Search

Objectives: To characterise associations of fatigue with other variables within a multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ) in routine care of patients with different rheumatic diagnoses., Methods: All patients complete MDHAQ, which includes fatigue on a 0-10 visual analogue scale (VAS), and routine assessment of patient index data (RAPID3), a composite of function, pain, and patient global. Physicians complete a RheuMetric checklist which includes 4 VAS for overall global status (DOCGL), inflammation, damage, and distress. Median score for fatigue and other MDHAQ and RheuMetric scores were compared in 4 diagnosis groups: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), osteoarthritis (OA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and fibromyalgia (FM), using a Kruskall-Wallis test. Associations of fatigue with other variables were analysed using Spearman correlations and multivariate regressions., Results: 612 patients were included: 173 RA, 199 with OA, 146 with SLE, and 94 with FM. Median fatigue was significantly higher in FM (7) than in RA (4), OA (5), and SLE (5). Fatigue was correlated significantly with all other MDHAQ scores, at higher levels in RA and SLE versus OA and FM. Fatigue was correlated significantly with DOCGL in RA, OA, SLE, but not FM. In multivariate analyses, fatigue scores were explained independently by higher pain and symptom number in RA; lower age and higher symptom number in OA; only higher pain in SLE; and none of the variables in FM., Conclusions: Fatigue is common in rheumatic diseases and strongly associated with higher pain and number of symptoms. The MDHAQ provides a useful tool to assess fatigue in clinical settings.

An MDHAQ/RAPID3 (multidimensional health assessment questionnaire/routine assessment of patient index data) was developed from the HAQ over 25 years, based on observations made from completion by every patient (with all diagnoses) at every routine rheumatology visit since 1980. Modification of the HAQ was viewed as similar to improving a laboratory test, with a primary focus on clinical value for diagnosis, prognosis, and/or management, as well as feasibility for minimal effect on clinical workflow. Rigorous attention, was also directed to validity, reliability, other methodologic and technological considerations, but after clinical value and feasibility were established. A longer "intake" MDHAQ was introduced for new patients to record a complete past medical history - illnesses, hospitalisations, surgeries, allergies, family history, social history and medications. MDHAQ scales not found on the HAQ record complex activities, sleep quality, anxiety, depression, self-report joint count, fatigue, symptom checklist, morning stiffness, exercise status, recent medical history, social history and demographic data within 2 pages on one sheet of paper. An electronic eMDHAQ/RAPID3 provides a similar platform to pool data from multiple sites. A patient may be offered a patient-administered, password-protected, secure, web site, to store the medical history completed on the eMDHAQ. This eMDHAQ would allow a patient to complete a single general medical history questionnaire rather than different intake questionnaires in different medical settings. The eMDHAQ would be available for updates and correction by the patient for future visits, regardless of electronic medical record (EMR). The eMDHAQ is designed to interface with an EMR using HL7 (health level seven) and SMART (Substitutable Medical Apps, Reusable Technology) on FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources), although implementation requires collaboration with the EMR vendor. Advanced features include reports for the physician formatted as a medical record note of past medical history for entry into any EMR without typing or dictation, and a periodic "tickler" function to monitor long-term outcomes with minimal effort of the physician and staff. Nonetheless, clinical use of an eMDHAQ should be guided primarily not by the latest technology, but by value and feasibility in clinical care, the same principles that guided development of the pencil-and-paper MDHAQ/RAPID3.

