Faculty Bibliography

We read with interest the article by Hanly and Lethbridge concerning long-term patterns of glucocorticoid (GC) use in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)¹ Their report indicates that GC use has remained relatively stable over time, in contrast to greater use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic agents in the treat-to-target directive. They also report that rheumatologists prescribe lower doses than other physicians, and that the mean dose for rheumatologists has decreased over time.

OBJECTIVE:To analyze the use of the Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ) to screen for depression, as compared to 2 reference standards, the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale depression domain (HADS-D). METHODS:Patients from Barcelona with a primary diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA) completed the MDHAQ, the PHQ-9 (depression ≥10), and the HADS-D (depression ≥8) measures. The MDHAQ includes 2 depression items, 1 in the patient-friendly HAQ, scored in a 4-point format from 0 to 3.3, and a yes/no item on a 60-symptom checklist. Percentage agreement and kappa statistics quantified the agreement between 6 screening criteria: yes on the 60-symptom checklist, a score of ≥1.1, a score of ≥2.2 on a 4-point scale, and either a response of yes on the 60-symptom checklist or scores of ≥2.2, PHQ-9 ≥10, and HADS-D ≥8. RESULTS:Depression screening was positive according to 6 criteria in 19.6-32.4% of 102 patients with RA, and 27.9-44.8% of 68 with SpA (total = 170). All MDHAQ scores, including depression items, were higher in patients with SpA compared to patients with RA, and within each diagnostic group in patients who met PHQ-9 ≥10 and HADS-D ≥8 depression screening criteria. The highest percentage agreement between an MDHAQ screening criterion versus PHQ-9 ≥10 was 83.3% for either an answer of yes on the 60-symptom checklist or a score of ≥2.2 on a 4-point scale, which we have termed MDHAQ-Dep. The agreement of MDHAQ-Dep versus HADS-D ≥8 was 81.7%, similar to the agreement of PHQ-9 ≥10 versus HADS-D ≥8, which was 82.2%. Kappa measures of agreement were 0.63 for MDHAQ-Dep versus PHQ-9 ≥10, 0.60 for MDHAQ-Dep versus HADS-D ≥8, and 0.62 for PHQ-9 ≥10 versus HADS-D ≥8. CONCLUSION:A positive MDHAQ-Dep response (either an answer of yes on a 60-symptom checklist or a score of ≥2.2 on a 4-point scale) yielded similar results to PHQ-9 ≥10 or HADS-D ≥8 to screen for depression in these RA and SpA patients.

The two articles presenting ACR committee recommendations for functional status measures and disease activity indices for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the December 2019 issue of Arthritis Care and Research are of great interest. The recommendations are based on traditional psychometric and statistical methodology, without information from clinical experience. Possible limitations of traditional psychometric and statistical methodology in the absence of data from clinical experience may be seen in the observation that high scores for both functional status measures and "disease activity" indices, including DAS28, CDAI, and RAPID3 that may be strongly affected by fibromyalgia and/or joint damage, even with minimal inflammatory activity.

BACKGROUND:A multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ) that was developed primarily for routine rheumatology care has advanced clinical research concerning disease burden, disability, and mortality in rheumatic diseases. Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3), an index within the MDHAQ, is the most widely used index to assess rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in clinical care in the United States, and it recognizes clinical status changes in all studied rheumatic diseases. MDHAQ physical function scores are far more significant in the prognosis of premature RA mortality than laboratory or imaging data. However, electronic medical records (EMRs) generally do not include patient questionnaires. An electronic MDHAQ (eMDHAQ), linked by fast healthcare interoperability resources (FIHR) to an EMR, can facilitate clinical and research advances. OBJECTIVE:This study analyzed the reliability, feasibility, and patient acceptance of an eMDHAQ. METHODS:Since 2006, all Rush University Medical Center rheumatology patients with all diagnoses have been asked to complete a paper MDHAQ at each routine care encounter. In April 2019, patients were invited to complete an eMDHAQ at the conclusion of the encounter. Analyses were conducted to determine the reliability of eMDHAQ versus paper MDHAQ scores, arithmetically and by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The feasibility of the eMDHAQ was analyzed based on the time for patient completion. The patient preference for the electronic or paper version was analyzed through a patient paper questionnaire. RESULTS:The 98 study patients were a typical routine rheumatology patient group. Seven paper versus eMDHAQ scores were within 2%, differences neither clinically nor statistically significant. ICCs of 0.86-0.98 also indicated good to excellent reliability. Mean eMDHAQ completion time was a feasible 8.2 minutes. The eMDHAQ was preferred by 72% of patients; preferences were similar according to age and educational level. CONCLUSIONS:The results on a paper MDHAQ versus eMDHAQ were similar. Most patients preferred an eMDHAQ.

