Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • 50th Volume Reprints
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services

User menu

  • My Cart
  • Log In
  • Log Out

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Rheumatology
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services
  • My Cart
  • Log In
  • Log Out
The Journal of Rheumatology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • 50th Volume Reprints
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • Follow Jrheum on BlueSky
  • Follow jrheum on Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on YouTube
  • Follow jrheum on Instagram
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
Research ArticleAnnual Meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA), Toronto, Canada, July 12–13, 2013

Composite Disease Activity and Responder Indices for Psoriatic Arthritis: A Report from the GRAPPA 2013 Meeting on Development of Cutoffs for Both Disease Activity States and Response

Phillip S. Helliwell, Oliver FitzGerald and Jaap Fransen
The Journal of Rheumatology June 2014, 41 (6) 1212-1217; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.140172
Phillip S. Helliwell
From the University of Leeds, Leeds, UK, and Bradford Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK; Department of Rheumatology, St. Vincent’s University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin, Ireland; Department of Rheumatology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: p.helliwell@leeds.ac.uk
Oliver FitzGerald
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jaap Fransen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
PreviousNext
Loading

Abstract

Objective. There are several new composite indices for assessing disease activity in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Each may function as a disease state variable and a responder index. The aim of our study was to determine cutoffs for disease activity and response.

Methods. Data from the Group for GRAPPA Composite Exercise (GRACE) study were used to develop cutoffs using a number of different approaches. Voting on choice of cutoff was undertaken at the 2013 GRAPPA Annual Meeting in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Results. After voting, results for cutoffs for low/high disease activity for the Psoriatic ArthritiS Disease Activity Score (PASDAS), GRAppa Composite scorE (GRACE index), and Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity Index (CPDAI), respectively, were 3.2/5.4, 2.3/4.7, and 4/8. The measurement error for each composite score was estimated at 0.8, 1, and 2 for PASDAS, GRACE, and CPDAI, respectively.

Conclusion. Response criteria for the new composite indices have been developed. These now require further validation and testing in other datasets.

Key Indexing Terms:
  • PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS
  • OUTCOME MEASURES
  • COMPOSITE DISEASE ACTIVITY INDEX
  • RESPONSE MEASURE

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a heterogeneous disease that can manifest in several ways including arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, axial disease, and skin/nail involvement. For the last 12 years the primary outcome measure used in interventional studies has been the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20) criteria, a measure originally developed for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that focuses on peripheral joint activity1. The ACR improvement criteria measure improvement in tender and swollen joint counts plus at least 3 of the following 5 measures: acute-phase reactant, patient global assessment of disease activity by visual analog scale (VAS), physician global (MD global) assessment of disease activity by VAS, pain by VAS, and physical function using the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). The ACR20, 50, and 70 scores refer to ≥ 20/50/70% improvements.

In addition, a number of studies have used the Disease Activity Score for 28 joints (DAS28)2. The DAS28 in RA measures 28-joint tender and swollen counts, patient global, and either erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) or C-reactive protein (CRP). However, in PsA, the number of joints assessed should optimally include a 68-tender, 66-swollen joint count, which includes the distal interphalangeal (DIP) joints of the fingers. The 28-joint count excludes the DIP joints of the fingers, as well as the ankles and feet. Although the DAS28 has been shown to be capable of distinguishing between patients with PsA treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor agents from those receiving placebo, it was noted that 25% of the patients would not have been included in this study if a 28-joint count had been part of inclusion criteria3. Further, in cases of oligoarthritis, use of the DAS28 can misclassify 20% of cases, as shown in a cross-sectional dataset4.

The Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) were developed for a specific Veterans Administration study of sulfasalazine in PsA but have been used widely in subsequent clinical trials5. To achieve response, a patient had to achieve 2 of the following, 1 of which had to be a joint count, and no worsening of any measure: ≥ 30% improvement in tender or swollen joint count; and 1-point improvement (on 5-point Likert scale) on patient global or MD global.