RAPID3 (routine assessment of patient index data) is an index found within a multi-dimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ) for routine clinical care, composed only of 3 self-report scores for physical function, pain, and patient global estimate, each scored 0-10, for a total of 0-30. RAPID3 is correlated significantly with DAS28 (Disease Activity Score) and CDAI (Clinical Disease Activity Index), and distinguishes active from control treatments as efficiently as these indices in clinical trials involving adalimumab, abatacept, certolizumab, infliximab, and rituximab. Many versions of an electronic RAPID3 (eRAPID3) have been developed, which are incompatible with one another, as seen for electronic medical records (EMR). Therefore, opportunities are lost to pool data from many sites for advancement of patient care and outcomes. Interfaces for linkage to EMRs and pooling of data are available as Health Level Seven (HL7) standards, FHIR (Fast Health Interoperability Resources), and innovative open platforms like SMART (Substitutable Medical Apps, Reusable Technology), but many eRAPID3 versions do not have this capacity. RAPID3 scores may be elevated in many patients due to damage or distress, rather than, or in addition to, inflammation, a problem that also affects DAS28, CDAI, and all RA indices which include a patient global estimate, even if they include a formal joint count. A full MDHAQ, of which RAPID3 is a component, provides clues to the presence of damage, and/or distress and adds much further information, with no more work for the health professional and little more time for the patient. A RheuMetric physician checklist of global scores for inflammation, damage, and distress is also useful to recognise damage and/or distress, but not available with most available eRAPID3 versions. Many eRAPID3 versions also are limited by the absence of flowsheets to monitor scores over time, the absence of strategies to convey data to health professionals to improve care, and the absence of advanced features for patients and doctors which are available in some versions of an eRAPID3. It is recommended that eRAPID3 should include a full MDHAQ, RheuMetric checklist, a longitudinal flowsheet of scores, and a defined strategy for management of the data to be available to the physician for improved patient care, to enhance value and quantitative interpretation of RAPID3 scores.

Background: A physician global estimate of patient status (DOCGL) was designed to quantitate inflammatory activity but may be influenced by the presence of damage and distress. Therefore, three additional 0 to 10 visual analog scales (VAS) have been developed on a RheuMetric checklist to record physician estimates of inflammation (DOCINF), damage (DOCDAM), and distress (DOCSTR) (such as fibromyalgia and somatization). We analyzed patient scores on a multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ) and four RheuMetric physician estimates inpatients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), osteoarthritis (OA), and fibromyalgia (FM)., Methods: All patients with all diagnoses seen by Rush University Medical Center rheumatologists complete an MDHAQ and have four RheuMetric 0 to 10 VAS estimates for DOCGL, DOCINF, DOCDAM, and DOCSTR assigned by the rheumatologist at each visit. A random visit of 205 patients with RA (N = 50), OA (N = 67), SLE (N = 66), and FM (N = 32) was analyzed for mean MDHAQ scores, RheuMetric estimates, and Spearman correlations., Results: Mean MDHAQ scores and DOCGL were highest for FM, followed by OA, RA, and SLE. Highest estimates and highest correlations with DOCGL were seen for DOCINF in RA, for DOCDAM in OA, and for DOCSTR in FM. DOCDAM estimates were higher than DOCINF in RA and SLE, suggesting that damage may be as severe a clinical problem as inflammation. DOCGL was correlated significantly with patient global estimate (PATGL) in RA, SLE, and OA, but not in FM., Conclusions: Physician estimates for inflammation, damage,and distress differ in different rheumatic diagnoses. Many patients have inflammation and damage or distress, or all three problems, reflecting challenges of rheumatology care.

Objective: To analyze discordance between global estimates by patients (PATGL) and their physicians (DOCGL) according to demographic and self-report variables on a Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ) in patients with many rheumatic diseases seen in usual care., Methods: Each patient completed an MDHAQ at each visit, which includes scores for physical function, pain, and PATGL, each found on the traditional Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), and scores for sleep quality, anxiety, depression, self-report joint count, and fatigue, which are not found on the HAQ. A random visit of 980 patients with any rheumatic diagnosis was analyzed in 3 categories: PATGL=DOCGL (within 2 of 10 units), PATGL>DOCGL (by ≥2 of 10 units), and DOCGL>PATGL (by ≥2 of 10 units), using descriptive statistics and multinomial logistic regression models., Results: Patients included 145 with rheumatoid arthritis, 57 with systemic lupus erythematosus, 173 with osteoarthritis, 348 with other inflammatory diseases, and 257 with other noninflammatory diseases. Overall, PATGL=DOCGL in 509 (52%), PATGL>DOCGL in 371 (38%), and DOCGL>PATGL in 100 (10%). PATGL>DOCGL was associated significantly with older age, female sex, low formal education, Hispanic ethnicity, not working, high MDHAQ physical function and pain scores, and high scores for fatigue, poor sleep, anxiety, depression, and self-report joint count, which are not available on the HAQ. Pain and fatigue were significant in a final multinomial logistic regression; the other variables may raise awareness of discordance to clinicians., Conclusion: Global estimates of patients indicated significantly poorer status than estimates of their physicians in 38% of 980 patients with rheumatic conditions, and were associated with demographic and MDHAQ scores, 5 of which are not available on the HAQ., (Copyright © 2014 by the American College of Rheumatology.)

