 28. This qualitative research article describes and provides a conceptual framework for stiffness in RA from the patient perspective.
90.
Orbai AM, Smith KC, Bartlett SJ, de Leon E, Bingham CO, 3rd. "Stiffness has different meanings, I think, to everyone". examining stiffness from the perspective of people living with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis care & research. 2014 May 28.
91.
Halls S, Dures E, Kirwan J, Pollock J, Baker G, Edmunds A, et al. Stiffness is more than just duration and severity: a qualitative exploration in people with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). In press.
92.
Buttgereit F, Doering G, Schaeffler A, Witte S, Sierakowski S, Gromnica-Ihle E, et al. Efficacy of modifiedrelease versus standard prednisone to reduce duration of morning stiffness of the joints in rheumatoid arthritis (CAPRA-1): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2008 Jan 19;371(9608):205-14.
93.
Ward MM, Guthrie LC, Alba MI. Brief report: rheumatoid arthritis response criteria and patient-reported improvement in arthritis activity: is an American College of Rheumatology twenty percent response meaningful to patients? Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, NJ). 2014 Sep;66(9):2339-43.
94.
Inanc N, Yilmaz-Oner S, Can M, et al. The role of depression, anxiety, fatigue, and fibromyalgia on the evaluation of the remission status in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2014;41:1755–60.CrossRefPubMed
95.
Curtis JR, Shan Y, Harrold L, et al. Patient perspectives on achieving treat-to-target goals: a critical examination of patient-reported outcomes. Arthritis Care Res. 2013;65:1707–12.CrossRef
96.
Kvien TK, Heiberg T, Hagen KB. Minimal clinically important improvement/difference (MCII/MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS): what do these concepts mean? Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66 Suppl 3:iii40–1.PubMedCentralPubMed
Metadata
Title
Patient Reported Outcomes in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials
Authors
Ana-Maria Orbai
Clifton O. Bingham III
Publication date
01-04-2015
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Rheumatology Reports / Issue 4/2015
Print ISSN: 1523-3774
Electronic ISSN: 1534-6307
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11926-015-0501-8

Other articles of this Issue 4/2015

Current Rheumatology Reports 4/2015 Go to the issue

Antiphospholipid Syndrome (D Erkan, Section Editor)

Pediatric Antiphospholipid Syndrome

Vasculitis (LR Espinoza, Section Editor)

Cogan’s Syndrome and Other Ocular Vasculitides

Surgery and Perioperative Care (CR MacKenzie and SM Goodman, Section Editors)

Using New Oral Anticoagulants in Patients Undergoing Major Orthopedic Surgery

Vasculitis (L Espinoza, Section Editor)

Antinuclear Antibody (ANA) Testing in Patients Treated With Biological DMARDs: Is It Useful?

Orphan Diseases (B Manger, Section Editor)

Rheumatic Manifestations of Scurvy

Antiphospholipid Syndrome (D Erkan, Section Editor)

Difficult Clinical Situations in the Antiphospholipid Syndrome
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Reserve your place

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

Read more

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Pediatric Cardiology Video

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

Cardiopulmonary Comorbidity Video

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Valvular Heart Disease Video

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Heart Failure Video

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Heart Failure Video

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

Watch now

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

16-04-2024 Type 2 Diabetes News

Incentivised to exercise

11-04-2024 Lifestyle Modifications News

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

10-04-2024 Myocardial Infarction News

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

Image Credits