Patient Perspectives on Achieving Treat‐to‐Target Goals: A Critical Examination of Patient‐Reported Outcomes

Treat‐to‐target (T2T) recommendations suggest that rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients should strive for remission or low disease activity (LDA). However, it is unclear whether patients experiencing a good response to biologic agents might experience further improvement in patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) if they subsequently achieve a lower disease activity state, particularly the T2T goals of LDA or remission.

[1]  M. Dougados,et al.  Relative importance of doctor-reported outcomes vs patient-reported outcomes in DMARD intensification for rheumatoid arthritis: the DUO study. , 2013, Rheumatology.

[2]  H. H. Kuper,et al.  Adherence to a treat-to-target strategy in early rheumatoid arthritis: results of the DREAM remission induction cohort , 2012, Arthritis Research & Therapy.

[3]  M. Boers,et al.  Patient's global assessment of disease activity: what are we measuring? , 2012, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[4]  J. Smolen,et al.  Discrepancies between patients and physicians in their perceptions of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity. , 2012, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[5]  J. Smolen,et al.  Near misses of ACR/EULAR criteria for remission: effects of patient global assessment in Boolean and index-based definitions , 2012, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[6]  Jeffrey R Curtis,et al.  2012 Update of the 2008 American College of Rheumatology recommendations for the use of disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis , 2012, Arthritis care & research.

[7]  J. Kremer,et al.  Thresholds in disease activity for switching biologics in rheumatoid arthritis patients: Experience from a large US cohort , 2011, Arthritis care & research.

[8]  W. Dixon,et al.  A comparison of patient characteristics and outcomes in selected European and U.S. rheumatoid arthritis registries. , 2010, Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism.

[9]  D. Schillinger,et al.  Patient‐physician discordance in assessments of global disease severity in rheumatoid arthritis , 2010, Arthritis care & research.

[10]  Maurizio Cutolo,et al.  Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: recommendations of an international task force , 2010, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[11]  J. Kremer,et al.  Evaluation of composite measures of treatment response without acute-phase reactants in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. , 2009, Rheumatology.

[12]  David Cella,et al.  Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. , 2008, The journal of pain : official journal of the American Pain Society.

[13]  F. Wolfe,et al.  Resistance of rheumatoid arthritis patients to changing therapy: discordance between disease activity and patients' treatment choices. , 2007, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[14]  J. Kremer,et al.  The CORRONA database. , 2006, Autoimmunity reviews.

[15]  M. Uffmann,et al.  Acute phase reactants add little to composite disease activity indices for rheumatoid arthritis: validation of a clinical activity score , 2005, Arthritis research & therapy.

[16]  B. Leeb,et al.  The patient's perspective and rheumatoid arthritis disease activity indexes. , 2005, Rheumatology.

[17]  I. Laurindo,et al.  Sources of discrepancy in patient and physician global assessments of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity. , 2004, The Journal of rheumatology.

[18]  P. van Riel,et al.  Validation of rheumatoid arthritis improvement criteria that include simplified joint counts. , 1998, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[19]  P. Tugwell,et al.  Minimum important difference between patients with rheumatoid arthritis: the patient's perspective. , 1993, The Journal of rheumatology.