Advances in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have rendered remission an increasingly achievable goal. However, a single, universal definition of remission in RA does not exist. Remission criteria were developed in 1981 by a committee of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and have been described according to different composite indices. In 2011, a committee of the ACR and the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) has proposed two remission criteria sets to be applied in clinical trials, a Boolean criteria set and a simplified disease activity index (SDAI), which are more stringent than disease activity score with 28 swollen join count (DAS28) to identify remission. More recently, remission has been described based on routine assessment of patient index data (RAPID3), an index of only patient reported outcomes (PROs). Remission criteria of RAPID3 ≥ 3 and less than one swollen joint (RAPID3 SJ1) is comparable to Boolean criteria and can be implemented in busy clinical settings more easily than indices requiring a laboratory test or formal joint count.

A physician estimate of global status (DOCGL) is among the seven core data set measures to assess patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and included in many rheumatic disease indices. In clinical trials designed to reduce in flammation, DOCGL is directed to estimate inflammatory activity. However, patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases also may be affected by organ damage (e.g., to joints in RA, kidneys in SLE, muscles in polymyositis, and so forth.). Furthermore, fibromyalgia has been reported in 20% to 40% of patients with RA and other inflammatory rheumatic diseases, which may complicate their management. We sought to clarify a global summary of patient status by supplementing DOCGL with three additinal separate (0-10) physician global estimates for inflammation (DOCINF), damage (DOCDAM), and neither inflammation nor damage (DOCNON) (often fibromyalgia, but may be other chronic pain or somatization syndromes). In analyses of new patients with six diagnoses, mean overall DOCGL scores were highest for patients with fibromyalgia, followed by RA, spondyloarthropathy, osteoarthritis, gout, and systemic lupus erythematosus. Among the three subscales, mean DOCINF scores were highest in RA, spondyloar- thropathy, gout, and systemic lupus erythematosus; mean DOCDAM highest in osteoarthritis; and mean DOCNON in fibromyalgia. In patients with RA, mean DOCDAM and DOCNON scores indicated coexistence of clinically impor tant damage or fibromyalgia in some patients. These data indicate face validity of the three physician global estimates on subscales for inflammation, damage, and symptoms due to neither inflammation nor damage. These estimates reflect the expertise of the rheumatologist and may be helpful to interpret rheumatic disease indices.

Objective: To perform a longitudinal cohort study concerning the capacity of prospectively-collected erythrocyte sedimentation rates (ESR) and scores for physical function, pain, patient global estimate, and routine assessment of patient index data (RAPID3) on a multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ), to recognize incomplete versus adequate responses to methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in one usual care setting, prior to description of RAPID3., Methods: All patients were seen in one academic setting, in which MDHAQ scores were collected in all patients at all visits in the infrastructure of care. ESR was collected in all RA patients. All 93 RA patients in whom methotrexate was initiated between 1996 and 2001 with available 5-year follow-up were analyzed. "Incomplete response" was defined as initiation of subsequent biological therapy and "adequate response" as no biological therapy over 5 years. Measures were analyzed at the baseline methotrexate visit and at a subsequent visit: in 30 "incomplete responders" when biological therapy was prescribed; and in 63 "adequate responders 2.6 years after methotrexate initiation (mean interval to biological therapy in "incomplete responders")., Results: ESR fell similarly by 33% to 36% in both groups. MDHAQ scores fell by 56% to 79% over 2.6 years in adequate responders but increased by 0% to 31% in incomplete responders. Median RAPID3 fell from 10.6 to 3.6 (low severity=3.1 to 6, remission≤3) in adequate responders and rose from 14.9 to 16.2 (high severity>12) in incomplete responders., Conclusion: RAPID3, but not ESR, recognizes incomplete versus adequate methotrexate responses in usual clinical care, and may be useful in busy usual care settings.

