Abstract
The objective of the study was to study the clinical utility of the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) for the assessment of disease activity in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients, compared to the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Activity Index (BASDAI). This was a prospective longitudinal observational study in patients with AS (NY-modified criteria) from 23 Spanish centers. Physical and analytical data; global, lumbar, and nocturnal pain; ASDAS, BASDAI and minimally acceptable clinical status (PASS) were collected. Psychometric characteristics of both indexes were analyzed: construct validity (convergent and divergent), discriminant capacity, criterion validity (global physician and patient assessment), and sensitivity to change. The study involved 127 patients (19.7% attrition). Both BASDAI and ASDAS showed a higher correlation with patient’s global assessment (r = 0.76 and 0.70, respectively) than with physician’s global assessment (r = 0.67 and 0.57). Both scores allowed discriminating patients with an acceptable clinical status, although BASDAI to a greater extent than ASDAS (Cohen δ 1.72 vs 0.88 for the medical PASS). Both scores showed sensitivity to change in patients who changed from an unacceptable symptomatic state to acceptable according to PASS criteria (physician and patient) and by BASDAI 50 response criteria (Cohen δ > 0.80). BASDAI showed better criterion validity than ASDAS, both for the patient PASS (AUC 0.85 vs 0.79) and for the physician’s (AUC 0.90 vs 0.79). ASDAS shows adequate performance for disease activity in patients with AS; however, in this study, its psychometric properties do not present advantages over BASDAI in terms of criterion validity, sensitivity to change or discriminative capacity; replacement of BASDAI by ASDAS is not supported by the data.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) [1] is the most widely used tool to assess the activity of ankylosing spondylitis (AS), although it is not free of limitations considering that it only includes the perspective of the patient, and that its responsiveness is questionable [2, 3]. A score over 4 is considered indicative of activity. On the other hand, less subjective variables, such as C-reactive protein (CRP), have little sensitivity to detect disease activity [4], and conventional radiographs are only useful to demonstrate progression over years [5]. The International Society of Spondylarthritis (ASAS) proposed the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) [6, 7] as a new method for the evaluation of disease activity. ASDAS is a mixed index, combining acute phase reactants with patient outcome measures. It includes questions number 2 (pain), 3 (swelling), and 6 (stiffness) of BASDAI, plus CRP and patient global assessment (PGA). By adding additional parameters to the patient’s assessment, it is expected that ASDAS shows greater correlation with the general physician assessment (PhGA) than BASDAI, whereas the correlation with the PGA should be higher with BASDAI than with ASDAS. The ASDAS cutoff points proposed by ASAS (<1.3 inactive disease, 1.3–2.1 moderate activity, 2.1–3.5 high activity, and >3.5 very high activity) differ from those observed when using the minimally acceptable clinical status of the patient [8]. Few studies compare the performance of ASDAS and BASDAI, making it difficult to establish the priority of one over the other in clinical practice, and taking into account the feasibility and the utility of both indexes to support therapeutic decisions. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of ASDAS for assessing disease activity in AS in comparison with BASDAI, by analyzing the psychometric characteristics of both indices taking the global disease assessment as reference external criteria. Specifically, it was expected that ASDAS would show greater correlation with the general physician assessment (PhGA), and with BASDAI than with PGA.
Methods
A prospective longitudinal observational study was carried out in 23 Spanish centers. Patients with a diagnosis of AS according to the modified NY criteria [9] and BASDAI >4 despite treatment with NSAIDs (treatment guidelines according to consensus of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology [10]) were included. Patients were followed up for 12 months in four clinic visits (baseline, 4, 8 and 12 months). The study was approved by the Ethical Committees for Clinical Research in all clinics and was carried out in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. All patients gave informed consent for their participation.
