Osteoarthritis Index delivered by mobile phone (m-WOMAC) is valid, reliable, and responsive

Objectives: To evaluate the validity, reliability and responsiveness of EDC using the WOMAC® NRS 3.1 Index on Motorola V3 mobile phones. ---------- Methods: Patients with osteoarthritis (OA) undergoing primary unilateral hip or knee joint replacement surgery were assessed pre-operatively and 3-4 months post-operatively. Patients completed the WOMAC® Index in paper (p-WOMAC®) and electronic (m-WOMAC®) format in random order. ---------- Results: 24 men and 38 women with hip and knee OA participated and successfully completed the m-WOMAC® questionnaire. Pearson correlations between the summated total index scores for the p-WOMAC® and m-WOMAC® pre- and post-surgery were 0.98 and 0.99 (p<0.0001). There was no clinically important or statistically significant between-method difference in the adjusted total summated scores, pre- and post-surgery (adjusted mean difference = 4.44, p = 0.474 and 1.73, p = 0.781). Internal consistency estimates of m-WOMAC® reliability were 0.87 – 0.98. The m-WOMAC® detected clinically important, statistically significant (p<0.0001) improvements in pain, stiffness, function and total index score. ---------- Conclusions: Sixty-two patients with hip and knee OA successfully completed EDC by Motorola V3 mobile phone using the m-WOMAC® NRS3.1 Index; completion times averaging only 1-1.5 minutes longer than the p-WOMAC® Index. Data were successfully and securely transmitted from patients in Australia to a server in the USA. There was close agreement and no significant differences between m-WOMAC® and p-WOMAC® scores. This study confirms the validity, reliability and responsiveness of the Exco InTouch engineered, Java-based m-WOMAC® Index application. EDC with the m-WOMAC® Index provides unique opportunities for using quantitative measurement in clinical research and practice.

Using patients' and rheumatologists' opinions to specify a short form of the WOMAC function subscale

Background: The WOMAC ( Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) function subscale is widely used in clinical trials of hip and knee osteoarthritis. Reducing the number of items of the subscale would enhance efficiency and compliance, particularly for use in clinical practice applications. Objective: To develop a short form of the WOMAC function subscale based on patients' and experts' opinions ( WOMAC function short form). Methods: WOMAC function subscale data ( Likert version) were obtained from 1218 outpatients with painful hip or knee osteoarthritis. These patients and their rheumatologists selected the five items that they considered most in need of improvement. The rheumatologists were asked to select the five items for which patients in general are the most impaired. Items that were least important to patients and experts, those with a high proportion of missing data, and those with a response distribution showing a floor or ceiling response were excluded, along with one of a pair of items with a correlation coefficient >0.75. Results: The WOMAC function short form included items 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 15 of the long form. The short form did not differ substantially from the long form in responsiveness ( standardised response mean of 0.84 v 0.80). Conclusions: A short form of the WOMAC function subscale was developed according to the views of patients and rheumatologists, based on the responses of 1218 patients and 399 rheumatologists. The clinical relevance and applicability of this WOMAC function subscale short form require further evaluation.

Validation and patient acceptance of a computer touch screen version of the WOMAC 3.1 osteoarthritis index

Objectives: To validate the WOMAC 3.1 in a touch screen computer format, which applies each question as a cartoon in writing and in speech (QUALITOUCH method), and to assess patient acceptance of the computer touch screen version. Methods: The paper and computer formats of WOMAC 3.1 were applied in random order to 53 subjects with hip or knee osteoarthritis. The mean age of the subjects was 64 years ( range 45 to 83), 60% were male, 53% were 65 years or older, and 53% used computers at home or at work. Agreement between formats was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Preferences were assessed with a supplementary questionnaire. Results: ICCs between formats were 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.87 to 0.96) for pain; 0.94 (0.90 to 0.97) for stiffness, and 0.96 ( 0.94 to 0.98) for function. ICCs were similar in men and women, in subjects with or without previous computer experience, and in subjects below or above age 65. The computer format was found easier to use by 26% of the subjects, the paper format by 8%, and 66% were undecided. Overall, 53% of subjects preferred the computer format, while 9% preferred the paper format, and 38% were undecided. Conclusion: The computer format of the WOMAC 3.1 is a reliable assessment tool. Agreement between computer and paper formats was independent of computer experience, age, or sex. Thus the computer format may help improve patient follow up by meeting patients' preferences and providing immediate results.

