Comparison of ASAS improvement criteria for ankylosing spondylitis with clinically relevant improvement according to an expert panel

Objective: To investigate whether the recently developed (statistically derived) "ASsessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis Working Group" improvement criteria (ASAS-IC) for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) reflect clinically relevant improvement according to the opinion of an expert panel. Methods: The ASAS-IC consist of four domains: physical function, spinal pain, patient global assessment, and inflammation. Scores on these four domains of 55 patients with AS, who had participated in a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug efficacy trial, were presented to an international expert panel (consisting of patients with AS and members of the ASAS Working Group) in a three round Delphi exercise. The number of (non-) responders according to the ASAS-IC was compared with the final-consensus of the experts. The most important domains in the opinion of the experts were identified, and also selected with discriminant analysis. A number of provisional criteria sets that best represented the consensus of the experts were defined. Using other datasets, these clinically derived criteria sets as well as the statistically derived ASAS-IC were then tested for discriminative properties and for agreement with the end of trial efficacy by patient and doctor. Results: Forty experts completed the three Delphi rounds. The experts considered twice as many patients to be responders than the ASAS-IC (42 v 21). Overall agreement between experts and ASAS-IC was 62%. Spinal pain was considered the most important domain by most experts and was also selected as such by discriminant analysis. Provisional criteria sets with an agreement of greater than or equal to 80% compared with the consensus of the experts showed high placebo response rates (27-42%), in contrast with the ASAS-IC with a predefined placebo response rate of 25%. All criteria sets and the ASAS-IC discriminated well between active and placebo treatment (chi(2) = 36-45; p < 0.001). Compared with the end of trial efficacy assessment, the provisional criteria sets showed an agreement of 71-82%, sensitivity of 67-83%, and specificity of 81-88%. The ASAS-IC showed an agreement of 70%, sensitivity of 62%, and specificity of 89%. Conclusion: The ASAS-IC are strict in defining response, are highly specific, and consequently show lower sensitivity than the clinically derived criteria sets. However, those patients who are considered as responders by applying the ASAS-IC are acknowledged as such by the expert panel as well as by. patients' and doctors' judgments, and are therefore likely to be true responders.

Comparison of cognitive screening tasks in an elderly veteran population

Screening measures of cognitive status are traditionally administered face to face. In survey research such screening mcasurcs, while desirable, must he administered by other means. As part of pilot survey research on a New Zealand war veteran population with some degree of hearing impairment, a face-to-face administration of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE; Folstein, Folstein and McHugh, 1975) and a telephoneadministration of the Telephonc Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS; Brandt, Spencer and Folstein. 1988) were compared. Brandt ('/ u/. (1988) reported a very strong linear relationship between scores on the MMSE and the TICS (r=0.94, p < .0001) in an Alzheimer patient population with a mcan MMSE score of 12.06 (6.78). For a sample of 44 mildly to moderately hearing impaired veterans, with a mean MMSE score of 25.52 (2.16) and a mean TICS score of 32.52(5.43), the correlation between the instruments was .39. When veterans who wore hearing aids during the telephone interview ( N = 2 2 ) wcrc separated out from those who did not, the correlation rose to .54. Age was ncgatively correlated with the MMSE ( r = -0.41, / I < .01) and not significantly correlated with the TICS. Education level was unrelated to either measure. The data suggest that the wearing or non-wearing of hearing aids may contribute significantly to the reliability of the TICS. Furthermore, on non-demented populations with a less restricted range of scores. the correlation of the MMSE and TICS may he lower than previously reported.

A comparison of telepaediatric activity at two regional hospitals in Queensland

We conducted a 15-month feasibility study of telepaediatrics. A novel service was offered to two hospitals in Queensland (Mackay and Hervey Bay). We used data from all other hospitals throughout the state as the control group. Although both intervention hospitals were provided with the same service, the telepaediatric activity generated and the effect on admissions and outpatient activity were markedly different. There was a significant decrease in the number of patient admissions to Brisbane from the Mackay region. In addition, there was an increase in the number of Mackay patients treated locally (as outpatients). In contrast, little change was observed in Hervey Bay. We assessed whether the observed differences between the two hospitals were due to various factors which influenced the use of the telepaediatric service. These factors included the method of screening patients before transfer to the tertiary centre and the physical distance between each facility and the tertiary centre. We believe that the screening method used for patient referrals was the most important determinant of the use of the telepaediatric service.