OBJECTIVE:To develop feasible indices as clues to comorbid fibromyalgia (FM) in routine care of patients with various rheumatic diseases based only on self-report multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ) scores, which are informative in all rheumatic diagnoses studied. METHODS:All patients with all diagnoses complete an MDHAQ at each visit; the 2011 FM criteria questionnaire was added to the standard MDHAQ between February 2013 and August 2016. The proportion of patients who met 2011 FM criteria or had a clinical diagnosis of FM was calculated. Individual candidate MDHAQ measures were compared to 2011 FM criteria using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves; cutpoints to recognize FM were selected from the area under the curve (AUC) for optimal tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity. Cumulative indices of 3 or 4 MDHAQ measures were analyzed as fibromyalgia assessment screening tools (FAST). RESULTS:In 148 patients, the highest AUC in ROC analyses versus 2011 FM criteria were seen for MDHAQ symptom checklist, self-report painful joint count, pain visual analog scale (VAS), and fatigue VAS. The optimal cutpoints were ≥ 16/60 for symptom checklist, ≥ 16/48 for self-report painful joint count, and ≥ 6/10 for both pain and fatigue VAS. Cumulative FAST indices of 2/3 or 3/4 MDHAQ measures correctly classified 89.4-91.7% of patients who met 2011 FM criteria. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:FAST3 and FAST4 cumulative indices from only MDHAQ scores correctly identify most patients who meet 2011 FM criteria. FAST indices can assist clinicians in routine care as clues to FM with a general rheumatology rather than FM-specific questionnaire.

Objective/UNASSIGNED:The study was designed to develop fibromyalgia assessment screening tool (FAST) indices based only on multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ) scores as clues to fibromyalgia (FM), analyzed for possible agreement with the 2011 FM criteria. Methods/UNASSIGNED:All patients with all diagnoses complete an MDHAQ at each visit in routine care. The MDHAQ includes scores for physical function, pain, global assessment, fatigue, self-report painful joint count, and a 60-symptom checklist. MDHAQ items similar or identical to the 2011 FM criteria symptom severity scale (SSS) and widespread pain index (WPI) components of a polysymptomatic distress scale (PSD) were compiled into continuous MDHAQ-FM-SSS, MDHAQ-FM-WPI, and MDHAQ-FM-PSD indices. Ten candidate MDHAQ scores were analyzed against the 2011 FM criteria using descriptive statistics, Spearman correlations, kappa statistics, and receiver operating characteristic curves for the area under the curve (AUC). MDHAQ candidate variables with the highest AUC were compiled into cumulative MDHAQ-FAST indices of three (FAST3) or four (FAST4) scores. Results/UNASSIGNED:The highest AUCs among MDHAQ scores were seen for symptom checklist, painful joint count, fatigue, and pain, which are included in FAST4; FAST3-F excludes pain, and FAST3-P excludes fatigue. AUCs for FAST3-P, FAST3-F, and FAST4, as well as continuous MDHAQ-FM scores, all were greater than 0.92, indicating excellent criterion validity. Kappa statistics versus the 2011 criteria were 0.63-0.68, higher than 0.41-0.47 versus physician ICD-10 diagnoses. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:Pragmatic FAST3, FAST4, and MDHAQ-FM indices are similar to FM criteria to screen for FM in routine care. It is more feasible to collect the same MDHAQ, which is informative in all rheumatic diseases studied, from each patient than to ask different patients with different diagnoses to complete different questionnaires.