Research ArticleArticle

The Minimum Clinically Important Improvement and Patient-acceptable Symptom State in the BASDAI and BASFI for Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis

Milla Johanna Kviatkovsky, Sofia Ramiro, Robert Landewé, Maxime Dougados, Florence Tubach, Nicholas Bellamy, Marc Hochberg, Philippe Ravaud, Emilio Martin-Mola, Hassane Awada, Claire Bombardier, David Felson, Najia Hajjaj-Hassouni, Isabelle Logeart, Marco Matucci-Cerinic, Mart van de Laar and Désirée van der Heijde
The Journal of Rheumatology September 2016, 43 (9) 1680-1686; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.151244

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Dougados M,
    2. Luo MP,
    3. Maksymowych WP,
    4. Chmiel JJ,
    5. Chen N,
    6. Wong RL,
    7. et al;
    8. ATLAS STUDY GROUP
    . Evaluation of the patient acceptable symptom state as an outcome measure in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: data from a randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2008;59:553–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Kvien TK,
    2. Heiberg T,
    3. Hagen KB
    . Minimal clinically important improvement/difference (MCII/MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS): what do these concepts mean? Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66 Suppl 3:iii40–1.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Pavy S,
    2. Brophy S,
    3. Calin A
    . Establishment of the minimum clinically important difference for the bath ankylosing spondylitis indices: a prospective study. J Rheumatol 2005;32:80–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Tubach F,
    2. Ravaud P,
    3. Martin-Mola E,
    4. Awada H,
    5. Bellamy N,
    6. Bombardier C,
    7. et al.
    Minimum clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptom state in pain and function in rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, chronic back pain, hand osteoarthritis, and hip and knee osteoarthritis: results from a prospective multinational study. Arthritis Care Res 2012;64:1699–707.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. 5.↵
    1. Tubach F,
    2. Ravaud P,
    3. Baron G,
    4. Falissard B,
    5. Logeart I,
    6. Bellamy N,
    7. et al.
    Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:29–33.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Tubach F,
    2. Ravaud P,
    3. Baron G,
    4. Falissard B,
    5. Logeart I,
    6. Bellamy N,
    7. et al.
    Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:34–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Bellamy N,
    2. Hochberg M,
    3. Tubach F,
    4. Martin-Mola E,
    5. Awada H,
    6. Bombardier C,
    7. et al.
    Development of multinational definitions of minimal clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptomatic state in osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res 2015;67:972–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. 8.↵
    1. Garrett S,
    2. Jenkinson T,
    3. Kennedy LG,
    4. Whitelock H,
    5. Gaisford P,
    6. Calin A
    . A new approach to defining disease status in ankylosing spondylitis: the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index. J Rheumatol 1994;21:2286–91.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Calin A,
    2. Garrett S,
    3. Whitelock H,
    4. Kennedy LG,
    5. O’Hea J,
    6. Mallorie P,
    7. et al.
    A new approach to defining functional ability in ankylosing spondylitis: the development of the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index. J Rheumatol 1994;21:2281–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Braun J,
    2. Davis J,
    3. Dougados M,
    4. Sieper J,
    5. van der Linden S,
    6. van der Heijde D;
    7. ASAS Working Group
    . First update of the international ASAS consensus statement for the use of anti-TNF agents in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2006;65:316–20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Braun J,
    2. Pham T,
    3. Sieper J,
    4. Davis J,
    5. van der Linden S,
    6. Dougados M,
    7. et al;
    8. ASAS Working Group
    . International ASAS consensus statement for the use of anti-tumour necrosis factor agents in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2003;62:817–24.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Zochling J,
    2. van der Heijde D,
    3. Burgos-Vargas R,
    4. Collantes E,
    5. Davis JC Jr.,
    6. Dijkmans B,
    7. et al;
    8. ‘ASsessment in AS’ international working group;
    9. European League Against Rheumatism
    . ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2006;65:442–52.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. van der Linden S,
    2. Valkenburg HA,
    3. Cats A
    . Evaluation of diagnostic criteria for ankylosing spondylitis. A proposal for modification of the New York criteria. Arthritis Rheum 1984;27:361–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Tubach F,
    2. Dougados M,
    3. Falissard B,
    4. Baron G,
    5. Logeart I,
    6. Ravaud P
    . Feeling good rather than feeling better matters more to patients. Arthritis Rheum 2006;55:526–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Maksymowych WP,
    2. Richardson R,
    3. Mallon C,
    4. van der Heijde D,
    5. Boonen A
    . Evaluation and validation of the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Rheum 2007;57:133–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Wariaghli G,
    2. Allali F,
    3. Idrissi Z,
    4. Berrada K,
    5. Hmamouchi I,
    6. Abouqal R,
    7. et al.
    Evaluation and stability of the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) over time in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2012;30:106–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Cella D,
    2. Hahn EA,
    3. Dineen K
    . Meaningful change in cancer-specific quality of life scores: differences between improvement and worsening. Qual Life Res 2002;11:207–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Guyatt GH,
    2. Jaeschke RJ
    . Reassessing quality-of-life instruments in the evaluation of new drugs. Pharmacoeconomics 1997;12:621–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Schwartz AL,
    2. Meek PM,
    3. Nail LM,
    4. Fargo J,
    5. Lundquist M,
    6. Donofrio M,
    7. et al.
    Measurement of fatigue. Determining minimally important clinical differences. J Clin Epidemiol 2002;55:239–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Maksymowych WP,
    2. Gooch K,
    3. Dougados M,
    4. Wong RL,
    5. Chen N,
    6. Kupper H,
    7. et al.
    Thresholds of patient-reported outcomes that define the patient acceptable symptom state in ankylosing spondylitis vary over time and by treatment and patient characteristics. Arthritis Care Res 2010;62:826–34.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    1. McPhail S,
    2. Haines T
    . Response shift, recall bias and their effect on measuring change in health-related quality of life amongst older hospital patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010;8:65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Machado P,
    2. Landewé R,
    3. Lie E,
    4. Kvien TK,
    5. Braun J,
    6. Baker D,
    7. et al;
    8. Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society
    . Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS): defining cut-off values for disease activity states and improvement scores. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:47–53.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Snyder CF,
    2. Jensen RE,
    3. Segal JB,
    4. Wu AW
    . Patient-reported outcomes (PROs): putting the patient perspective in patient-centered outcomes research. Med Care 2013;51 Suppl 3:S73–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools

 Request Permissions

Bookmark this article

Jump to section

Keywords

ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS
MINIMUM CLINICALLY IMPORTANT IMPROVEMENT
PATIENT-ACCEPTABLE SYMPTOM STATE
BASDAI
BASFI

Keywords