Article

International consensus on preliminary definitions of improvement in adult and juvenile myositis.

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA.
Arthritis & Rheumatology (Impact Factor: 7.87). 08/2004; 50(7):2281-90. DOI: 10.1002/art.20349
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To use a core set of outcome measures to develop preliminary definitions of improvement for adult and juvenile myositis as composite end points for therapeutic trials.
Twenty-nine experts in the assessment of myositis achieved consensus on 102 adult and 102 juvenile paper patient profiles as clinically improved or not improved. Two hundred twenty-seven candidate definitions of improvement were developed using the experts' consensus ratings as a gold standard and their judgment of clinically meaningful change in the core set of measures. Seventeen additional candidate definitions of improvement were developed from classification and regression tree analysis, a data-mining decision tree tool analysis. Six candidate definitions specifying percentage change or raw change in the core set of measures were developed using logistic regression analysis. Adult and pediatric working groups ranked the 13 top-performing candidate definitions for face validity, clinical sensibility, and ease of use, in which the sensitivity and specificity were >/=75% in adult, pediatric, and combined data sets. Nominal group technique was used to facilitate consensus formation.
The definition of improvement (common to the adult and pediatric working groups) that ranked highest was 3 of any 6 of the core set measures improved by >/=20%, with no more than 2 worse by >/=25% (which could not include manual muscle testing to assess strength). Five and 4 additional preliminary definitions of improvement for adult and juvenile myositis, respectively, were also developed, with several definitions common to both groups. Participants also agreed to prospectively test 6 logistic regression definitions of improvement in clinical trials.
Consensus preliminary definitions of improvement were developed for adult and juvenile myositis, and these incorporate clinically meaningful change in all myositis core set measures in a composite end point. These definitions require prospective validation, but they are now proposed for use as end points in all myositis trials.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
79 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM) is a rare but severe autoimmune inflammatory myositis of childhood. International collaboration is essential in order to undertake clinical trials, understand the disease and improve long-term outcome. The aim of this study was to propose from existing collaborative initiatives a preliminary minimal dataset for JDM. This will form the basis of the future development of an international consensus-approved minimum core dataset to be used both in clinical care and inform research, allowing integration of data between centres.
    Pediatric Rheumatology 01/2014; 12:31. · 1.62 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: The aim was to identify the clinical and laboratory predictors of clinical improvement in a cohort of myositis patients treated with rituximab. Methods: We analyzed data for 195 myositis patients [75 adult polymyositis/72 adult dermatomyositis/48 juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM)] in the Rituximab in Myositis trial. Clinical improvement was defined as 20% improvement in at least 3 of 6 core set measures (CSM) of disease activity: physician and patient/parent global disease activity, manual muscle testing, physical function, muscle enzymes, and extramuscular disease activity. We analyzed the association of the following baseline variables with improvement: myositis clinical subgroup, demographics, myositis damage, clinical and laboratory parameters, CSM, rituximab treatment, and myositis autoantibodies (anti-synthetase, -Mi-2, -SRP, -TIF1-γ, -MJ, other and no autoantibodies). All measures were univariately assessed for association with improvement using time-to-event analyses. A multivariable time-dependent proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the association of individual predictive factors with improvement. Results: In the final multivariable model, the presence of an anti-synthetase [primarily anti-Jo-1 (HR 3.08, p<0.01)], anti-Mi-2 (HR 2.5, p<0.01), or other autoantibody (HR 1.4, p=0.14) predicted a shorter time to improvement compared to the autoantibody negative subset. Lower physician global damage (HR 2.32, p< 0.01) and JDM (vs. adult myositis, HR 2.45, p<0.01) also predicted improvement. Unlike the autoantibody subset, the predictive effect of physician global damage and JDM diminished by week 20. Rituximab treatment did not affect these associations. Conclusion: The presence of an anti-synthetase and anti-Mi-2 autoantibodies, JDM subset and lower disease damage strongly predicted clinical improvement in refractory myositis patients. © 2013 American College of Rheumatology.
    Arthritis & Rheumatology 11/2013; 66(3). · 7.48 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The randomised controlled trial (RCT) is widely considered to be the gold standard study for comparing the effectiveness of health interventions. Central to the design and validity of a RCT is a calculation of the number of participants needed (the sample size). The value used to determine the sample size can be considered the 'target difference'. From both a scientific and an ethical standpoint, selecting an appropriate target difference is of crucial importance. Determination of the target difference, as opposed to statistical approaches to calculating the sample size, has been greatly neglected though a variety of approaches have been proposed the current state of the evidence is unclear. The aim was to provide an overview of the current evidence regarding specifying the target difference in a RCT sample size calculation. The specific objectives were to conduct a systematic review of methods for specifying a target difference; to evaluate current practice by surveying triallists; to develop guidance on specifying the target difference in a RCT; and to identify future research needs. The biomedical and social science databases searched were MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Methodology Register, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index, EconLit, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) and Scopus for in-press publications. All were searched from 1966 or the earliest date of the database coverage and searches were undertaken between November 2010 and January 2011. There were three interlinked components: (1) systematic review of methods for specifying a target difference for RCTs - a comprehensive search strategy involving an electronic literature search of biomedical and some non-biomedical databases and clinical trials textbooks was carried out; (2) identification of current trial practice using two surveys of triallists - members of the Society for Clinical Trials (SCT) were invited to complete an online survey and respondents were asked about their awareness and use of, and willingness to recommend, methods; one individual per triallist group [UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC)-registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs), Medical Research Council (MRC) UK Hubs for Trials Methodology Research and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) UK Research Design Services (RDS)] was invited to complete a survey; (3) production of a structured guidance document to aid the design of future trials - the draft guidance was developed utilising the results of the systematic review and surveys by the project steering and advisory groups. Methodological review incorporating electronic searches, review of books and guidelines, two surveys of experts (membership of an international society and UK- and Ireland-based triallists) and development of guidance. The two surveys were sent out to membership of the SCT and UK- and Ireland-based triallists. The review focused on methods for specifying the target difference in a RCT. It was not restricted to any type of intervention or condition. Methods for specifying the target difference for a RCT were considered. The search identified 11,485 potentially relevant studies. In total, 1434 were selected for full-text assessment and 777 were included in the review. Seven methods to specify the target difference for a RCT were identified - anchor, distribution, health economic, opinion-seeking, pilot study, review of evidence base (RoEB) and standardised effect size (SES) - each having important variations in implementation. A total of 216 of the included studies used more than one method. A total of 180 (15%) responses to the SCT survey were received, representing 13 countries. Awareness of methods ranged from 38% (n =69) for the health economic method to 90% (n =162) for the pilot study. Of the 61 surveys sent out to UK triallist groups, 34 (56%) responses were received. Awareness ranged from 97% (n =33) for the RoEB and pilot study methods to only 41% (n =14) for the distribution method. Based on the most recent trial, all bar three groups (91%, n =30) used a formal method. Guidance was developed on the use of each method and the reporting of the sample size calculation in a trial protocol and results paper. There is a clear need for greater use of formal methods to determine the target difference and better reporting of its specification. Raising the standard of RCT sample size calculations and the corresponding reporting of them would aid health professionals, patients, researchers and funders in judging the strength of the evidence and ensuring better use of scarce resources. The Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research Joint Methodology Research programme.
    Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). 01/2014; 18(28):1-192.

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
4 Downloads
Available from
Oct 1, 2014