1.
2016 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Criteria for Minimal, Moderate, and Major Clinical Response in Adult Dermatomyositis and Polymyositis: An International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group/Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation Collaborative Initiative.
Aggarwal, R, Rider, LG, Ruperto, N, Bayat, N, Erman, B, Feldman, BM, Oddis, CV, Amato, AA, Chinoy, H, Cooper, RG, et al
Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.). 2017;(5):898-910
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To develop response criteria for adult dermatomyositis (DM) and polymyositis (PM). METHODS Expert surveys, logistic regression, and conjoint analysis were used to develop 287 definitions using core set measures. Myositis experts rated greater improvement among multiple pairwise scenarios in conjoint analysis surveys, where different levels of improvement in 2 core set measures were presented. The PAPRIKA (Potentially All Pairwise Rankings of All Possible Alternatives) method determined the relative weights of core set measures and conjoint analysis definitions. The performance characteristics of the definitions were evaluated on patient profiles using expert consensus (gold standard) and were validated using data from a clinical trial. The nominal group technique was used to reach consensus. RESULTS Consensus was reached for a conjoint analysis-based continuous model using absolute percent change in core set measures (physician, patient, and extramuscular global activity, muscle strength, Health Assessment Questionnaire, and muscle enzyme levels). A total improvement score (range 0-100), determined by summing scores for each core set measure, was based on improvement in and relative weight of each core set measure. Thresholds for minimal, moderate, and major improvement were ≥20, ≥40, and ≥60 points in the total improvement score. The same criteria were chosen for juvenile DM, with different improvement thresholds. Sensitivity and specificity in DM/PM patient cohorts were 85% and 92%, 90% and 96%, and 92% and 98% for minimal, moderate, and major improvement, respectively. Definitions were validated in the clinical trial analysis for differentiating the physician rating of improvement (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION The response criteria for adult DM/PM consisted of the conjoint analysis model based on absolute percent change in 6 core set measures, with thresholds for minimal, moderate, and major improvement.
2.
2016 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Criteria for Minimal, Moderate, and Major Clinical Response in Juvenile Dermatomyositis: An International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group/Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation Collaborative Initiative.
Rider, LG, Aggarwal, R, Pistorio, A, Bayat, N, Erman, B, Feldman, BM, Huber, AM, Cimaz, R, Cuttica, RJ, de Oliveira, SK, et al
Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.). 2017;(5):911-923
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To develop response criteria for juvenile dermatomyositis (DM). METHODS We analyzed the performance of 312 definitions that used core set measures from either the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS) or the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation (PRINTO) and were derived from natural history data and a conjoint analysis survey. They were further validated using data from the PRINTO trial of prednisone alone compared to prednisone with methotrexate or cyclosporine and the Rituximab in Myositis (RIM) trial. At a consensus conference, experts considered 14 top candidate criteria based on their performance characteristics and clinical face validity, using nominal group technique. RESULTS Consensus was reached for a conjoint analysis-based continuous model with a total improvement score of 0-100, using absolute percent change in core set measures of minimal (≥30), moderate (≥45), and major (≥70) improvement. The same criteria were chosen for adult DM/polymyositis, with differing thresholds for improvement. The sensitivity and specificity were 89% and 91-98% for minimal improvement, 92-94% and 94-99% for moderate improvement, and 91-98% and 85-86% for major improvement, respectively, in juvenile DM patient cohorts using the IMACS and PRINTO core set measures. These criteria were validated in the PRINTO trial for differentiating between treatment arms for minimal and moderate improvement (P = 0.009-0.057) and in the RIM trial for significantly differentiating the physician's rating for improvement (P < 0.006). CONCLUSION The response criteria for juvenile DM consisted of a conjoint analysis-based model using a continuous improvement score based on absolute percent change in core set measures, with thresholds for minimal, moderate, and major improvement.