Validity, reliability, and feasibility of durometer measurements of scleroderma skin disease in a multicenter treatment trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity, reliability, and feasibility of durometer measurements of skin hardness as an outcome measure in clinical trials of scleroderma. METHODS: Skin hardness was measured during a multicenter treatment trial for scleroderma using handheld digital durometers with a continuous scale. Skin thickness was measured by modified Rodnan skin score (MRSS). Other outcome data collected included the Scleroderma Health Assessment Questionnaire. In a reliability exercise in advance of the trial, 9 investigators examined the same 5 scleroderma patients by MRSS and durometry. RESULTS: Forty-three patients with early diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis were studied at 11 international centers (mean age 49 years [range 24-76], median disease duration 6.4 months [range 0.3-23], and median baseline MRSS 22 [range 11-38]). The reliability of durometer measurements was excellent, with high interobserver intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) (0.82-0.92), and each result was greater than the corresponding skin site ICCs for MRSS (0.54-0.85). Baseline durometer scores correlated well with MRSS (r = 0.69, P < 0.0001), patient self-assessments of skin disease (r = 0.69, P < 0.0001), and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability scores (r = 0.34, P = 0.03). Change in durometer scores correlated with change in MRSS (r = 0.70, P < 0.0001), change in patient self-assessments of skin disease (r = 0.52, P = 0.003), and change in HAQ disability scores (r = 0.42, P = 0.017). The effect size was greater for durometry than for MRSS or patient self-assessment. CONCLUSION: Durometer measurements of skin hardness in patients with scleroderma are reliable, simple, accurate, demonstrate good sensitivity to change compared with traditional skin scoring, and reflect patients' self-assessments of their disease. Durometer measurements are valid, objective, and scalable, and should be considered for use as a complementary outcome measure to skin scoring in clinical trials of scleroderma.

Risk factors for Helicobacter pylori resistance in the United States: the surveillance of H. pylori antimicrobial resistance partnership (SHARP) study, 1993-1999.

BACKGROUND: Pretreatment antimicrobial resistance has an important impact on the efficacy of many Helicobacter pylori treatment regimens. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of H. pylori resistance to antimicrobials in the United States, to characterize risk factors associated with H. pylori antimicrobial resistance, and to explore the association between drug utilization and antimicrobial resistance patterns over time. DESIGN: Meta-analysis using patient-level data. SETTING: 20 nationwide trials of H. pylori eradication. PATIENTS: 3624 men and women, each of whom contributed one isolate. MEASUREMENTS: Rates of H. pylori resistance to clarithromycin, metronidazole, and amoxicillin, according to geographic region, age, sex, study year, ethnicity, ulcer status, test method, and study. RESULTS: Overall resistance to clarithromycin, metronidazole, and amoxicillin was 10.1% (95% CI, 9.1% to 11.1% [360 of 3571 patients]), 36.9% (CI, 35.1% to 38.7% [1063 of 2883 patients]), and 1.4% (CI, 1.0% to 1.8% [48 of 3486 patients]), respectively. In multivariable analyses, multiple risk factors were associated with resistance to individual agents. Clarithromycin resistance was significantly associated with geographic region (P = 0.050), older age (P < 0.001), female sex (P < 0.001), inactive ulcer disease (P < 0.001), and study (P = 0.010). Metronidazole resistance was significantly associated with female sex (P < 0.001), earlier year of study enrollment (P = 0.036), Asian ethnicity (P < 0.001), use of an epsilometer test (P = 0.002), and study (P < 0.001). Amoxicillin resistance was low and was not significantly associated with any risk factor. In the 1990s, when rates for use of oral macrolides and metronidazole were relatively stable, clarithromycin resistance rates were stable and metronidazole resistance rates varied. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should consider risk factors for antimicrobial resistance when deciding which patients should have susceptibility testing and when choosing appropriate H. pylori treatments in the empirical setting.