In addition to sociodemographic data and disease history, all of which were gathered at baseline, the following information was collected by physical examination at study visits: tender joint count (TJC) and swollen joint count (SJC); PGA and PhGA on analog visual scales (0–100; where the left end (0) means no symptoms and the right end (100) means the maximum activity); overall pain, lumbar, and nocturnal pain during the last week, and Patient Acceptable Symptom State as to the physician and the patient opinion (physician-PASS and patient-PASS). CPR and ESR determinations were obtained, as well as the ASDAS, BASDAI, BASFI (for functional capacity) [11, 12], and BASMI (for spinal mobility) [13]. For the BASDAI, the validated version for Spanish population was used [14]. The ASDAS score was obtained through the following formula [7]: (0.12 × back pain (BASDAI2) + 0.058 × morning stiffness duration (BASDAI6) + 0.110 × overall patient assessment + 0.073 × peripheral pain/inflammation (BASDAI3) + 0.579 × Ln (CRP + 1)).
Statistical analysis
The sample was described as to the distribution of descriptive variables by summary statistics. The analysis of the psychometric properties requires a heterogeneous sample comprising patients with different levels of activity. Since all patients were active (BASDAI >4) at baseline, validity analyses were carried out at the 12-month visit, where heterogeneity in disease activity was evident. In the same way, as the objective of the sensitivity study was to demonstrate whether changes in BASDAI and ASDAS correlate with changes in the clinical status of the patients, data from baseline and 12-month visits were used for this analysis.
The degree of agreement in the classification of patients, according to BASDAI and ASDAS, was evaluated using the Cohen’s kappa statistic.
Construct validity is defined as the degree to which the scores of a measurement instrument are consistent with hypotheses with regard to internal relationships, relationships with scores of other instruments measuring similar or dissimilar constructs, or differences in the scores. Taking these basic principles into account, construct validity was analyzed using the convergent validity method (correlation with similar constructs), divergent (correlation with different constructs), and discriminant validity (ability to differentiate between subgroups of patients with different levels of activity). For the convergent/divergent validity, Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used with PhGA and PGA in the first case, and with BASMI (spinal mobility) and BASFI (functional capacity) in the second. To evaluate if there were significant differences in the correlation coefficients between the global assessment of physical (PhGA) and patient (PGA) with BASDAI and ASDAS, the Z statistic as unilateral contrast test proposed by Meng, Roshental and Rubin was used [15]. For discriminant validity, patients were divided into different levels of activity according to the criteria external to the ASDAS (physician-PASS and patient-PASS, CRP and time of disease evolution), and the differences were analyzed with Student’s t tests for independent samples, and effect size (by using Cohen’s δ).
Criterion validity was analyzed with receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curves. These were used to establish ASDAS and BASDAI cutoffs with best performance for disease activity defined by two external criteria: global opinion of doctor and patient (physician-PASS and patient-PASS). For each cutoff, sensitivity and specificity were calculated, as well as the area under the curve (AUC).
In those patients who experienced a change in their clinical status (according to PASS-physician and PASS-patient) between baseline and 12 months, sensitivity to change of both indexes was analyzed by effect size (Cohen’s δ) [16].
Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 and all analyses were performed in SPSS statistical software version 21.0.
Results
The sample consisted of 127 patients, mostly men (75.6%), with a mean age of 45.8 ± 12.6 years and disease duration of 11.6 ± 10.9 years. The duration of treatment prior to study beginning was 52.4 ± 72.6 months. Due to the loss of follow-up and non-compliance between visits, data from 127, 114, 108 and 102 patients were available at baseline and at 4, 8 and 12 months visits, respectively. Attrition at 12 months was 19.7%.
Table 1 shows the main clinical findings at baseline and 12 months. Initial values of acute phase reactants (CRP and ESR), as well as BASDAI and ASDAS scores, suggest a sample of patients with inflammatory activity (BASDAI selection criterion >4) despite low joint counts. In basaline data, values for BASMI and BASFI ranged between 0.4–8.2 and 0.8–9.7, respectively. These findings show a change in the classification of AS activity according to the previously established criteria and cutoff points. The cutoff point of ASDAS with the best agreement with BASDAI was 2.1 (global agreement 82.9%, kappa 0.65). The correlation coefficient between both indexes was r = 0.72 (Table 2).
