2016 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Criteria for Minimal, Moderate, and Major Clinical Response in Adult Dermatomyositis and Polymyositis An International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group/Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation Collaborative Initiative
Carregando...
Citações na Scopus
56
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2017
Editora
WILEY
Indexadores
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Autores
AGGARWAL, Rohit
RIDER, Lisa G.
RUPERTO, Nicolino
BAYAT, Nastaran
ERMAN, Brian
FELDMAN, Brian M.
ODDIS, Chester V.
AMATO, Anthony A.
CHINOY, Hector
COOPER, Robert G.
Autor de Grupo de pesquisa
Editores
Coordenadores
Organizadores
Citação
ARTHRITIS & RHEUMATOLOGY, v.69, n.5, p.898-910, 2017
Resumo
Objective. To develop response criteria for adult dermatomyositis (DM) and polymyositis (PM). Methods. Expert surveys, logistic regression, and conjoint analysis were used to develop 287 definitions using core set measures. Myositis experts rated greater improvement among multiple pairwise scenarios in conjoint analysis surveys, where different levels of improvement in 2 core set measures were presented. The PAPRIKA (Potentially All Pairwise Rankings of All Possible Alternatives) method determined the relative weights of core set measures and conjoint analysis definitions. The performance characteristics of the definitions were evaluated on patient profiles using expert consensus (gold standard) and were validated using data from a clinical trial. The nominal group technique was used to reach consensus. Results. Consensus was reached for a conjoint analysis-based continuous model using absolute percent change in core set measures (physician, patient, and extramuscular global activity, muscle strength, Health Assessment Questionnaire, and muscle enzyme levels). A total improvement score (range 0-100), determined by summing scores for each core set measure, was based on improvement in and relative weight of each core set measure. Thresholds for minimal, moderate, and major improvement were >= 20, >= 40, and >= 60 points in the total improvement score. The same criteria were chosen for juvenile DM, with different improvement thresholds. Sensitivity and specificity in DM/PM patient cohorts were 85% and 92%, 90% and 96%, and 92% and 98% for minimal, moderate, and major improvement, respectively. Definitions were validated in the clinical trial analysis for differentiating the physician rating of improvement (P<0.001). Conclusion. The response criteria for adult DM/PM consisted of the conjoint analysis model based on absolute percent change in 6 core set measures, with thresholds for minimal, moderate, and major improvement.
Palavras-chave
Referências
- Aggarwal R, 2014, ARTHRITIS RHEUMATOL, V66, pS404
- Aggarwal R, 2014, ANN RHEUM DIS, V73, P227, DOI 10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-201800
- Alexanderson H, 2014, J RHEUMATOL, V41, P581, DOI 10.3899/jrheum.131247
- Amato AA, 2011, ANN NEUROL, V70, P427, DOI 10.1002/ana.22477
- Apaz MT, 2009, ARTHRIT RHEUM-ARTHR, V61, P509, DOI 10.1002/art.24343
- BOHAN A, 1975, NEW ENGL J MED, V292, P403, DOI 10.1056/NEJM197502202920807
- BOHAN A, 1975, NEW ENGL J MED, V292, P344, DOI 10.1056/NEJM197502132920706
- de Bekker-Grob EW, 2012, HEALTH ECON, V21, P145, DOI 10.1002/hec.1697
- de Lautour H, 2016, ARTHRIT CARE RES, V68, P667, DOI 10.1002/acr.22741
- Delbecq AL, 1975, GROUP TECHNIQUES PRO
- Felson D, 2007, ARTHRIT RHEUM-ARTHR, V57, P193, DOI 10.1002/art.22552
- Felson DT, 2011, ARTHRITIS RHEUM-US, V63, P573, DOI 10.1002/art.30129
- FELSON DT, 1995, ARTHRITIS RHEUM, V38, P727, DOI 10.1002/art.1780380602
- FRIES JF, 1980, ARTHRITIS RHEUM, V23, P137, DOI 10.1002/art.1780230202
- Hansen P, 2008, J MULTI-CRITERIA DEC, V15, P87, DOI 10.1002/mcda.428
- Hengstman GJD, 2006, ANN RHEUM DIS, V65, P1635, DOI 10.1136/ard.2006.052191
- Johnson SR, 2014, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V67, P706, DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.009
- METZ CE, 1978, SEMIN NUCL MED, V8, P283, DOI 10.1016/S0001-2998(78)80014-2
- Miller FW, 2001, RHEUMATOLOGY, V40, P1262, DOI 10.1093/rheumatology/40.11.1262
- Moghadam-Kia S, 2015, EXPERT REV CLIN IMMU, V11, P1265, DOI 10.1586/1744666X.2015.1082908
- Nair R, 2011, SEMIN ARTHRITIS RHEU, V41, P95, DOI 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2010.12.001
- Neogi T, 2015, ARTHRITIS RHEUMATOL, V67, P2557, DOI 10.1002/art.39254
- Neogi T, 2010, ARTHRITIS RHEUM-US, V62, P2582, DOI 10.1002/art.27580
- Oddis CV, 2013, ARTHRITIS RHEUM-US, V65, P314, DOI 10.1002/art.37754
- Piram M, 2014, ANN RHEUM DIS, V73, P2168, DOI 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203666
- Rider LG, 2004, ARTHRITIS RHEUM, V50, P2281, DOI 10.1002/art.20349
- Rider LG, 2002, RHEUM DIS CLIN N AM, V28, P935, DOI 10.1016/S0889-857X(02)00027-3
- Rider LG, 2016, RHEUMATOLOG IN PRESS
- Rider LG, 2017, ARTHRITIS RHEUMATOL, V69, P911, DOI 10.1002/art.40060
- Rider LG, 2011, ARTHRITIS RHEUM-US, V63, pS89
- Rider LG, 2011, ARTHRIT CARE RES, V63, pS118, DOI 10.1002/acr.20532
- Rider LG, 2011, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V305, P183, DOI 10.1001/jama.2010.1977
- Rider Lisa G., 2003, Journal of Rheumatology, V30, P603
- Ruperto N, 2001, CLIN EXP RHEUMATOL, V19, pS1
- Ruperto N, 2008, ARTHRIT RHEUM-ARTHR, V59, P4, DOI 10.1002/art.23248
- Ruperto N, 2016, LANCET, V387, P671, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01021-1
- Ruperto N, 2011, ARCH DIS CHILD, V96, P596, DOI 10.1136/adc.2010.188946
- Ruperto N, 2010, ANN RHEUM DIS, V69, P790, DOI 10.1136/ard.2009.116624
- Ruperto Nicolino, 2008, Curr Rheumatol Rep, V10, P142, DOI 10.1007/s11926-008-0025-6
- Ryan M, 2008, ECON NON-MARK GOOD, V11, P1, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-5753-3
- Taylor WJ, 2013, ARTHRIT CARE RES, V65, P1259, DOI 10.1002/acr.21955
- Taylor WJ, 2011, J RHEUMATOL, V38, P1467, DOI 10.3899/jrheum.110274
- Tjarnlund A, 2012, ARTHRITIS RHEUM-US, V64, pS323
- Utz KS, 2014, THER ADV NEUROL DISO, V7, P263, DOI 10.1177/1756285614555335
- van den Hoogen F, 2013, ARTHRITIS RHEUM-US, V65, P2737, DOI 10.1002/art.38098
- Volochayev Rita, 2012, Open Rheumatol J, V6, P54, DOI 10.2174/1874312901206010054
- Ware J Jr, 1993, SF 36 HLTH SURVEY MA