Affordable Access

Access to the full text

Reexamination of the assessment criteria for rheumatoid arthritis disease activity based on comparison of the Disease Activity Score 28 with other simpler assessment methods

Authors
  • Fujiwara, Michio1, 2
  • Kita, Yasuhiko1
  • 1 Yokohama Rosai Hospital, Department of Rheumatology, 3211 Kozukue-cho, Yokohama, Kohoku-ku, Kanagawa, 222-0036, Japan , Yokohama (Japan)
  • 2 Yokohama Rosai Hospital, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, 3211 Kozukue-cho, Kohoku-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 222-0036, Japan , Kohoku-ku, Yokohama (Japan)
Type
Published Article
Journal
Modern Rheumatology
Publisher
Springer Japan
Publication Date
May 01, 2012
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
260–268
Identifiers
DOI: 10.1007/s10165-012-0652-7
Source
Springer Nature
Keywords
License
Yellow

Abstract

ObjectiveTo explore simpler and possibly more appropriate tools than the conventional Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) for assessing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to derive more reliable DAS28-based criteria.MethodsThe capabilities of assessing disease activities in 250 RA patients were compared between DAS28 and other methods, including the Simplified DA Index (SDAI), Clinical DA Index (CDAI), and Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data-3 (RAPID-3).ResultsSDAI and CDAI showed a good correlation and consistency with DAS28, whereas RAPID-3 yielded inferior results. In terms of remission criteria, DAS28 was less stringent than SDAI or CDAI; when RA remission was reexamined based on more stringent SDAI or CDAI criteria, cut-off values for DAS28-C-reactive protein of <1.72 were considered to be appropriate. The conventional DAS28 was considered to be appropriate for assessing low, middle and high disease activities because it provides criteria similar to or more stringent than those of other methods, while SDAI and CDAI were considered to be simpler and more appropriate criteria for assessing remission.ConclusionFor assessing remission, DAS28-CRP provides the most appropriate criterion of the methods compared when the currently used cut-off value of 2.3 is lowered to a new value of 1.72.

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times