Search

Background: An unfavorable body composition is often present in chronic arthritis patients. This unfavorable composition is a loss of muscle mass, with a stable or increased (abdominal) fat mass. Since it is unknown when this unfavorable composition develops, we compared body composition in disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD)-naive early arthritis patients with non-arthritis controls and explored the association, in early arthritis patients, with disease activity and traditional cardiovascular risk factors. Methods: 317 consecutive early arthritis patients (84% rheumatoid arthritis according to 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria) and 1268 age-/gender-/ethnicity-matched non-arthritis controls underwent a Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scan to assess fat percentage, fat mass index, fat mass distribution and appendicular lean (muscle) mass index. Additionally, disease activity, health assessment questionnaire (HAQ), acute phase proteins, lipid profile and blood pressure were evaluated. Results: Loss of muscle mass (corrected for age suspected muscle mass) was 4–5 times more common in early arthritis patients, with a significantly lower mean appendicular lean mass index (females 6% and males 7% lower, p<0.01). Patients had more fat distributed to the trunk (females p<0.01, males p = 0.07) and females had a 4% higher mean fat mass index (p<0.01). An unfavorable body composition was associated with a higher blood pressure and an atherogenic lipid profile. There was no relationship with disease activity, HAQ or acute phase proteins. Conclusion: Loss of muscle mass is 4–5 times more common in early arthritis patients, and is in early arthritis patients associated with a higher blood pressure and an atherogenic lipid profile. Therefore, cardiovascular risk is already increased at the clinical onset of arthritis making cardiovascular risk management necessary in early arthritis patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Dutch-Flemish PROMIS Group translated the adult PROMIS Pain Interference item bank into Dutch-Flemish. The aims of the current study were to calibrate the parameters of these items using an item response theory (IRT) model, to evaluate the cross-cultural validity of the Dutch-Flemish translations compared to the original English items, and to evaluate their reliability and construct validity. The 40 items in the bank were completed by 1085 Dutch chronic pain patients. Before calibrating the items, IRT model assumptions were evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Items were calibrated using the graded response model (GRM), an IRT model appropriate for items with more than two response options. To evaluate cross-cultural validity, differential item functioning (DIF) for language (Dutch vs. English) was examined. Reliability was evaluated based on standard errors and Cronbach’s alpha. To evaluate construct validity correlations with scores on legacy instruments (e.g., the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire) were calculated. Unidimensionality of the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS Pain Interference item bank was supported by CFA tests of model fit (CFI = 0.986, TLI = 0.986). Furthermore, the data fit the GRM and showed good coverage across the pain interference continuum (threshold-parameters range: -3.04 to 3.44). The Dutch-Flemish PROMIS Pain Interference item bank has good cross-cultural validity (only two out of 40 items showing DIF), good reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.98), and good construct validity (Pearson correlations between 0.62 and 0.75). A computer adaptive test (CAT) and Dutch-Flemish PROMIS short forms of the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS Pain Interference item bank can now be developed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To calibrate the Dutch-Flemish version of the PROMIS physical function (PF) item bank in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to evaluate cross-cultural measurement equivalence with US general population and RA data. Methods: Data were collected from RA patients enrolled in the Dutch DREAM registry. An incomplete longitudinal anchored design was used where patients completed all 121 items of the item bank over the course of three waves of data collection. Item responses were fit to a generalized partial credit model adapted for longitudinal data and the item parameters were examined for differential item functioning (DIF) across country, age, and sex. Results: In total, 690 patients participated in the study at time point 1 (T2, N = 489; T3, N = 311). The item bank could be successfully fitted to a generalized partial credit model, with the number of misfitting items falling within acceptable limits. Seven items demonstrated DIF for sex, while 5 items showed DIF for age in the Dutch RA sample. Twenty-five (20%) items were flagged for cross-cultural DIF compared to the US general population. However, the impact of observed DIF on total physical function estimates was negligible. Discussion: The results of this study showed that the PROMIS PF item bank adequately fit a unidimensional IRT model which provides support for applications that require invariant estimates of physical function, such as computer adaptive testing and targeted short forms. More studies are needed to further investigate the cross-cultural applicability of the US-based PROMIS calibration and standardized metric. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis exposed to glucocorticoids. Methods: Retrospective analysis of exposure to glucocorticoids in a prospective cohort of 353 patients with rheumatoid arthritis followed from June 2001 up to November 2011 for incident cardiovascular disease in a hospital-based outpatient cohort in the Netherlands. Hazard ratios with 95%-confidence intervals were calculated for the association between different types of exposure to glucocorticoids and incident cardiovascular disease. Associations were adjusted for demographics, cardiovascular risk factors and disease related parameters. Results: Recent and current exposure to glucocorticoids were associated with incident cardiovascular disease, as was a longer duration of exposure and cumulative exposure to glucocorticoids. Adjustment for disease activity and severity negated the association. Conclusion: In observational studies the finding of incident cardiovascular disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis exposed to glucocorticoids is strongly confounded by indication due to high disease activity. The adverse cardiovascular effects of glucocorticoids might be balanced by positive effects working through inflammation control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Thousands of systematic reviews have been conducted in all areas of health care. However, the methodological quality of these reviews is variable and should routinely be appraised. AMSTAR is a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews., Methodology: AMSTAR was used to appraise 42 reviews focusing on therapies to treat gastro-esophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer disease, and other acid-related diseases. Two assessors applied the AMSTAR to each review. Two other assessors, plus a clinician and/or methodologist applied a global assessment to each review independently., Conclusions: The sample of 42 reviews covered a wide range of methodological quality. The overall scores on AMSTAR ranged from 0 to 10 (out of a maximum of 11) with a mean of 4.6 (95% CI: 3.7 to 5.6) and median 4.0 (range 2.0 to 6.0). The inter-observer agreement of the individual items ranged from moderate to almost perfect agreement. Nine items scored a kappa of >0.75 (95% CI: 0.55 to 0.96). The reliability of the total AMSTAR score was excellent: kappa 0.84 (95% CI: 0.67 to 1.00) and Pearson's R 0.96 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.98). The overall scores for the global assessment ranged from 2 to 7 (out of a maximum score of 7) with a mean of 4.43 (95% CI: 3.6 to 5.3) and median 4.0 (range 2.25 to 5.75). The agreement was lower with a kappa of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.40 to 0.88). Construct validity was shown by AMSTAR convergence with the results of the global assessment: Pearson's R 0.72 (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.84). For the AMSTAR total score, the limits of agreement were -0.19+/-1.38. This translates to a minimum detectable difference between reviews of 0.64 'AMSTAR points'. Further validation of AMSTAR is needed to assess its validity, reliability and perceived utility by appraisers and end users of reviews across a broader range of systematic reviews.