This article summarises the experience of one academic rheumatologist in treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) over 25 years from 1980-2004 with low-dose prednisone, most with <5 mg/day over long periods. A database was available which included medications and multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ) scores for physical function, pain, and routine assessment of patient index data (RAPID3), completed by all patients at all visits in the infrastructure of care. Most patients were treated with long-term low-dose prednisone, often from the initial visit and indefinitely, and with methotrexate after 1990. The mean initial prednisone dose declined from 10.3 mg/day in 1980-1984 to 3.6 mg/day in 2000-2004. Although no formal criteria were used to determine the initial dose, prednisone doses were higher in patients who had more severe MDHAQ/RAPID3 scores, as expected, reflecting confounding by indication. Similar improvements were seen in clinical status over 12 months in patients treated with <5 vs. ≥ 5 mg/day prednisone, and maintained for >8 years. Adverse effects were primarily bruising and skin-thinning, with low levels of hypertension, diabetes, and cataracts, although this information was based only on self-report rather than systematic assessment by a health professional. These data reflect limitations of observational data. However, a consecutive patient database may provide long-term information not available from clinical trials. The data document that prednisone at doses <5 mg/day over long periods appears acceptable and effective for many patients with RA at this time. Further clinical trials and long-term observational studies are needed to develop optimal treatment strategies for patients with RA with low-dose prednisone.

Quantitative measurement according to a laboratory test such as hemoglobin A1c or creatinine provides a "gold standard" for care of every individual with a specific diagnosis. By contrast, no single "gold standard" quantitative measure is available in rheumatic diseases. Laboratory tests are limited, and clinical decisions are based more on patient history and physical examination than laboratory tests. A quantitative patient history is provided by a self-report questionnaire as standardized, "scientific" data to compare from one visit to the next. Patient questionnaires for usual clinical care emphasize feasibility, acceptability to patients and physicians, and clinical utility, which are not considered in research questionnaires. Development of a multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ) over 27 years is seen as a continuous quality improvement (CQI) rather than research activity, to account for all rather than a few selected patients for a research study. Both the traditional HAQ and MDHAQ are 2-page questionnaires, easily completed by patients in 5 to 10 minutes, although scoring a HAQ disability index (HAQ-DI) requires 42 seconds, compared to 5 seconds for an MDHAQ/RAPID3. The MDHAQ includes, within 2 pages: complex activities, psychological queries, visual analog scales (VAS) as 21 numbered circles rather than 10-cm lines, a fatigue VAS, RADAI (rheumatoid arthritis disease activity index) self-report joint count, traditional "medical" review of systems and recent medical history, and demographic data, as well as a data management system that incorporates medication data and laboratory tests, reports for physicians and patients, and flow sheets to compare a current visit with a previous visit.

A multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ) can enhance doctor-patient communication beyond the important function of providing RAPID3 scores, preparing the patient for the encounter and saving time for the doctor. Optimal use of the MDHAQ should include the following actions: 1. the MDHAQ should be distributed to each patient at each visit in the infrastructure of care; 2. the MDHAQ helps the patient prepare for the visit by completing it in the waiting area prior to seeing the physician; 3. the clinician prepares for the visit and saves time by reviewing the MDHAQ before seeing the patient; 4. the clinician scans the review of systems and records the number of positives on the symptom checklist; 5. the clinician reviews the recent medical history information to save time and improve accuracy and completeness of critical information; and 6. routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) scores are recorded in the medical record and entered into a flowsheet, which also includes other MDHAQ scores, laboratory tests, and medications.

Tight control of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may be guided by RAPID3 (routine assessment of patient index data), an index without formal joint counts or laboratory tests, which can be scored on a multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ) in 5 seconds, compared to 42 seconds to score a standard HAQ, 90 seconds to perform a 28-joint count, 114 seconds to score a disease activity score 28 (DAS28), and 106 seconds to score a clinical disease activity index (CDAI). RAPID3 scores are correlated significantly with DAS28 and CDAI (rho > 0.65, p < 0.001), and distinguish active from control treatment similarly to DAS28 and CDAI in clinical trials of methotrexate, lefunomide, adalimumab, abatacept, certolizumab, and infiximab. RAPID3 scores can be used to classify patient disease activity status as high (> 12), moderate (6.1-12), low (3.1-6), and remission (

