To develop criteria for the classification of fibromyalgia, we studied 558 consecutive patients: 293 patients with fibromyalgia and 265 control patients. Interviews and examinations were performed by trained, blinded assessors. Control patients for the group with primary fibromyalgia were matched for age and sex, and limited to patients with disorders that could be confused with primary fibromyalgia. Control patients for the group with secondary-concomitant fibromyalgia were matched for age, sex, and concomitant rheumatic disorders. Widespread pain (axial plus upper and lower segment plus left- and right-sided pain) was found in 97.6% of all patients with fibromyalgia and in 69.1% of all control patients. The combination of widespread pain and mild or greater tenderness in greater than or equal to 11 of 18 tender point sites yielded a sensitivity of 88.4% and a specificity of 81.1%. Primary fibromyalgia patients and secondary-concomitant fibromyalgia patients did not differ statistically in any major study variable, and the criteria performed equally well in patients with and those without concomitant rheumatic conditions. The newly proposed criteria for the classification of fibromyalgia are 1) widespread pain in combination with 2) tenderness at 11 or more of the 18 specific tender point sites. No exclusions are made for the presence of concomitant radiographic or laboratory abnormalities. At the diagnostic or classification level, the distinction between primary fibromyalgia and secondary-concomitant fibromyalgia (as defined in the text) is abandoned.

https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/art.1780330203

The American College of Rheumatology 1990 Criteria for the Classification of Fibromyalgia. Report of the Multicenter Criteria Committee.

Objective The 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR; formerly the American Rheumatism Association) classifi cation criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been criticised for their lack of sensitivity in early disease. This work was undertaken to develop new classifi cation criteria for RA. Methods A joint working group from the ACR and the European League Against Rheumatism developed, in three phases, a new approach to classifying RA. The work focused on identifying, among patients newly presenting with undifferentiated infl ammatory synovitis, factors that best discriminated between those who were and those who were not at high risk for persistent and/ or erosive disease—this being the appropriate current paradigm underlying the disease construct ‘RA’. Results In the new criteria set, classifi cation as ‘defi nite RA’ is based on the confi rmed presence of synovitis in at least one joint, absence of an alternative diagnosis better explaining the synovitis, and achievement of a total score of 6 or greater (of a possible 10) from the individual scores in four domains: number and site of involved joints (range 0–5), serological abnormality (range 0–3), elevated acute-phase response (range 0–1) and symptom duration (two levels; range 0–1). Conclusion This new classifi cation system redefi nes the current paradigm of RA by focusing on features at earlier stages of disease that are associated with persistent and/or erosive disease, rather than defi ning the disease by its late-stage features. This will refocus attention on the important need for earlier diagnosis and institution of effective disease-suppressing therapy to prevent or minimise the occurrence of the undesirable sequelae that currently comprise the paradigm underlying the disease construct ‘RA’.

/pdf/2010-rheumatoid-arthritis-classification-criteria-an-h6w7bcnbf6.pdf

2010 Rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative.

Objective The 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR; formerly the American Rheumatism Association) classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been criticised for their lack of sensitivity in early disease. This work was undertaken to develop new classification criteria for RA. Methods A joint working group from the ACR and the European League Against Rheumatism developed, in three phases, a new approach to classifying RA. The work focused on identifying, among patients newly presenting with undifferentiated inflammatory synovitis, factors that best discriminated between those who were and those who were not at high risk for persistent and/or erosive disease—this being the appropriate current paradigm underlying the disease construct ‘RA’. Results In the new criteria set, classification as ‘definite RA’ is based on the confirmed presence of synovitis in at least one joint, absence of an alternative diagnosis better explaining the synovitis, and achievement of a total score of 6 or greater (of a possible 10) from the individual scores in four domains: number and site of involved joints (range 0–5), serological abnormality (range 0–3), elevated acute-phase response (range 0–1) and symptom duration (two levels; range 0–1). Conclusion This new classification system redefines the current paradigm of RA by focusing on features at earlier stages of disease that are associated with persistent and/or erosive disease, rather than defining the disease by its late-stage features. This will refocus attention on the important need for earlier diagnosis and institution of effective disease-suppressing therapy to prevent or minimise the occurrence of the undesirable sequelae that currently comprise the paradigm underlying the disease construct ‘RA’.

https://ard.bmj.com/content/annrheumdis/69/9/1580.full.pdf

2010 rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative.

Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines.

This paper describes the development of an evaluative outcome measure for patients with upper extremity musculoskeletal conditions. The goal is to produce a brief, self-administered measure of symptoms and functional status, with a focus on physical function, to be used by clinicians in daily practice and as a research tool. This is a joint initiative of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), the Council of Musculoskeletal Specialty Societies (COMSS), and the Institute for Work and Health (Toronto, Ontario). Our approach is consistent with previously described strategies for scale development. In Stage 1, Item Generation, a group of methodologists and clinical experts reviewed 13 outcome measurement scales currently in use and generated a list of 821 items. In Stage 2a, Initial Item Reduction, these 821 items were reduced to 78 items using various strategies including removal of items which were generic, repetitive, not reflective of disability, or not relevant to the upper extremity or to one of the targeted concepts of symptoms and functional status. Items not highly endorsed in a survey of content experts were also eliminated. Stage 2b, Further Item Reduction, will be based on results of field testing in which patients complete the 78-item questionnaire. This field testing, which is currently underway in 20 centers in the United States, Canada, and Australia, will generate the final format and content of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. Future work includes plans for validity and reliability testing.

Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: The DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and head)

A structure for representation of patient outcome is presented, together with a method for outcome measurement and validation of the technique in rheumatoid arthritis. The paradigm represents outcome by five separate dimensions: death, discomfort, disability, drug (therapeutic) toxicity, and dollar cost. Each dimension represents an outcome directly related to patient welfare. Quantitation of these outcome dimensions may be performed at interview or by patient questionnaire. With standardized, validated questions, similar scores are achieved by both methods. The questionnaire technique is preferred since it is inexpensive and does not require interobserver validation. These techniques appear extremely useful for evaluation of long term outcome of patients with rheumatic diseases.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/art.1780230202

Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis.

The dimensions of health outcomes: the health assessment questionnaire, disability and pain scales.

Objective. To determine the risk and causes of death and to quantify mortality predictors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods. RA patients (n = 3,501) from 4 centers (Saskatoon n = 905, Wichita n = 1,405, Stanford n = 886, and Santa Clara n = 305) were followed for up to 35 years; 922 patients died.

Results. The overall standardized mortality ratio (SMR) was 2.26 (Saskatoon 2.24, Wichita 1.98, Stanford 3.08, Santa Clara 2.18) and increased with time. Mortality was strikingly increased for specific causes: infection, lymphoproliferative malignancy, gastroenterologic, and RA. In addition, as an effect of the SMR of 2.26, the expected number of deaths was increased nonspecifically across all causes (except cancer), with a large excess of deaths attributable to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. Independent predictors of mortality included age, education, male sex, function, rheumatoid factor, nodules, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, joint count, and prednisone use.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/art.1780370408

The mortality of rheumatoid arthritis

The factors associated with mortality were examined in a prospective longitudinal study, over an average of 12 years, with 94% followup of patients diagnosed as having rheumatoid arthritis. Of 805 patients, 233 died during the period of the study. Survivorship of rheumatoid arthritis patients was approximately 50% less than that of population controls. Survivorship was decreased by the traditional demographic variables of greater age and male sex; however, a significant independent effect of variables reflecting disease severity (American Rheumatism Association functional class, rheumatoid factor titer, number of involved joints) was identified by multivariate analysis. Seventy-nine excess deaths (i.e., those that would not have been expected in a control population) were due in part to disease-related causes, to infections, and to gastrointestinal complications of therapy. Treatment with gold or prednisone did not seem to affect survivorship or cause of death, except for the clustering of deaths of patients with vasculitis within the prednisone group. Our findings indicate that rheumatoid arthritis, a chronic disabling disease, is also associated with a major decrease in survivorship.

https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/art.1780290602

Survival, prognosis, and causes of death in rheumatoid arthritis

We evaluated methods of grading radiologic progression of osteoarthritis (OA). Sets of radiographs were assessed separately by 8 readers who were blinded to the time sequence. Included were radiographs of patients with OA of the hands (24 pairs), hips (40 pairs), and knees (32 pairs). Most films were taken 12-60 months apart. The relative contribution of individual joints (such as particular interphalangeal joints), of observations (such as narrowing or spurs), and of a single joint compartment (such as the medial or lateral compartment of the knee) toward evidence of OA progression was evaluated, as well as the reliability and concordance of scoring, and the sensitivity in detecting change. In assessing OA of the hand, the greatest sensitivity was achieved by reading a single posteroanterior bilateral hand radiograph for narrowing, spurs, and erosions, and scoring 10 joints (second and third distal interphalangeal, second and third proximal interphalangeal, and trapeziometacarpal joints, bilaterally), using a scale of 0-3. In OA of the hip, a single anteroposterior radiograph assessed for joint space narrowing and cyst formation yielded the greatest sensitivity. In OA of the knee, an anteroposterior radiograph, with weight-bearing, assessed for narrowing, spurs, and sclerosis in both the medial and lateral compartments yielded the greatest sensitivity. These techniques will be useful to the investigator in designing experimental studies and to the clinician in determining the rate of disease progression in an individual patient.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/art.1780301103

Patricia W. Spitz

Papers

Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis.

The dimensions of health outcomes: the health assessment questionnaire, disability and pain scales.

The mortality of rheumatoid arthritis

Survival, prognosis, and causes of death in rheumatoid arthritis

Radiographic assessment of progression in osteoarthritis