Several other candidate composite measures have been proposed, some of which capture aspects of PsA other than the peripheral arthritis. These include measures developed in the GRAppa Composite scorE (GRACE project); the Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) and the Arithmetic Mean of Desirability Function (AMDF)6; the Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity Index (CPDAI)7; and the Disease Activity score for PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA)8. Initial comparison of these measures was made in the development phase of the PASDAS and AMDF2 and other comparisons have been made using interventional trial data9.

Composite indices may function in different ways. Responder indices, such as ACR20 in RA, measure changes in disease states with treatment interventions. Disease activity indices, such as the DAS28 in RA, measure both disease activity at a single time point and changes in disease activity after treatment interventions, thereby functioning both as a static measure of disease activity and a responder index, with cutoffs for disease activity states and magnitude of response.

At the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) annual meeting in Toronto, Ontario, Canada in July 2013, data were presented on the development of cutoffs for disease activity and response criteria for these new measures, and votes were taken to finalize the process.

METHODS

The GRACE study was a large observational study of 503 patients with PsA with data collected at 32 centers worldwide affiliated with GRAPPA. A large range of clinical data and patient-reported outcomes were collected at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. At each visit, treatment changes were noted, which were used as a surrogate for an active disease state. A change equated to additions of medication, dose increases of current medications, and/or changes to different medications. If treatments were changed because of an adverse event, cases were excluded from the “changed medication” group. Further descriptions and formulas for the composite measures are presented below.

Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score

The PASDAS is a weighted index comprising assessments of joints, function, acute-phase response, quality of life (QOL), and patient and physician MD by VAS. It is represented by the formula: Embedded Image where LN = natural logarithm, PCS = physical component summary scale of SF36, CRP = C-reactive protein in mg/l, SF36 = Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36. All VAS scores are 0–100 mm. Swollen joint count is 66 joints, and tender joint count 68. The score range of the PASDAS is 0–10, with worse disease activity represented by higher scores.

Arithmetic mean of the desirability function and GRACE index

The AMDF is a composite score comprising assessments of joints, skin, pain, function, and health-related QOL. Each domain was rated by physicians on a similar “desirability” scale to be able to combine all the items, and transformed into a 0–1 scale where 0 is a completely unacceptable state and 1 is normal. The variables transformed were (1) 68 tender joint count, (2) 66 swollen joint count, (3) HAQ, (4) Patient global assessment of disease activity by VAS, (5) Patient VAS for skin, (6) Patient VAS for joints, (7) Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), and (8) Psoriatic Arthritis QOL Index (PsAQoL).

The 8 transformed variables were combined using the arithmetic mean. For the purposes of this analysis, as agreed at the GRAPPA meeting in Washington, DC, in November 2012, the AMDF was transformed, and renamed, as follows: Embedded Image This provides a score range of 0–10, where 0 is best and 10 is worst.

Composite Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Index

The CPDAI measures disease activity in 5 domains: peripheral joints (68 tender and 66 swollen joints, and HAQ), skin [PASI and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI)], enthesitis (Leeds Enthesitis Count and HAQ), dactylitis (number of tender dactylitic digits and HAQ), and spine (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score and Ankylosing Spondylitis QOL index)7. Within each domain, severity was graded as 0 (none), 1 (mild), 2 (moderate), and 3 (severe), according to predefined cutoffs.

Disease Activity Score for Rheumatoid Arthritis

The DAS28 in RA includes 28-joint tender and swollen counts, patient global VAS score, and either ESR or CRP. The score is calculated using weighting of the components, and ranges between 0 and 10. The DAS28 was calculated as follows: Embedded Image

Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis

The DAPSA measures disease activity in peripheral arthritis using 68 tender and 66 swollen peripheral joint counts, patient global VAS (0–10 scale), patient pain VAS (0–10 scale), and CRP. The composite score is a simple sum of the scores8.