A guide to RAPID3 (routine assessment of patient index data), an index of three patient self-report measures-physical function, pain, and patient global estimate of status-on a multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDAQ) is presented, including development, scoring, use in standard care, and rationale. RAPID3 and its individual components are regarded as "vital signs," which may alert a health professional to unsuspected patient problems, provide a baseline measure to support a change in therapy, and numerically document improvement or worsening over time to complement clinical impressions. MDHAQ-RAPID3 can be incorporated into the infrastructure of standard rheumatology care for completion in the waiting room by every patient with any rheumatic disease at every visit: if there is a reason for a visit, there is a reason for RAPID3 vital signs. RAPID3 is calculated in 5 to 10 seconds, providing similar information to DAS28 (disease activity score) and CDAI (clinical disease activity index), which require a mean of 114 and 106 seconds, respectively. MDHAQ-RAPID3 presents an additional advantage for the patient to optimize the office encounter by completion of the questionnaire in the waiting room. The MDHAQ also includes a review of systems and recent medical history, which can save 2 to 3 minutes per visit for other patient concerns. A physician's clinical decisions ultimately require synthesis and interpretation of all available data, ranging from laboratory tests to patient questionnaire scores. RAPID3 vital signs can contribute to this synthesis toward improved quality, outcomes, and documentation of rheumatology care.

Objective: To compare 4 categories (high, moderate, and low severity, and near-remission) of RAPID3 (Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3), an index without formal joint counts, which is scored in < 10 seconds to 4 categories of the Disease Activity Score (DAS28) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: All patients complete a Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ) at each visit. A physician/assessor 28-joint count and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) were completed in 285 patients with RA in usual care by 3 rheumatologists to score DAS28, CDAI, and RAPID3. RAPID3 includes the 3 MDHAQ patient self-report RA Core Data Set measures for physical function, pain, and patient global estimate. Proposed RAPID3 (range 0-10) severity categories of high (> 4), moderate (2.01-4), low (1.01-2), and near-remission (< or = 1) were compared to DAS (0-10) activity categories of high (> 5.1), moderate (3.21-5.1), low (2.61-3.2), and remission (< or = 2.6), and CDAI (0-76) categories of > 22, 10.1-22.0, 2.9-10.0, and < or = 2.8. Additional RAPID scores, which add to RAPID3 a physician/assessor or patient self-report joint count and/or assessor global estimate, were also analyzed. Statistical significance was analyzed using Spearman correlations, cross-tabulations, and kappa statistics., Results: All RAPID scores were correlated significantly with DAS28 and CDAI (rho > 0.65, p < 0.001). Overall, 78%-84% of patients who met DAS28 or CDAI moderate/high activity criteria met similar RAPID severity criteria, and 68%-77% who met DAS28 or CDAI remission/low activity criteria also met similar RAPID criteria. RAPID3 was as informative as other indices., Conclusion: RAPID3 provides a feasible, informative quantitative index for busy clinical settings.

Objective: To analyze the time required to score different measures used to assess patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), as a guide to feasibility in standard care. The measures studied were a 28-Joint Count, Disease Activity Score (DAS), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Multidimensional HAQ (MDHAQ), and various Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID) scores derived from the MDHAQ., Methods: Three rheumatologists at 3 sites performed and timed 28-joint counts in 20 different patients at each site. Each rheumatologist scored and timed identical data in 5 groups of 10 from the same 50 patients seen in standard clinical care, including 50 DAS28 indices using the DAS Website, 50 identical HAQ, and 50 identical MDHAQ from the same patients. The MDHAQ includes 10 activities self-assessed for physical function, 21 circle visual analog scales (VAS) (rather than 10 cm lines), and scoring templates on the questionnaire for physical function, patient self-report joint count and RAPID composite scores. RAPID3 includes the 3 Core Data Set measures, RAPID4 adds the self-report joint count to RAPID3, and RAPID5 adds a physician global estimate to RAPID4., Results: The median number of seconds to complete a 28-joint count was 90, compared to 41.9 s for a HAQ, 9.6 s for an MDHAQ RAPID3, and 19.4 s for RAPID5., Conclusion: MDHAQ RAPID3 scores can be calculated in considerably less time than other RA measures, using scoring templates on the MDHAQ, to provide informative, feasible, quantitative measures for standard rheumatology clinical care.