Table 3 shows the convergent, divergent, and discriminant construct validity analysis performed at the 12-month visit. Convergent validity shows a higher correlation of BASDAI with PGA than with PhGA (0.76 vs 0.67), which supports one of the hypotheses of the study. However, unlike initially predicted, ASDAS also had a higher correlation with PGA than with PhGA (0.70 vs 0.57). These results were significant for ASDAS (p = 0.016) and were at the limit of significance in the case of BASDAI (p = 0.050), according to the Z statistic proposed by Meng and Rosehental in unilateral contrast tests [15]. The results of divergent validity showed a moderate correlation of ASDAS with BASMI (r = 0.55) and BASFI (r = 0.65), which can be understood by the estimation of different constructs (spinal mobility and functional capacity for BASMI and BASFI, respectively). Finally, the discriminant validity analysis showed that both indexes discriminate patients with acceptable medical status according to the physician and patient PASS criteria (means significantly different by Student t), with a larger effect size for BASDAI than for ASDAS (Cohen δ 1.72 vs 0.88 for physician’s PASS, and 1.57 vs 1.12 for patient’s PASS. Likewise, BASDAI was better than ASDAS to discriminate patients above and below the median PhGA (Cohen δ 1.49 vs 1.28). In contrast, ASDAS showed a larger effect size in differentiating patients according to the median CRP and disease duration, although in the latter case the means of both indexes were not significantly different (Table 3).
The results of the sensitivity analysis to change, measured by the score difference between baseline and 12 months visit, 95% confidence interval, and effect size (Cohen’s δ) are presented in Table 4. Both ASDAS and BASDAI were sensitive to change in patients who changed from an unacceptable to acceptable symptomatic clinical status according to PASS criteria (physician and patient) and BASDAI 50 response criteria, since in all cases the value of Cohen’s δ was higher than 0.8 (value considered high); i.e., changes in both indexes between baseline and 12 months are related to changes in disease activity. However, the effect size was greater for BASDAI than for ASDAS, with δ of 2.01 for the physician’s PASS and of 2.13 for the patient’s PASS.
Finally, the criterion validity of the BASDAI was higher than that of the ASDAS, both when the patient’s PASS (AUC 0.852 vs 0.794) and the physician’s PASS (AUC 0.900 vs 0.790) were used as an external criterion. On the other hand, these differences were statistically significant in the case of physician’s PASS, since the AUC of each index is not included in the confidence interval of the other (Table 5) (Fig. 1).
Discussion
In recent years, different outcome measurements have been proposed in spondyloarthritides, and in particular in AS. BASDAI, published in 1994 [1], measures disease activity from the patient’s perspective. The subjective perspective of this scale created the need of developing more objective tools. In this sense, during ASDAS development, the ASAS group attempted to respond to the different goals of patients and physicians [6, 17] constructing a composite instrument that included not only patient’s opinion but also objective measures (CRP) and allows to measure disease activity at any given time point. This instrument has demonstrated adequate psychometric properties for the measurement of disease activity and the results of some studies have confirmed a good sensitivity of ASDAS to treatment changes [18,19,20]. In this study the diagnostic performance of both indexes, BASDAI and ASDAS, was compared by analyzing their main psychometric properties.
The usefulness of objective and subjective measures is different for patients and professionals, as well as the importance they give to them. In a study of 203 patients with AS according to NY criteria, it was observed that patients with AS perceive disease activity differently from physicians. Patients rank first pain and movement limitations and secondly variables related to disease activity. In contrast, for physicians, the most relevant data for assessing disease activity are variables related to inflammation, severity, their own assessments, and acute phase reactants, but not the patient’s perception [21].
The fact that both BASDAI and ASDAS correlate better with PGA than with PhGA could be explained by the inclusion of items related to the patient’s opinion (which they both share) and suggests that their performance is similar in patients with AS. This result has already been observed in individuals with early forms of spondyloarthritis [22].
The high correlation observed between ASDAS and BASDAI, coupled with the poor association with other instruments, such as BASMI and BASFI, demonstrates the adequate validity of convergent and divergent constructs. That is, the concurrent validity of ASDAS and BASDAI means that both indexes measure the same activity construct, whereas the divergent validity with BASMI and BASFI shows that these indexes evaluate different constructs such as spinal mobility, and functional capacity, respectively.
