ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meeting Abstracts
    • All Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2026
    • PRSYM 2026
    • ACR Convergence 2025
    • Download Abstract Supplements
  • Keyword Index
  • My Favorites
    • View & print my favorites
  • Search

Home » Meeting Abstracts » ACR Convergence 2020

Abstract Number: 0147

The Interpretation of Patient-reported Outcomes in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Do Clinical Trials Adequately Evaluate Meaningful Improvements for Patients?

Peter Taylor1, Robin Dore2, Kate Williams3, Sarah Acaster3, Jenya Antonova4 and Mark Genovese5, 1Botnar Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2Private practice, Tustin, CA, 3Acaster Lloyd Consulting, London, United Kingdom, 4Gilead Sciences, Foster City, CA, 5Gilead Sciences, Inc., Foster City, CA

Share on X (Twitter) Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on Email
Print

Meeting: ACR Convergence 2020

Keywords: Measurement, Patient reported outcomes, rheumatoid arthritis

Session Information

Date: Friday, November 6, 2020

Title: Patient Outcomes, Preferences, & Attitudes Poster I: RA, Spondyloarthritis, & OA

Session Type: Poster Session A

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose: The importance of patient-relevant outcomes, such as pain, fatigue and physical functioning, has been long established in the field of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) questionnaires evaluate these outcomes in RA clinical trials and can differentiate treatments. However, this ability depends on the interpretation of PRO endpoints. Measuring PRO changes that are meaningful to patients can help clinicians optimize the treatment selection and evaluate outcomes within the treat-to-target approach, recommended by ACR.  For the incoming RA treatments within the Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) class, we aimed to evaluate the available metrics to capture meaningful individual-patient-level change in most common PROs.

Methods: A targeted PubMed literature search was conducted to identify RA clinical trials of JAKis published between 1st Jan 2009 and 1st April 2020 that included a PRO as an outcome. We reviewed relevant publications and conference abstracts to identify values used to interpret PROs. Follow-up literature searches were conducted to determine and critically appraise methods used to derive these values.

Results: Among 101 papers meeting the inclusion criteria, 35 reported the proportion of patients achieving a minimal (clinically) important difference [M(C)ID] on Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Pain visual analogue scale (VAS), Patient Global Assessment (PtGA), Short-Form 36 (SF-36), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness–Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue), Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), morning stiffness severity and duration. However, the secondary methodological search revealed no evidence supporting the application of these values to interpret individual-patient-level meaningful change (Table 1).

Conclusion: Despite common use of PROs MID/MCID thresholds in the RA clinical trials of JAKis, current methods lack evidence of the methodologically robust magnitude of change meaningful to individuals. These findings highlight a need to re-evaluate the patient-relevance of PRO metrics in RA clinical trials, and potentially explore other endpoints, such as the Patient Acceptable Symptom State. The availability of methodologically robust, patient-relevant, clinically-meaningful change thresholds for PROs can help determine most patient-relevant RA therapies.

Table 1: Values used to interpret individual patient-level change on PROs in RA


Disclosure: P. Taylor, Eli Lilly, 2, 5, 8, Celgene, 2, 5, 8, AbbVie, 2, 5, 8, Biogen, 2, 5, 8, Bristol-Myers Squibb, 2, 5, 8, Celltrion, 2, 5, 8, Fresenius, 2, 5, 8, GlaxoSmithKline, 2, 5, 8, Janssen, 2, 5, 8, Nordic Pharma, 2, 5, 8, Roche, 2, 5, 8, Sanofi, 2, 5, 8, UCB, 2, 5, 8, Pfizer, 2, 5, 8, Gilead, 2, 5, 8, Galapagos, 2, 5, 8; R. Dore, AbbVie, 2, 5, Amgen, 2, 5, Biogen, 2, 5, Bristol-Myers Squibb, 2, 5, Eli Lilly and Co, 2, 5, Gilead Sciences, Inc., 2, 5, GlaxoSmithKline, 2, 5, Myriad, 2, 5, Novartis, 2, 5, Pfizer, 2, 5, Radius, 2, 5, Regeneron, 2, 5, Sanofi, 2, 5, UCB, 2, 5, Exagen, 8; K. Williams, None; S. Acaster, None; J. Antonova, Gilead Sciences, 1; M. Genovese, AbbVie, 2, 5, Eli Lily and Co, 2, 5, EMD Merck Serono, 2, 5, Galapagos, 2, Genentech/Roche, 2, 5, Gilead Sciences, Inc., 1, 2, 3, 5, GSK, 2, 5, Novartis, 2, 5, Pfizer, Inc., 2, Rpharm, 2, 5, Sanofi Genzyme, 2, 5.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Taylor P, Dore R, Williams K, Acaster S, Antonova J, Genovese M. The Interpretation of Patient-reported Outcomes in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Do Clinical Trials Adequately Evaluate Meaningful Improvements for Patients? [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020; 72 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/the-interpretation-of-patient-reported-outcomes-in-rheumatoid-arthritis-do-clinical-trials-adequately-evaluate-meaningful-improvements-for-patients/. Accessed .

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/the-interpretation-of-patient-reported-outcomes-in-rheumatoid-arthritis-do-clinical-trials-adequately-evaluate-meaningful-improvements-for-patients/

My Favorites

Save and print abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract (must have cookies enabled in browser). See saved favorites.

Abstract Policies

  • ACR Convergence Abstract Embargo Policies
  • ACR Convergence Abstract Permissions & Reprints
  • PRSYM Abstract Policies

ACR Convergence. Where Rheumatology Meets

ACR Convergence 2026

Join us November 6-11 in Orlando, Florida.
See Registration Information

  • Contact ACR
  • Privacy Policy
  • ACR Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2026 American College of Rheumatology