Objectives: To analyse the capacity of routine assessment of patient index data 3 (RAPID3), an index of only the three patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in the RA Core Data Set-physical function, pain and global status-to distinguish abatacept from control treatments in two clinical trials, and to compare RAPID3 results with the disease activity score 28 (DAS28) and RAPID-based indices that add a tender or swollen joint count and/or physician/assessor global estimate of status., Methods: Clinical trial data from AIM (Abatacept in Inadequate response to Methotrexate) and ATTAIN [Abatacept Trial in Treatment of Anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) INadequate responders] were reanalysed. Mean values were computed at baseline, endpoint and for change between baseline and endpoint for RAPID3, DAS28 and additional RAPID indices to study whether they had greater capacity to distinguish abatacept from control therapy. RAPID4TJC adds to RAPID3 a tender joint count; RAPID4SJC, a swollen joint count; RAPID4MD, a physician/assessor global estimate; and RAPID5 adds both a tender joint count and physician/assessor global estimate. RAPID2 includes only physician/assessor and patient global estimates., Results: All indices indicated significant differences of 19-28% between abatacept and control groups. Results were similar for RAPID3 of only patient measures, compared to DAS28 and other RAPID-based indices., Conclusion: A RAPID3 'patient-only' index, without a joint count or any measure from a health professional or laboratory, distinguishes active from control treatments in two abatacept clinical trials, at levels similar to DAS28 and to other RAPID-based indices that add physician-reported measures.

Quantitative clinical assessment measures and indices have been developed for many rheumatic diseases. However, these measures and indices generally are used only in clinical trials and other clinical research, as they are too complex for collection and calculation at a usual clinical visit. The only quantitative measures available in most rheumatology patient care are laboratory tests, which often give false positive and false negative results and may not be available at the time of a patient visit. The most feasible method to collect quantitative data in routine care involves patient self-report questionnaires, completed while waiting to see the physician and reviewed by the clinician at the time of the visit. A multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ) provides a useful one-page questionnaire to assess the three self-report Data Set measures-physical function, pain, patient global estimate, as well as review of systems, recent medical history, fatigue, and demographic data. An index of the three Core Data Set measures, routine assessment of patient index data (RAPID3), can be used to guide "tight control" of inflammation, analogous to a disease activity score (DAS28). RAPID3 can be scored in fewer than 10 seconds and is informative in patients with all rheumatic diseases. It is suggested that the infrastructure of all rheumatology care settings include a patient questionnaire for each patient, with all diagnoses, at each visit to improve quantitative guidance of clinical decisions, documentation of status and improvements, and patient outcomes.

No single measure can serve as a 'gold standard' for the diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring of patients with rheumatic diseases. Therefore, pooled indices of several measures have been developed for patient assessment. Quantitative measures and indices in rheumatology have been used primarily in clinical trials and other clinical research, but not in standard clinical care. Indeed, most standard rheumatology care is conducted without quantitative data other than laboratory tests, which often are uninformative. Some measures used in research have been adapted for standard care. The classical 66/68-joint count with graded scoring for swelling, tenderness, pain on motion, limited motion, and deformity has been shortened for clinical care to a 28-joint count, scored only as 'Yes' or 'No' for swelling or tenderness. Patient questionnaires designed for clinical research can be lengthy, with complex scoring, so that information is not available to help guide clinical decisions. By contrast, patient questionnaires designed for standard care, such as a simple one-page, multi-dimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ), are short, save time, are easily scored, and are useful in all rheumatic diseases to monitor patient status at each visit and document changes over long periods. More attention to measures for use in standard care could improve care and outcomes for patients with rheumatic diseases.

The American College of Rheumatology Core Data Set for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) includes 3 measures which are found on a patient self-report questionnaire, physical function, pain, and patient estimate of global status. These measures are included in all clinical trials, but not assessed at most encounters in standard rheumatology care. Rheumatologists may have experience with lengthy research questionnaires in clinical trials and other clinical research, which (appropriately) are regarded as relatively cumbersome research tools and do not contribute to clinical care. A format of a questionnaire known as the multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ) has been developed for standard rheumatology care to contribute to rheumatology clinical care in daily practice. The 3 scores for physical function, pain, and global status can be "eyeballed" in a second or two and formally scored into a composite index known as rheumatology assessment patient index data (RAPID) in about 10 seconds. This chapter provides a brief tutorial designed to instruct rheumatologists and their staffs regarding how to use and score the MDHAQ and RAPID in standard clinical care.

