Minimally Important Difference in Diffuse Systemic Sclerosis

Results from the D-penicillamine Study

Published in: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, v. 65, no. 10, Oct. 25, 2006, p. 1325-1329

Posted on RAND.org on January 01, 2006

by Dinesh Khanna, Daniel E. Furst, Ron D. Hays, Grace S. Park, Weng Kee Wong, James R. Seibold, Maureen D. Mayes, Barbara White, Fredrick F. Wigley, Michael Weisman, et al.

Read More

Access further information on this document at ard.bmj.com

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

OBJECTIVE: To estimate minimally important differences (MIDs) in scores for the modified Rodnan Skin Score (mRSS) and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) in a clinical trial on diffuse systemic sclerosis (SSc). PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: 134 people participated in a 2-year, double-blind, randomised clinical trial comparing efficacy of low-dose and high-dose D-penicillamine in diffuse SSc. At 6, 12, 18 and 24 months, the investigator was asked to rate the change in the patient's health since entering the study: markedly worsened, moderately worsened, slightly worsened, unchanged, slightly improved, moderately improved or markedly improved. Patients who were rated as slightly improved were defined as the minimally changed subgroup and compared with patients rated as moderately or markedly improved. RESULTS: The MID estimates for the mRSS improvement ranged from 3.2 to 5.3 (0.40-0.66 effect size) and for the HAQ-DI from 0.10 to 0.14 (0.15-0.21 effect size). Patients who were rated to improve more than slightly were found to improve by 6.9-14.2 (0.86-1.77 effect size) on the mRSS and 0.21-0.55 (0.32-0.83 effect size) on the HAQ-DI score. CONCLUSION: MID estimates are provided for improvement in the mRSS and HAQ-DI scores, which can help in interpreting clinical trials on patients with SSc and be used for sample size calculation for future clinical trials on diffuse SSc.

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 www.rand.org/about/principles.

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.