The sensitivity to change for lower disease activity is greater than for higher disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis trials

Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Boston University, 715 Albany Street, A203 Boston, MA 02118, USA.
Annals of the rheumatic diseases (Impact Factor: 10.38). 08/2008; 68(8):1255-9. DOI: 10.1136/ard.2008.092460
Source: PubMed


To test whether rheumatoid arthritis (RA) trials treatment efficacy versus control is better detected for patients with lower tender joint counts (TJC) or swollen joint counts (SJC) than for higher counts.
Using data from six large multicentre trials (N = 2002) and an intent-to-treat approach at 6 months, two subtrials were created within each trial, the lower disease activity group (defined by TJC less than overall median) and the higher disease activity group. The same approach was used for SJC. Active treatment was tested for treatment control differences using several RA trial outcome measures: ACR20, EULAR response, ACRHybrid. Sample sizes needed for higher TJC and SJC RA trials versus lower TJC and SJC trials were compared.
Subtrials of subjects with lower TJC were found to have much higher sensitivity to change than those of subjects with higher TJC across all trials and outcome measures. A trial with lower TJC patients would require a smaller sample size than those with higher TJC patients. Results were not consistent for SJC subgroups. Three reasons were found for sensitivity to change of lower TJC: compared with higher TJC, those with lower TJC showed greater response to active treatment.
with higher TJC on control treatment had greater percentage improvement and more variable responses than those in the lower TJC group.
In RA trials, patients with lower disease activity within the range of current trial eligibility are more likely to show treatment efficacy than patients with higher disease activity. Lowering thresholds especially for TJC in trials may make it easier to detect treatment effects in RA.

Download full-text


Available from: Michael P Lavalley
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To define relevant disease parameters and their respective limits indicating the initiation of TNF-alpha-blockers in individual patients. Subsequently, to analyze retrospectively patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or ankylosing spondylitis (AS), who started TNF-alpha inhibition in 2006. Points to consider, regarded relevant for individual treatment decisions as well as their assessment methods, were ascertained by experts' consensus applying the Delphi technique. Subsequently, these parameters' thresholds with respect to the initiation of a TNF-alpha-blocker were identified. Thereafter, the rheumatologists representing 12 centres all over Austria agreed to retrospectively analyze their patients started on a TNF-alpha-blocker in 2006. Experts' opinion regarding disease parameters relevant to initiate TNF-alpha-blockers in RA patients only slightly differed from those applied in clinical trials, but the parameters' threshold values were considerably lower. For PsA patients, some differences and for AS patients, considerable differences between experts' opinion and clinical studies appeared, which held also true for decisive parameters' means and thresholds. Six hundred and fifty patients, started on TNF-blockers in 2006, could be analyzed retrospectively, 408 RA patients (53.3 years mean, 340 females), 93 PsA patients (48.9 years mean, 59 males) and 149 AS patients AS (42.2 years mean, 108 males), representing approximately 25% of all Austrian patients initiated on a TNF-blocker in this respective year. Far more individualized, patient-oriented treatment approaches, at least in part, are applied in daily routine compared with those derived from clinical trials or recommendations from investigative rheumatologists.
    Full-text · Article · Nov 2009 · Clinical Rheumatology
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Current clinical trial designs for pharmacologic interventions in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) do not reflect the innovations in RA diagnosis, treatment, and care in countries where new drugs are most often used. The objective of this project was to recommend revised entry criteria and other study design features for RA clinical trials. Recommendations were developed using a modified nominal group consensus method. Canadian Rheumatology Research Consortium (CRRC) members were polled to rank the greatest challenges to clinical trial recruitment in their practices. Initial recommendations were developed by an expert panel of rheumatology trialists and other experts. A scoping study methodology was then used to examine the evidence available to support or refute each initial recommendation. The potential influence of CRRC recommendations on primary outcomes in future trials was examined. Recommendations were finalized using a consensus process. Recommendations for clinical trial inclusion criteria addressed measures of disease activity [Disease Activity Score 28 using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) > 3.2 PLUS ≥ 3 tender joints using 28-joint count (TJC28) PLUS ≥ 3 swollen joint (SJC28) OR C-reactive protein (CRP) or ESR > upper limit of normal PLUS ≥ 3 TJC28 PLUS ≥ 3 SJC28], functional classification, disease classification and duration, and concomitant RA treatments. Additional recommendations regarding study design addressed rescue strategies and longterm extension. There is an urgent need to modify clinical trial inclusion criteria and other study design features to better reflect the current characteristics of people living with RA in the countries where the new drugs will be used.
    No preview · Article · Jul 2011 · The Journal of Rheumatology
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Joint counts are central to assessment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) but reliability is an issue. Objectives To evaluate the reliability and agreement of joint counts (intra-observer and inter-observer), by health care professionals (physicians, nurses, metrologists) and patients in RA; and the impact of training and standardization on joint count reliability, through a systematic literature review. Methods Articles reporting joint count reliability or agreement in RA in PubMed, EMBase and the Cochrane library between 1960 and 2012 were selected. Data were extracted regarding tender joint counts (TJC) and swollen joint counts (SJC) derived by physicians, metrologists or patients; for intra-observer and inter-observer reliability. In addition, methods and effects of training or standardization were extracted. Statistics expressing reliability such as intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were extracted. Data analysis was primarily descriptive due to high heterogeneity. Results Twenty-eight studies on health care professionals (HCP) and 20 studies on patients were included. Intra-observer reliability for TJC and SJC was good for HCPs and patients (range of ICC, 0.49–0.98). Inter-observer reliability between HCPs for TJC was higher than for SJC (range of ICC, 0.64–0.88 vs. 0.29–0.98). Patient inter-observer reliability with HCP as comparators was better for TJC (range of ICC 0.31–0.91) compared to SJC (0.16–0.64). Nine studies (7 HCP, 2 patient) evaluated consensus or training, with improvement in reliability of TJC but conflicting evidence for SJC. Conclusion Intra and inter-observer reliability was high for TJC for HCPs and patients: among all groups, reliability was better for TJC than SJC. Inter-observer reliability of SJC was poorer for patients than HCPs. Data were inconclusive regarding the potential for training to improve SJC reliability. Overall, the results support further evaluation for patient reported joint counts as an outcome measure. Key Messages Joint counts when repeated by the same observer (either physician, metrologist or patient) are reliable.Inter-observer reliability including the 28 joint count is poorer for SJC than TJC, particularly derived by patients.Patient reported joint counts show potential as an outcome measure for clinical trialsTraining and consensus to improve SJC reliability requires further evaluation.
    Full-text · Article · Nov 2013 · Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism
Show more