A continuous quality improvement approach is proposed for the assessment and management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) based on scores on a one-page patient self-report multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ), without formal joint counts. The approach includes five simple steps before the patient is seen by the physician: (1) an MDHAQ is completed by every patient at every visit; (2) scores are calculated for patient function, pain, and global estimate, with options for a self-report joint count and other scales; (3) scores are entered on flow sheets with data from prior visits, which might also include laboratory and medication information; (4) scores are compiled into an index termed Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID), analogous to a Disease Activity Score (DAS); (5) RAPID scores are classified to guide treatment decisions. RAPID 3 includes the three patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in the RA Core Data Set - physical function, pain, and global estimate. RAPID 4 adds a self-report joint count, and RAPID 5, a physician global estimate. RAPID 3 can be calculated in about 10 seconds, RAPID 4 in about 19 seconds, and RAPID 5 in about 20 seconds. RAPID 3, RAPID 4, and RAPID 5 give similar results to distinguish active from control treatments in RA clinical trials, at levels similar to American College of Rheumatology or DAS improvement criteria, and are all correlated significantly with DAS28 (rho=0.62-0.64, P<0.001). A proposed classification of RAPID scores, analogous to four DAS28 categories, includes: 'near remission' (0-1), 'low severity' (1.01-2), 'moderate severity' (2.01-4), and 'high severity' (>4). RAPID scoring is feasible in standard clinical care to support continuous quality improvement.

Objective: To analyse the proportion of individuals in the general population over age 50 who do not meet American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) remission, and OMERACT criteria for minimal disease activity (MDA), and to compare results to RA patients., Methods: A self-report questionnaire was completed by 1400 community control subjects and 1705 RA patients, including the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), gradual rating scales for pain, fatigue and global health, duration of morning stiffness and painful joints. The prevalence of 4/6 ACR remission criteria and 4/7 OMERACT criteria for MDA was analysed in community control subjects and patients with RA over age 50., Results: For ACR criteria, 76% of control subjects reported painful joints, 37% morning stiffness, 62% pain and 66% fatigue, vs 94, 65, 84 and 84% of patients with RA. MDA criteria were not met by 64% of control subjects for painful joints, 38% for pain, 45% for global health and 18% for HAQ, vs 89, 60, 69 and 52% of RA patients. The four ACR remission criteria were met by only 15% of control subjects over age 50 and 3% of RA patients, and MDA criteria by 28% of controls and 7% of patients., Conclusions: The majority of community population over age 50 did not meet criteria for remission or MDA in RA. Although a self-report format may differ from results involving an assessor, the current criteria may not be accurate to identify remission or MDA in people with RA who are older than age 50.

Rheumatic diseases differ from many chronic diseases in that no single measure provides a gold standard for diagnosis, prognosis, monitoring, and documentation of changes over long periods. Therefore, pooled indices of several measures have been developed, such as the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Core Data Set and disease activity score (DAS) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity index (SLEDAI), Bath ankylosing spondylitis disease activity index (BASDAI), and others. Quantitative clinical rheumatology measures and indices are used primarily in clinical trials and other research studies, but generally not in standard clinical care, which usually is conducted without quantitative data, other than laboratory tests, often with noncontributory, false positive, or false negative results. Measures designed for research often are lengthy, not easily scored, and not designed to add to standard patient care. By contrast, measures designed for standard care are short, easily scored, and useful to monitor patient status at each visit. Some research measures have been adapted for standard care, such as the multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ) derived from the HAQ, which includes an index of the three RA core data set measures (physical function, pain, and global estimate), also known as routine assessment of patient index data 3 (RAPID 3). RAPID 3 can be scored in 10 sec, compared to 90 sec for a 28-joint count, and 40 sec for a standard HAQ. The MDHAQ is useful in all rheumatic diseases by saving time, documenting changes in status over long periods, and by improving rheumatology care and outcomes.