Development of cutoffs for disease activity

As there is no single acceptable “gold standard” for low and high disease activity, 3 methods were used to estimate cutoffs: (1) physician and patient global scores; (2) score distribution method; and (3) receiver-operating curve (ROC) method. In addition, the interperiod correlation coefficient was used to estimate “e,” the measurement error.

The results were to be interpreted using a consensus approach with experts in the field. A voting system was used to arrive at cutoffs for each scoring system.

Physician and patient global scores

Physician and patient global scores were the external standards, with which the following cutoffs were used: < 10 low disease activity; ≥ 10 but < 30 moderate; ≥ 30 but < 60 high; ≥ 60 very high. Using these cutoffs, and the ROC curves generated with them, selection of the cutoff was made at the 90% specificity value, in order not to misclassify patients by keeping the false-positive rate low.

Score distribution method

An estimation of cutoffs for disease activity based on the distribution of scores of people in high and low disease activity was used, based on the methods described in the development of cutoffs for the DAS score10. The score distributions for the PASDAS, taken from the GRACE dataset, are shown in Figure 1. Considerable overlap can be seen in scores between the low and high disease activity states. For this reason, a 50th percentile cutoff for both low and high distributions was chosen.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Score distributions for PASDAS in GRACE study. The “change” group had its treatment changed or escalated for “active” disease. The “no change” group did not have treatment change and was therefore deemed to be in stable disease activity. The broken lines represent the 50th percentile values. PASDAS: Psoriatic ArthritiS Disease Activity Score; GRACE: GRAppa Composite scorE (index).

ROC method

This approach used a definition of high disease activity (in GRACE, the physician’s decision to escalate treatment) and constructed ROC curves from which the cutoff for high disease activity can be estimated, using a cutoff at 90% specificity (Figure 2).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Receiver-operating curve (ROC) for PASDAS with decision to change treatment as discriminator. The value of PASDAS at 90% specificity was 5.62 (at this point sensitivity was 40%, as indicated by the dotted line). Area under the curve was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.75–0.81). PASDAS: Psoriatic ArthritiS Disease Activity Score.

Estimation of measurement error

As with the DAS score, an estimate of measurement error (e) was obtained from the interperiod correlation coefficients for each measure using data from each of the assessment points in the GRACE study6. The value of e is represented by: Embedded Image where sd = standard deviation of measure, and ro is derived from the regression of the interperiod correlation coefficients. A “good” response is represented by (2e).

Consensus approach and voting

The results of this exercise and choice of cutoff were debated at the GRAPPA Annual Meeting in 2013. After discussion, GRAPPA members were asked to vote on the following question: Should the cutoffs be based on (1) lower estimate (patient); (2) upper estimate (physician); or (3) middle point between these 2 (i.e., mean)?

RESULTS

The GRACE database obtained data at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. At each timepoint the physician was asked about treatment change, which therefore provided more data points than the baseline recruitment figures (n = 503). The total number of timepoints at which change was recorded varied according to outcome measures owing to missing data: PASDAS 1103 data points, GRACE 1377, CPDAI 1356, DAS28 1143, and DAPSA 1143.

Physician and patient global scores

For illustration, global scores are provided for the PASDAS in Table 1. The discrepancy between the cutoffs based on physician global scores and those based on patient global scores was resolved by selecting the patient global scores (as agreed at the GRAPPA meeting in November 2012). The process was repeated for all 5 measures (see column 4, Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Cutoffs for disease activity for PASDAS using physician and patient global scores.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Cutoffs for disease activity in composite measures.

Score distribution method

Percentiles were calculated for each measure according to the score distribution for active and inactive disease; they are shown in Table 3. Because of the overlap mentioned in Methods, the 50th percentile was chosen as the cutoff for each distribution, representing high and low disease activity, as shown in column 6, Table 3. The 50th percentile cutoffs are also shown in column 2, Table 2.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Percentiles for each score distribution.

