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)

Cancer in rheumatoid arthritis: a prospective long-term study of mortality.

We performed a prospective, parallel, descriptive study of 737 consecutive new uses for 11 drugs prescribed for patients with definite or classic rheumatoid arthritis. The patients were from 5 geographically dispersed sites. Researchers used validated outcome assessment instruments to measure endpoints of disability, pain, patient global assessment, medication costs, laboratory costs, and number of physician visits. Patients were studied by strict prospective protocol at 6-month intervals for 3 years. Controls included parallel results with other drugs, and before and after values for the individual patient. Beneficial effects were observed with the “disease-modifying” drugs: intramuscular gold, pencillamine, and methotrexate. Of these, gold had the most apparent effect. An average of 9 months of gold therapy resulted in highly significant reductions in disability (P < 0.005), pain (P < 0.001), and patient global assessment (P < 0.005). However, patients receiving gold and methotrexate had nearly twice as many visits to physicians. In addition, drug costs increased strikingly with gold, and laboratory costs tripled. Relatively minor differences among nonsteroidal antiinflammatory agents were difficult to interpret. The outcome assessment techniques used in the study are sensitive measures, which confirm the results of experimental studies and extend observations to new outcomes, including cost and disability.

Impact of specific therapy upon rheumatoid arthritis.

The social function of young adults who had arthritis in childhood

During 1981, centers in Phoenix, Saskatoon, Stanford and Wichita monitored hospitalizations for 816 patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Admission rates varied 2-fold, and admissions for evaluation and treatment 10-fold across centers. Admissions were related primarily to disease severity, but in US centers, were reduced by a factor of 3 by prepaid health care. Length of stay was shortest in California (7.3 days), and longest in Saskatoon (16.3) where designated arthritis beds and government prepaid health care existed. Average charges for surgery were as high as $10,000 in Phoenix and as low as $4550 in Wichita. Charges and length of stay were unrelated to disease severity, but were responsive to health care delivery system, availability of facilities, and geographic and center variation.

A multicenter study of hospitalization in rheumatoid arthritis: effect of health care system, severity, and regional difference.

In recent years, outcome, or health status, measurement has received wide attention in rheumatology. These measures are based on the concept of maintaining or improving health as the goal of medical care, the World Health Organization (WHO) definition of health, and measurement of those factors that directly impact the patient rather than the traditional measures of disease process. Within this framework, outcomes important to the patient with rheumatic diseases have been identified. They have been conceptualized in general terms of physical, psychological and social functioning or specificallyy by dimensions of death, disability, discomfort, side effects and economic costs. Two widely used outcome measures, the health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) and the arthritis impact measurement scales (AIMS), are described. Outcomes are measured by patient self-reported questionnaires which have been rigorously tested to establish the measurement properties of reliability and validity. Results show that patient self-report is valid, outcomes are accurately measured, correlate with traditional endpoints, and are sensitive to change over time. These measures are particularly suited for use in follow-up studies because of their simplicity, ease of administration, and cost. Future directions include additional study to define clinically meaningful change, extension of validations to many of the rheumatic diseases, the design of special purpose questionnaires and the development of the cumulative outcome concept.

Patricia W. Spitz

Papers

Cancer in rheumatoid arthritis: a prospective long-term study of mortality.

Impact of specific therapy upon rheumatoid arthritis.

The social function of young adults who had arthritis in childhood

A multicenter study of hospitalization in rheumatoid arthritis: effect of health care system, severity, and regional difference.

The present and future of comprehensive outcome measures for rheumatic diseases