Objective: To analyze a further version of the Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ) with 10 activities of daily living (ADL), which is more easily completed by patients and scored by health professionals than a 14-ADL MDHAQ; and to determine if the 10-ADL MDHAQ would be as informative as the 14-ADL MDHAQ, the 20-ADL HAQ, and the 8-ADL modified HAQ (MHAQ), which is more easily reviewed and scored than the HAQ, but scores are routinely 0.3-0.5 units lower than HAQ scores., Methods: In standard care, 144 consecutive patients completed a HAQ, which includes a MHAQ, and 14-ADL MDHAQ, which includes a 10-ADL MDHAQ subscale, all scored 0-3. These scales were analyzed for mean and median scores, Cronbach's alpha to estimate internal consistency, factor analysis to estimate construct validity, and cumulative percentile scores., Results: Mean (median) scores for the HAQ, MHAQ, 14-ADL MDHAQ, and 10-ADL MDHAQ physical function scales were 0.80 (0.75), 0.48 (0.38), 0.83 (0.79), and 0.73 (0.70), respectively. Internal consistency of each scale was very good. The lowest 25 percentile score was 0.16 on the HAQ, 0.0 on the MHAQ, 0.36 on the 14-ADL MDHAQ, and 0.20 on the 10-ADL MDHAQ., Conclusion: The MDHAQ physical function scale of 10 ADL is more easily completed and scored than the 14-ADL MDHAQ or 20-ADL HAQ, while providing similar information.

Objective: Key outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are evaluated with multi-item ratings scales such as the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and visual analog scales (VAS) such as pain and patient and physician global. As VAS scales are easy to use and particularly effective in research and patient care, we studied the characteristics, association, and psychometric properties of a VAS function scale (VAS-F) to determine if it could be used in RA studies and clinical practice., Methods: A total of 394 patients with RA completed the HAQ, the HAQ-II, and a VAS functional scale. In addition, they completed standard assessments of pain, global, fatigue, sleep problems, joint count, and the Medical Outcome Study Short-Form 36 (SF-36) physical component summary score (PCS) and vitality and total pain scores., Results: The HAQ-II was correlated with VAS-F at 0.76, but distributional characteristics of the HAQ and VAS-F differed, as the VAS-F scale results contained more higher scores as well as more lower scores compared with the HAQ-II and HAQ. Kendall's tau concordance analyses indicated that VAS scales were more concordant with other VAS than with non-VAS scales. Concordance of VAS-F was greatest with VAS global and was similar overall with VAS pain, sleep disturbance, fatigue, and quality of life. By contrast, the PCS, a multi-item scale, was more concordant with HAQ-II and HAQ. There was little to no difference between the VAS-F and the 2 HAQ with regard to concordance with the multi-item joint count, SF-36 vitality, and SF-36 total pain., Conclusion: The distribution differences between HAQ and HAQ-II and the VAS-F suggest that patients do not see minor limitations as problematic, but rate major limitations as being particularly limiting and worthy of high ratings. A VAS functional scale represents a patient-weighted functional assessment in which additional interpretation is given to the meaning of the limitations by the patient. VAS-F scales may be suitable for use in the clinic and in research. However, studies to assess sensitivity to change are required to determine the appropriate role of this scale.

In this article, previous review articles concerning long-term outcomes of rheumatoid arthritis are extended. A summary is provided of evidence that impressions concerning the long-term natural history and results of therapy in rheumatoid arthritis are strongly influenced by the types of measures and study designs used to assess patient status and outcomes.

Work disability, a common problem in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), is known to be associated with demographic variables such as occupation, age, and formal education, as well as with disease duration. However, physical, radiographic and laboratory variables, which are included in the traditional "medical model" of work disability and collected routinely in the application process, have not been studied for their capacity to explain whether patients are working or receiving work disability payments. A cross-sectional database which included an extensively characterized group of patients with RA was examined to determine possible associations of demographic, functional, physical, radiographic and laboratory variables with work disability status. All these variables differed in patients who were receiving work disability payments and those who were working full time, but in multivariate analyses, work or disability status was best identified by demographic and functional variables. Physical, radiographic, and laboratory data did not add significantly to explanation of work disability status beyond the demographic and functional variables and disease duration, despite the fact that receipt of disability payments was used as the criterion for work disability status.