ROC method

This approach used the definition of high disease activity (the decision to escalate treatment) to construct ROC curves from which the cutoff for high disease activity could be made. These are shown in column 3, Table 2.

Definition of response

Results of the regression of the interperiod correlation coefficients are shown in Table 4. The value of e is the measurement error (see Methods) and a good response is represented by (2e).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Results of regression using interperiod correlation coefficients.

Triangulation of results

Combining the various estimates of the cutoffs, together with the estimates of good response, the results are summarized for all 5 measures in Table 2. Note that the cutoffs determined for the DAS28 are different from those defined for RA. It is also clear from Table 2 that some of the estimates differ. Where discrepancies were found, the choice of cutoff was determined by consensus (see Methods). Voting results were as follows: patient-derived values, 29%; physician-derived, 12%; and a mean of those values, 59%. The mean value of the cutoff is shown in Table 2, column 5.

DISCUSSION

Data from the GRACE study have been used, in a manner similar to the development of the DAS (European League Against Rheumatism response criteria), to define activity states and response criteria for the new composite measures that take a more comprehensive account of PsA. A number of choices for cutoffs were available. A process of triangulation was undertaken to cross-validate estimates. The main discrepancies in the estimates occurred for the PASDAS and GRACE measures. The discrepancies resulted from the different methodological approaches — the patient-based methods (using the global VAS) gave estimates that were lower than the physician-based methods (using the decision to change treatment). In these discrepant cases, voting by GRAPPA members resulted in a majority for using the mean value of available estimates as cutoffs for disease activity and response.

What would PsA response criteria look like? These are indicated in Table 5, but require further evaluation in interventional studies. The defined low disease activity states may also be used as specific targets for treatment in PsA, both in clinical practice and clinical trials. No matter which of these new composite indices is used, it will be important to be able to report the values for individual domains, as will the single composite score; otherwise, differential treatment responses (e.g., between the skin and the joints) will be missed. The single composite score will retain the additional power provided by including all relevant domains, but it will still be appropriate to provide data on the component parts. In time, it is hoped that shorter versions of these indices that function equivalently to the parent index will be developed; however, further experience with the full composite index is required before this can be done. For the moment, GRAPPA members suggest using the PASDAS, GRACE, or CPDAI; future studies will help determine which of these is preferable.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5A.

Response criteria for the Psoriatic ArthritiS Disease Activity Score (PASDAS).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5B.

Response criteria for the GRAPPA Composite Exercise (GRACE).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5C.

Response criteria for the Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity Index (CPDAI).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5D.

Response criteria for Disease Activity Score (DAS28-CRP).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5E.

Response criteria for Disease Activity score for PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA).