ASDAS, and especially BASDAI, showed discriminant ability to differentiate between different groups of patients, defined by the change in PASS, the median of physician and patient assessment, and the 50th percentile of CRP (in the last one, the differences were only observed for ASDAS). These results should be evaluated with caution, since ASDAS variables are included in BASDAI. The discrimination capacity of ASDAS has also been observed in different studies carried out in patients with early spondyloarthritis [22], non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis [23] and psoriatic arthritis [24], although in these cases different classification criteria were used and the results were more advantageous for BASDAI.
Finally, the analysis of sensitivity to change showed better results for BASDAI than for ASDAS, measured by the effect size.
The most important limitation of this study may be related to the inclusion of patients with a certain level of disease activity. Such a population makes difficult to study the psychometric characteristics at baseline. To minimize the possibility of a selection bias, it was decided to perform the analysis of the different dimensions of validity in the last visit of the study (12 months). In the 12-month visit, due to the effect of treatment, patients are at different levels of activity and the sample was heterogeneous enough to evaluate the validity of the criteria. The need to compare changes in the clinical situation of the patient with the changes in the indexes under study throughout the treatment period allowed both samples to be used at baseline and at 12 months in the sensitivity analysis. A second limitation might be the absence of contrast test to compare ROC curves. This limitation has been solved with the use of overlapping AUC confidence intervals.
To summarize, ASDAS shows adequate performance for disease activity in patients with AS; however, its psychometric characteristics do not present advantages over BASDAI (greater criterion validity, sensitivity to change and discriminative capacity of BASDAI), and it needs information from laboratory tests, so it does not seem justified to substitute one for the other.
References
Garrett S, Jenkinson T, Kennedy LG, Whitelock H, Gaisford P, Calin A (1994) A new approach to defining disease status in ankylosing spondylitis: the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index. J Rheumatol 21(12):2286–2291
Haywood KL, Garratt AM, Dawes PT (2005) Patient-assessed health in ankylosing spondylitis: a structured review. Rheumatology (Oxford) 44(5):577–586
Wanders AJ, Gorman JD, Davis JC, Landewe RB, van der Heijde DM (2004) Responsiveness and discriminative capacity of the assessments in ankylosing spondylitis disease-controlling antirheumatic therapy core set and other outcome measures in a trial of etanercept in ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Rheum 51(1):1–8
Spoorenberg A, van der Heijde D, de Klerk E, Dougados M, de Vlam K, Mielants H et al (1999) Relative value of erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein in assessment of disease activity in ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 26(4):980–984
Spoorenberg A, de Vlam K, van der Heijde D, de Klerk E, Dougados M, Mielants H et al (1999) Radiological scoring methods in ankylosing spondylitis: reliability and sensitivity to change over 1 year. J Rheumatol 26(4):997–1002
Lukas C, Landewe R, Sieper J, Dougados M, Davis J, Braun J et al (2009) Development of an ASAS-endorsed disease activity score (ASDAS) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 68(1):18–24
van der Heijde D, Lie E, Kvien TK, Sieper J, Van den Bosch F, Listing J et al (2009) ASDAS, a highly discriminatory ASAS-endorsed disease activity score in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 68(12):1811–1818
Machado P, Landewe R (2013) Spondyloarthritis: is it time to replace BASDAI with ASDAS? Nat Rev Rheumatol 9(7):388–390
van der Linden S, Valkenburg HA, Cats A (1984) Evaluation of diagnostic criteria for ankylosing spondylitis. A proposal for modification of the New York criteria. Arthritis Rheum 27(4):361–368
Collantes E, Fernández Sueiro JL, García-Vicuña R, Gratacós J, Mulero J, Muñoz Fernández S, Sanmartí R, Zarco P, Angel Abad M, Batlle E, de Dios Cañete J, González Crespo MR, González C, Juanola X, Sanz J, Rivera J (2007) Actualización del Consenso de la Sociedad Española de Reumatología sobre el uso de antagonistas del TNFα en las espondiloartritis, incluida la artritis psoriásica. Reumatol Clin 3(Suppl 2):S60–S70. doi:10.1016/S1699-258X(07)73645-8 (Article in Spanish)
