Low Back Pain Rating scale is an index scale which includes measurements of pain intensity, disability, and physical impairment. The scale was designed to monitor the outcome of clinical trials of low back pain treatment. It has been validated in 58 patients following first-time discectomy. The scale rating can be rapidly carried out and requires no special aids. With slight modification it can be used in office and telephone interviews, as well as postal questionnaires. These modifications only slightly reduce the quantity of information gathered. In the study, a high rater agreement (97.7%) was found without level difference between two observers using the scale. The validation process included: construct validity, criterion-related validity and item bias, relative to Global Assessments pronounced by the patient and an experienced clinician. Low Back Pain Rating scale hs been shown to be valid and reliable in the assessment of low back pain.

The EULAR Sjögren's syndrome (SS) disease activity index (ESSDAI) is a systemic disease activity index that was designed to measure disease activity in patients with primary SS. With the growing use of the ESSDAI, some domains appear to be more challenging to rate than others. The ESSDAI is now in use as a gold standard to measure disease activity in clinical studies, and as an outcome measure, even a primary outcome measure, in current randomised clinical trials. Therefore, ensuring an accurate and reproducible rating of each domain, by providing a more detailed definition of each domain, has emerged as an urgent need. The purpose of the present article is to provide a user guide for the ESSDAI. This guide provides definitions and precisions on the rating of each domain. It also includes some minor improvement of the score to integrate advance in knowledge of disease manifestations. This user guide may help clinicians to use the ESSDAI, and increase the reliability of rating and consequently of the ability to detect true changes over time. This better appraisal of ESSDAI items, along with the recent definition of disease activity levels and minimal clinically important change, will improve the assessment of patients with primary SS and facilitate the demonstration of effectiveness of treatment for patients with primary SS.

Levels and changes of 10 biomarkers in patients with axial spondyloarthritis during anti-TNFα therapy were documented. Construct validity and responsiveness of IL-6, VEGF, MMP-3, total aggrecan and osteocalcin were demonstrated. ASDAS was more associated with these biomarkers than BASDAI, and may better reflect the inflammatory disease processes. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00133315.

We conclude that this theoretically based model for classification of disease manifestations in PSS contains descriptive and analytic powers which may assist the clinical handling of these patients.

ASDAS demonstrates construct validity and high responsiveness during treatment with TNFalpha inhibitors in patients with SpA. The proposed thresholds for disease activity and treatment response need further validation. Trial registration number NCT00133315.

No abstract

IMPORTANCE Whether using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to guide treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) improves disease activity and slows joint damage progression is unknown. OBJECTIVE To determine whether an MRI-guided treat-to-target strategy vs a conventional clinical treat-to-target strategy improves outcomes in patients with RA in clinical remission. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Two-year, randomized, multicenter trial conducted at 9 hospitals in Denmark. Two hundred patients with RA in clinical remission (disease activity score in 28 joints-C-reactive protein [DAS28-CRP] <3.2 and no swollen joints) were enrolled between April 2012 and June 2015. The final follow-up visit was April 2017. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to an MRI-guided vs a conventional treat-to-target strategy. In the MRI-guided group, the treatment goal was absence of MRI bone marrow edema combined with clinical remission, defined as DAS28-CRP of 3.2 or less and no swollen joints. In the conventional group, the treatment goal was clinical remission. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Co-primary outcomes were proportions of patients achieving DAS28-CRP remission (DAS28-CRP <2.6) and with no radiographic progression (no increase in total van der Heijde-modified Sharp score) at 24 months. Significance testing for the primary outcome was based on 1-sided testing. Secondary outcomes were clinical and MRI measures of disease activity, physical function, and quality of life. RESULTS Of 200 patients randomized (133 women [67%]; mean [SD] age, 61.6 [10.5] years; median baseline DAS28-CRP, 1.9 [interquartile range, 1.7-2.2]; van der Heijde-modified Sharp score, 18.0 [interquartile range, 7.0-42.5]), 76 patients (76%) in the MRI-guided group and 95 (95%) in the conventional group completed the study. Of these, 64 (85%) vs 83 (88%), respectively, reached the primary clinical end point (risk difference, −4.8% [1-sided 95% CI, −13.6% to + ϱ; 1-sided P = .19]) and 49 (66%) vs 58 (62%), respectively, reached the primary radiographic end point (risk difference, 4.7% [1-sided 95% CI, −7.0% to + ϱ; 1-sided P = .25). Of 10 key secondary end points, 8 were null and 2 showed statistically significant benefit for the MRI treat-to-target group. Seventeen patients (17%) in the MRI-guided treat-to-target group and 6 patients (6%) in the conventional treat-to-target group experienced serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with RA in clinical remission, an MRI-guided treat-to-target strategy compared with a conventional treat-to-target strategy did not result in improved disease activity remission rates or reduce radiographic progression. These findings do not support the use of an MRI-guided strategy for treating patients with RA.

PROSPERO CRD42014014842.