Measuring Preference Weights for American College of Rheumatology Response Criteria for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Published in: Journal of Rheumatology, v. 32, no. 12, Dec. 2005, p. 2326-2329

Posted on on January 01, 2005

by Chiun-Fang Chiou, Michael Weisman, Cathy D. Sherbourne, Carolina Reyes, Michelle Dylan, Joshua J. Ofman, Daniel J. Wallace, Wesley Mizutani, Maria E. Suarez-Almazor

Read More

Access further information on this document at

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate weights for health states comprising American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response and different levels of adverse events associated with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatments. METHODS: A survey was mailed to 748 patients with RA from southern California. In addition to several questionnaires commonly used for patients with RA, patients were instructed to evaluate 10 hypothetical health states, in which they could have an ACR response and/or adverse events due to new treatments, with a visual analog scale (VAS). Patients also evaluated their current health with a VAS question and a time tradeoff (TTO) question. Linear extrapolation was used to derive 6 more health states. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to validate VAS and TTO results. RESULTS: A total of 487 (65%) patients returned the survey. Among the 10 health states evaluated with VAS directly, the health state in which a patient has ACR70 with no adverse events had the highest VAS weight (0.84), followed by the one having an ACR50 response with no adverse events (0.80). Correlation coefficients ranged from 0.63 for the correlation between VAS and physical component summary to -0.18 between TTO and pain and tender joint count; the correlation coefficients were all statistically significant, indicating there was convergent validity of the VAS and that VAS functioned differently from TTO in how it measured weights. CONCLUSION: VAS weights for 16 ACR response health states of patients with RA were derived. These weights could be used for cost-utility analyses of interventions for patients with RA. (J Rheumatol 2005;32:2326-9)

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.