Evaluation of WOMAC 20, 50, 70 response criteria in patients treated with hylan G-F 20 for knee osteoarthritis

Objective: A secondary analysis of a previously conducted one year randomised controlled trial to evaluate the capacity of responder criteria based on the WOMAC index to detect between treatment group differences. Methods: 255 patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomised to appropriate care with hylan G-F 20'' (AC+H) or appropriate care without hylan G-F 20'' (AC). In the original analysis, two definitions of patient response from baseline to month 12 were used: ( 1) at least a 20% reduction in WOMAC pain score ( WOMAC 20P); ( 2) at least a 20% reduction in WOMAC pain score and at least a 20% reduction in either WOMAC function or stiffness score ( WOMAC 20PFS). For this analysis, a responder was identified using 50% and 70% minimum clinically important response levels to investigate how increasing response affects the ability to detect treatment group differences. Results: The hylan G- F 20 group had numerically more responders using all patient responder criteria. Increasing the response level from 20% to 50% detected similar differences between treatment groups (25% to 29%). Increasing the response level to 70% reduced the differences between treatment groups (11% to 12%) to a point where the differences were not significant after Bonferroni adjustment. Conclusions: These results provide evidence for incorporating response levels ( WOMAC 50) in clinical trials. While differences at the highest threshold ( WOMAC 70) were not statistically detectable, an appropriately powered study may be capable of detecting differences even at this very high level of improvement.

The WOMAC knee and hip osteoarthritis indices: Development, validation, globafization and influence on the development of the AUSCAN hand osteoarthritis indices

Clinical measurement in both clinical research and clinical practice requires tools and techniques that are valid, reliable and responsive. Patient-centred self-reported measures provide opportunity to evaluate consequences of osteoarthritis, that are important and relevant to patients with the condition. The WOMAC and AUSCAN Indices are health status measurement questionnaires that are valid, reliable and responsive, easy to complete, simple to score and available in multiple language forms and scaling formats. They provide opportunities to capture patient relevant information, relating to the impact of interventions, in clinical research and clinical practice environments. WOMAC data have also contributed to the development of proposed definitions for responder criteria and state-attainment criteria in osteoarthritis.

WOMAC 20, 50, 70 response levels in patients treated with Rofecoxib for osteoarthritis

Aim of study: The goal of this post-hoc analysis was to examine the difference between treatment groups when varying the target response level from at least a 20% improvement from baseline, to at least 50% and 70% improvements in Phase III studies of rofecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis. Methods: The analysis focused on results from two 6-week, placebo-controlled, ibuprofen-comparator, Phase III osteoarthritis studies. These studies employed a flare design requiring a minimum level of symptoms at entry following discontinuation of prior analgesics. Two definitions of ‘‘patient improved’’ from baseline were used: (1) WOMAC-P: a reduction in the WOMAC pain score and (2) WOMAC-PFS: a reduction in the WOMAC pain score and either a reduction in the WOMAC stiffness or function score. The improvement target was increased from 20% to 50% to 70%, relative to baseline, to investigate how the increase affects the ability to detect the differences between treatment groups. Analyses were conducted on the average and last of all measurements collected during a 6-week treatment period. Results: In the ibuprofen-comparator studies, 1545 patients were randomized to placebo, rofecoxib 12.5 mg once daily, rofecoxib 25 mg once daily, and ibuprofen 800 mg three times daily in a 1:3:3:3 ratio. The percentages of patients who met the improvement targets decrease as the target increases from 20% to 50% to 70%. There were meaningful differences between the active treatment and placebo that were inversely related to the improvement target. For example, there was a 31 (P ! 0.001), 21 (P ! 0.001), and 12 (P ! 0.001) percentage-point difference between rofecoxib 25 mg and placebo for the 20%, 50%, and 70% targets for WOMAC-P. For WOMAC-PFS, the differences between rofecoxib 25 mg and placebo were 33 (P ! 0.001), 18 (P ! 0.001), and 9 (P ! 0.01) percentage points for the 20%, 50%, and 70% improvement targets. Conclusions: Meaningful differences between active treatments and placebo were detected at all three response levels associated with the WOMAC-P and WOMAC-PFS endpoints. The differences between groups were more dramatic at the 20% and 50% response levels. The WOMAC (20,50,70)-P and WOMAC (20,50,70)-PFS endpoints further confirm, at an individual patient level, the clinical benefit of rofecoxib in the treatment of osteoarthritis that was previously reported as a difference in means.