Calin A, Garrett S, Whitelock H, Kennedy LG, O’Hea J, Mallorie P et al (1994) A new approach to defining functional ability in ankylosing spondylitis: the development of the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index. J Rheumatol 21(12):2281–2285
Ariza-Ariza R, Hernandez-Cruz B, Navarro-Sarabia F (2003) Physical function and health-related quality of life of Spanish patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Rheum 49(4):483–487
Jenkinson TR, Mallorie PA, Whitelock HC, Kennedy LG, Garrett SL, Calin A (1994) Defining spinal mobility in ankylosing spondylitis (AS). The Bath AS Metrology Index. J Rheumatol 21(9):1694–1698
Ariza-Ariza R, Hernández-Cruz B, Navarro-Sarabia F (2004) La versión española del BASDAI es fiable y se correlaciona con la actividad de la enfermedad en pacientes con espondilitis anquilosante. Rev Esp Reumatol 31(6):372–378
Meng XL, Rosenthal R, Rubin DR (1992) Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological Bull 3(1):172–175
Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD (2000) Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 53(5):459–468
Machado PM, Landewe RB, van der Heijde DM (2011) Endorsement of definitions of disease activity states and improvement scores for the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score: results from OMERACT 10. J Rheumatol 38(7):1502–1506
Lekpa FFV, Claudepierre P (2010) Response criteria in spondylarthropathies: definition of a responder. Rev Rhum Monogr 77:52–58
Pedersen SJ, Sorensen IJ, Hermann KG, Madsen OR, Tvede N, Hansen MS et al (2010) Responsiveness of the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) and clinical and MRI measures of disease activity in a 1-year follow-up study of patients with axial spondyloarthritis treated with tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitors. Ann Rheum Dis 69(6):1065–1071
Aydin SZ, Can M, Atagunduz P, Direskeneli H (2010) Active disease requiring TNF-alpha-antagonist therapy can be well discriminated with different ASDAS sets: a prospective, follow-up of disease activity assessment in ankylosing spondylitis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 28(5):752–755
Spoorenberg A, van Tubergen A, Landewe R, Dougados M, van der Linden S, Mielants H et al (2005) Measuring disease activity in ankylosing spondylitis: patient and physician have different perspectives. Rheumatology (Oxford) 44(6):789–795
Fernandez-Espartero C, de Miguel E, Loza E, Tomero E, Gobbo M, Descalzo MA et al (2014) Validity of the ankylosing spondylitis disease activity score (ASDAS) in patients with early spondyloarthritis from the Esperanza programme. Ann Rheum Dis 73(7):1350–1355
Kilic E, Kilic G, Akgul O, Ozgocmen S (2015) Discriminant validity of the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) in patients with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis and ankylosing spondylitis: a cohort study. Rheumatol Int 35(6):981–989
Kilic G, Kilic E, Nas K, Karkucak M, Capkin E, Dagli AZ et al (2015) Comparison of ASDAS and BASDAI as a measure of disease activity in axial psoriatic arthritis. Clin Rheumatol 34(3):515–521
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank María Jesús García de Yebenes and Teresa Otón, from InMusc, Madrid, for providing medical writing and editing services in the development of this manuscript, and Jesús Garrido for his statistical support. Abbvie Spain sponsored the study; contributed to its design; participated in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data, and in the writing, reviewing, and approval of the final manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
External author disclosures: A. Sellas-Fernández has received research grant from AbbVie; X. Juanola-Roura has received research grant from AbbVie; A. Alonso-Ruiz A has received research grant from AbbVie; J. Rosas has received research grant from AbbVie; J. Medina-Luezas has received research grant from AbbVie; E. Collantes- Estevez E has received research grant from AbbVie; M. A. Abad-Hernandez has received research grant from AbbVie. Internal author disclosures: VC and CF are full-time employees of AbbVie.
Funding
Funding Study funded by Abbvie Spain (Grant number SCI-SPAI-2009-06).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sellas i Fernandez, A., Juanola Roura, X., Alonso Ruiz, A. et al. Clinical utility of the ASDAS index in comparison with BASDAI in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (Axis Study). Rheumatol Int 37, 1817–1823 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-017-3814-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-017-3814-2