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Felson DT,
    2. Anderson JJ,
    3. Boers M,
    4. Bombardier C,
    5. Furst D,
    6. Goldsmith C,
    7. et al.
    American College of Rheumatology. Preliminary definition of improvement in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1995;38:727–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. van Gestel AM,
    2. Prevoo ML,
    3. van ‘t Hof MA,
    4. van Rijswijk MH,
    5. van de Putte LB,
    6. van Riel PL
    . Development and validation of the European League Against Rheumatism response criteria for rheumatoid arthritis. Comparison with the preliminary American College of Rheumatology and the World Health Organization/International League Against Rheumatism Criteria. Arthritis Rheum 1996;39:34–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Fransen J,
    2. Antoni C,
    3. Mease PJ,
    4. Uter W,
    5. Kavanaugh A,
    6. Kalden JR,
    7. et al.
    Performance of response criteria for assessing peripheral arthritis in patients with psoriatic arthritis: analysis of data from randomised controlled trials of two tumour necrosis factor inhibitors. Ann Rheum Dis 2006;65:1373–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Coates LC,
    2. FitzGerald O,
    3. Gladman DD,
    4. McHugh N,
    5. Mease P,
    6. Strand V,
    7. et al.
    Reduced joint counts misclassify patients with oligoarticular psoriatic arthritis and miss significant numbers of patients with active disease. Arthritis Rheum 2013;65:1504–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Clegg DO,
    2. Reda DJ,
    3. Mejias E,
    4. Cannon GW,
    5. Weisman MH,
    6. Taylor T,
    7. et al.
    Comparison of sulfasalazine and placebo in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. A Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study. Arthritis Rheum 1996;39:2013–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Helliwell PS,
    2. FitzGerald O,
    3. Fransen J,
    4. Gladman DD,
    5. Kreuger GG,
    6. Callis-Duffin K,
    7. et al.
    The development of candidate composite disease activity and responder indices for psoriatic arthritis (GRACE project). Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:986–91.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Mumtaz A,
    2. Gallagher P,
    3. Kirby B,
    4. Waxman R,
    5. Coates LC,
    6. Veale JD,
    7. et al.
    Development of a preliminary composite disease activity index in psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:272–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Nell-Duxneuner VP,
    2. Stamm TA,
    3. Machold KP,
    4. Pflugbeil S,
    5. Aletaha D,
    6. Smolen JS
    . Evaluation of the appropriateness of composite disease activity measures for assessment of psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:546–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Helliwell PS,
    2. Kavanaugh A
    . Comparison of composite measures of disease activity in psoriatic arthritis using data from an interventional study with golimumab. Arthritis Care Res 2013 (E-pub ahead of print).
  10. 10.↵
    1. Fransen J,
    2. van Riel PL
    . The Disease Activity Score and the EULAR response criteria. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2005;23 Suppl 39:S93–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 41, Issue 6
1 Jun 2014
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by Author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Rheumatology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Composite Disease Activity and Responder Indices for Psoriatic Arthritis: A Report from the GRAPPA 2013 Meeting on Development of Cutoffs for Both Disease Activity States and Response
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Rheumatology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Rheumatology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Composite Disease Activity and Responder Indices for Psoriatic Arthritis: A Report from the GRAPPA 2013 Meeting on Development of Cutoffs for Both Disease Activity States and Response
Phillip S. Helliwell, Oliver FitzGerald, Jaap Fransen
The Journal of Rheumatology Jun 2014, 41 (6) 1212-1217; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.140172

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

 Request Permissions

Share
Composite Disease Activity and Responder Indices for Psoriatic Arthritis: A Report from the GRAPPA 2013 Meeting on Development of Cutoffs for Both Disease Activity States and Response
Phillip S. Helliwell, Oliver FitzGerald, Jaap Fransen
The Journal of Rheumatology Jun 2014, 41 (6) 1212-1217; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.140172
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo  logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  •  logo
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Keywords

PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS
OUTCOME MEASURES
COMPOSITE DISEASE ACTIVITY INDEX
RESPONSE MEASURE

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • The Brigham Scalp Nail Inverse Palmoplantar Psoriasis Composite Index (B-SNIPI): A Novel Index to Measure All Non-plaque Psoriasis Subsets
  • The International Dermatology Outcome Measures Initiative as Applied to Psoriatic Disease Outcomes: A Report from the GRAPPA 2013 Meeting
  • Prologue: 2013 Annual Meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA)
Show more Annual Meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA), Toronto, Canada, July 12–13, 2013

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • psoriatic arthritis
  • OUTCOME MEASURES
  • COMPOSITE DISEASE ACTIVITY INDEX
  • RESPONSE MEASURE

Content

  • First Release
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Collections
  • Audiovisual Rheum
  • COVID-19 and Rheumatology

Resources

  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Author Payment
  • Reviewers
  • Advertisers
  • Classified Ads
  • Reprints and Translations
  • Permissions
  • Meetings
  • FAQ
  • Policies

Subscribers

  • Subscription Information
  • Purchase Subscription
  • Your Account
  • Terms and Conditions

More

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • My Alerts
  • My Folders
  • Privacy/GDPR Policy
  • RSS Feeds
The Journal of Rheumatology
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
Copyright © 2025 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire