Search

Objective.Indicators of work role functioning (being at work, and being productive while at work) are important outcomes for persons with arthritis. As the worker productivity working group at OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology), we sought to provide an evidence base for consensus on standardized instruments to measure worker productivity [both absenteeism and at-work productivity (presenteeism) as well as critical contextual factors].Methods.Literature reviews and primary studies were done and reported to the OMERACT 12 (2014) meeting to build the OMERACT Filter 2.0 evidence for worker productivity outcome measurement instruments. Contextual factor domains that could have an effect on scores on worker productivity instruments were identified by nominal group techniques, and strength of influence was further assessed by literature review.Results.At OMERACT 9 (2008), we identified 6 candidate measures of absenteeism, which received 94% endorsement at the plenary vote. At OMERACT 11 (2012) we received over the required minimum vote of 70% for endorsement of 2 at-work productivity loss measures. During OMERACT 12 (2014), out of 4 measures of at-work productivity loss, 3 (1 global; 2 multiitem) received support as having passed the OMERACT Filter with over 70% of the plenary vote. In addition, 3 contextual factor domains received a 95% vote to explore their validity as core contextual factors: nature of work, work accommodation, and workplace support.Conclusion.Our current recommendations for at-work productivity loss measures are: WALS (Workplace Activity Limitations Scale), WLQ PDmod (Work Limitations Questionnaire with modified physical demands scale), WAI (Work Ability Index), WPS (Arthritis-specific Work Productivity Survey), and WPAI (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire). Our future research focus will shift to confirming core contextual factors to consider in the measurement of worker productivity.

Objective.Several global measures to assess at-work productivity loss or presenteeism in patients with rheumatic diseases have been proposed, but the comparative validity is hampered by the lack of data on test-retest reliability and comparative concurrent and construct validity. Our objective was to test-retest 5 global measures of presenteeism and to compare the association between these scales and health-related well-being.Methods.Sixty-five participants with inflammatory arthritis or osteoarthritis in paid employment were recruited from 7 countries (UK, Canada, Netherlands, France, Sweden, Romania, and Italy). At baseline and 2 weeks later, 5 global measures of presenteeism were evaluated: the Work Productivity Scale–Rheumatoid Arthritis (WPS-RA), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI), Work Ability Index (WAI), Quality and Quantity questionnaire (QQ), and the WHO Health and Performance Questionnaire (HPQ). Agreement between the 2 timepoints was assessed using single-measure intraclass correlations (ICC) and correlated between each other and with visual analog scale general well-being scores at followup by Spearman correlation.Results.ICC between measures ranged from fair (HPQ 0.59) to excellent (WPS-RA 0.78). Spearman correlations between measures were moderate (Qqualityvs WAI, r = 0.51) to strong (WPS-RA vs WPAI, r = 0.88). Correlations between measures and general well-being were low to moderate, ranging from −0.44 ≤ r ≤ 0.66.Conclusion.Test-retest results of 4 out of 5 global measures were good, and the correlations between these were moderate. The latter probably reflect differences in the concepts, recall periods, and references used in the measures, which implies that some measures are probably not interchangeable.

The objective of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Worker Productivity working group is to identify worker productivity outcome measures that meet the requirements of the OMERACT filter. At the OMERACT 11 Workshop, we focused on the at-work limitations/productivity component of worker productivity (i.e., presenteeism) — an area with diverse conceptualization and instrumentation approaches. Various approaches to quantify at-work limitations/productivity (e.g., single-item global and multi-item measures) were examined, and available evidence pertaining to OMERACT truth, discrimination, and feasibility were presented to conference participants. Four candidate global measures of presenteeism were put forth for a plenary vote to determine whether current evidence meets the OMERACT filter requirements. Presenteeism globals from the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (72% support) and Rheumatoid Arthritis-specific Work Productivity Survey (71% support) were endorsed by conference participants; however, neither the presenteeism global item from the Health and Work Performance Questionnaire nor the Quantity and Quality method achieved the level of support required for endorsement at the present time. The plenary was also asked whether the central item from the Work Ability Index should also be considered as a candidate measure for potential endorsement in the future. Of participants at the plenary, 70% supported this presenteeism global measure. Progress was also made in other areas through discussions at individual breakout sessions. Topics examined include the merits of various multi-item measures of at-work limitations/productivity, methodological issues related to interpretability of outcome scores, and approaches to appraise and classify contextual factors of worker productivity. Feedback gathered from conference participants will inform the future research agenda of the working group.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the influence of tender points (TP) on the Disease Activity Score assessing 28 joints (DAS28) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: In 200 consecutive patients with RA from the outpatient clinic, DAS28 and its components, tender and swollen joint counts (TJC, SJC, respectively), visual analog scale (VAS) for patient’s general health (GH), and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), along with a tender point count (TPC) were assessed. Patients were categorized according to 4 TPC classes: zero, 1–5, 6–10, and ≥ 11 TP. The influence of TPC classes on DAS28 and its individual components was determined with Kruskal-Wallis tests and correlations between TP and DAS28 and its components were calculated. RESULTS: In 196 eligible patients, 70% were female, mean age was 59 years, and median disease duration was 3.9 years; median DAS28 was 3.1; and 49% had active disease, defined as DAS28 > 3.2. In 15% of patients, the TPC was ≥ 11, in 12% 6–10, in 30% 1–5, and in 43% zero. TPC significantly influenced the DAS28 and its less objective components TJC and VAS-GH (i.e., based on patient’s report), but not the more objective DAS28 components SJC and ESR (i.e., observer- and laboratory-based). CONCLUSION: DAS28 is influenced by tender points, even in the non-fibromyalgia range, falsely suggesting higher disease activity and decreasing the sensitivity of the DAS28 criterion of low disease activity or remission. When applying DAS28-guided "tight control" or "treat-to-target" treatment strategies in RA, evaluation of not only the DAS28, but also its individual components along with a full joint and physical evaluation including assessment of TP is required to reliably estimate the individual’s disease activity, which guides therapeutic decisions.

OBJECTIVE: To identify disease activity, smoking, and reproductive-related predictors of a poor prognosis in patients with very early inflammatory polyarthritis (IP). METHODS: Patients with very early IP (symptom duration 4–11 weeks) included in our study were participants in the STIVEA (Steroids In Very Early Arthritis) randomized placebo-controlled trial. At baseline, disease-related variables were measured and patients were asked to complete a questionnaire covering smoking status and reproductive questions. Baseline predictors of poor prognosis [i.e., the need to start disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy by 6 months or the clinical diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) at 12 months] were identified, applying logistic regression analyses adjusted for treatment group. RESULTS: Rheumatoid factor (RF) positivity was one of the strongest clinical predictors of a poor prognosis: OR for DMARD therapy at 6 months, 4.00 (95% CI 2.00–8.00) and OR for a diagnosis of RA at 12 months, 9.48 (95% CI 4.48–20.07). There was a significant association between current smoking at baseline compared to never smoking and a diagnosis of RA at 12 months (OR 3.15, 95% CI 1.16–8.56). CONCLUSION: About 6 in 7 patients with very early RF-positive IP were diagnosed with RA 1 year later. In addition, 1 in 4 IP patients who smoke will develop RA later. It is recommended to treat RF-positive patients who have IP with DMARD at presentation and to advise patients to stop smoking.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate basic assumptions of prediction models for future vertebral fractures. METHODS: Lateral radiographs of the spine were obtained from 314 Portuguese individuals aged 60 years or older (205 women and 109 men) with bone mineral density (BMD) measurements at several sites. Associations between BMD at various sites, participant characteristics, and vertebral fractures were investigated. For men and women separately, logistic regression analyses and analyses of areas under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were performed to determine the accuracy of BMD measurment at predicting the presence of vertebral deformities. RESULTS: BMD measurements at all sites significantly predicted the presence of osteoporotic vertebral deformities in women but not in men. Similarly, in analyses of areas under ROC curves, BMD assessments were statistically significantly related to vertebral deformities in women but not in men. In multivariate analyses, BMD measurements of the lumbar spine and of the forearm, adjusted for gender, age, and body mass index, significantly predicted the presence of vertebral deformity, but BMD of the hip sites did not. CONCLUSION: Prediction of fractures is specific for gender and site of BMD measurement. This challenges the use of similar algorithms for men and women as well as the use of hip BMD data to accurately estimate future vertebral fracture risk.