Patient assessment of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may be useful in clinical practice, offering a patient-friendly, location independent, and a time-efficient and cost-efficient means of monitoring the disease. The objective of this study was to identify patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess disease activity in RA and to evaluate the measurement properties of these measures. Systematic literature searches were performed in the PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify articles reporting on clinimetric development or evaluation of PROM-based instruments to monitor disease activity in patients with RA. 2 reviewers independently selected articles for review and assessed their methodological quality based on the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) recommendations. A total of 424 abstracts were retrieved for review. Of these abstracts, 56 were selected for reviewing the full article and 34 articles, presenting 17 different PROMs, were finally included. Identified were: Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index (RADAI), RADAI-5, Patient-based Disease Activity Score (PDAS) I & II, Patient-derived Disease Activity Score with 28-joint counts (Pt-DAS28), Patient-derived Simplified Disease Activity Index (Pt-SDAI), Global Arthritis Score (GAS), Patient Activity Score (PAS) I & II, Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID) 2–5, Patient Reported Outcome-index (PRO-index) continuous (C) & majority (M), Patient Reported Outcome CLinical ARthritis Activity (PRO-CLARA). The quality of reports varied from poor to good. Typically 5 out of 10 clinimetric domains were covered in the validations of the different instruments. The quality and extent of clinimetric validation varied among PROMs of RA disease activity. The Pt-DAS28, RADAI, RADAI-5 and RAPID 3 had the strongest and most extensive validation. The measurement properties least reported and in need of more evidence were: reliability, measurement error, cross-cultural validity and interpretability of measures.

IntroductionFor patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) whose treatment with a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) is failing, several biological treatment options are available. Often, another TNFi or a biological with another mode of action is prescribed. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three biologic treatments with different modes of action in patients with RA whose TNFi therapy is failing.MethodsWe conducted a pragmatic, 1-year randomised trial in a multicentre setting. Patients with active RA despite previous TNFi treatment were randomised to receive abatacept, rituximab or a different TNFi. The primary outcome (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints) and the secondary outcomes (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index and 36-item Short Form Health Survey scores) were analysed using linear mixed models. Cost-effectiveness was analysed on the basis of incremental net monetary benefit, which was based on quality-adjusted life-years (calculated using EQ-5D scores), and all medication expenditures consumed in 1 year. All analyses were also corrected for possible confounders.ResultsOf 144 randomised patients, 5 were excluded and 139 started taking abatacept (43 patients), rituximab (46 patients) or a different TNFi (50 patients). There were no significant differences between the three groups with respect to multiple measures of RA outcomes. However, our analysis revealed that rituximab therapy is significantly more cost-effective than both abatacept and TNFi over a willingness-to-pay range of 0 to 80,000 euros.ConclusionsAll three treatment options were similarly effective; however, when costs were factored into the treatment decision, rituximab was the best option available to patients whose first TNFi treatment failed. However, generalization of these costs to other countries should be undertaken carefully.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register number NTR1605. Registered 24 December 2008.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-015-0630-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

At the same level of inflammation, ACPA-negative patients have less joint damage and lower probability for damage in newly affected joints than ACPA-positive patients. Low disease activity might be a sufficiently strict treatment target for ACPA-negative patients to prevent progression of joint damage.

BackgroundPhysical inactivity is an important modifiable risk factor for chronic diseases. A new wrist-worn heart rate and activity monitor has been developed for unobtrusive data collection to aid prevention and management of lifestyle-related chronic diseases by means of behavioral change programs.ObjectiveThe objective of the study was to evaluate the performance of total energy expenditure and resting heart rate measures of the Philips health watch. Secondary objectives included the assessment of accuracy of other output parameters of the monitor: heart rate, respiration rate at rest, step count, and activity type recognition.MethodsA within-person comparative study was performed to assess the performance of the health watch against (medical) reference measures. Participants executed a protocol including 15 minutes of rest and various activities of daily life. A two one-sided tests approach was adopted for testing equivalence. In addition, error metrics such as mean error and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) were calculated.ResultsA total of 29 participants (14 males; mean age 41.2, SD 14.4, years; mean weight 77.2, SD 10.2, kg; mean height 1.8, SD 0.1, m; mean body mass index 25.1, SD 3.1, kg/m2) completed the 81-minute protocol. Their mean resting heart rate in beats per minute (bpm) was 64 (SD 7.3). With a mean error of −10 (SD 38.9) kcal and a MAPE of 10% (SD 8.7%), total energy expenditure estimation of the health watch was found to be within the 15% predefined equivalence margin in reference to a portable indirect calorimeter. Resting heart rate determined during a 15-minute rest protocol was found to be within a 10% equivalence margin in reference to a wearable electrocardiogram (ECG) monitor, with a mean deviation of 0 bpm and a maximum deviation of 3 bpm. Heart rate was within 10 bpm and 10% of the ECG monitor reference for 93% of the duration of the protocol. Step count estimates were on average 21 counts lower than a waist-mounted step counter over all walking activities combined, with a MAPE of 3.5% (SD 2.4%). Resting respiration rate was on average 0.7 (SD 1.1) breaths per minute lower than the reference measurement by the spirometer embedded in the indirect calorimeter during the 15-minute rest, resulting in a MAPE of 8.3% (SD 7.0%). Activity type recognition of walking, running, cycling, or other was overall 90% accurate in reference to the activities performed.ConclusionsThe health watch can serve its medical purpose of measuring resting heart rate and total energy expenditure over time in an unobtrusive manner, thereby providing valuable data for the prevention and management of lifestyle-related chronic diseases.Trial RegistrationNetherlands trial register NTR5552; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=5552 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6neYJgysl)