| 1 |
Guideline Reporting disease activity in clinical trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: EULAR/ACR collaborative recommendations. 2008
Aletaha D, Landewe R, Karonitsch T, Bathon J, Boers M, Bombardier C, Bombardieri S, Choi H, Combe B, Dougados M, Emery P, Gomez-Reino J, Keystone E, Koch G, Kvien TK, Martin-Mola E, Matucci-Cerinic M, Michaud K, O'Dell J, Paulus H, Pincus T, Richards P, Simon L, Siegel J, Smolen JS, Sokka T, Strand V, Tugwell P, van der Heijde D, van Riel P, Vlad S, van Vollenhoven R, Ward M, Weinblatt M, Wells G, White B, Wolfe F, Zhang B, Zink A, Felson D, Anonymous00358, Anonymous00359. · Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #18821648 No free full text.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To make recommendations on how to report disease activity in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) endorsed by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). METHODS: The project followed the EULAR standardized operating procedures, which use a three-step approach: 1) expert-based definition of relevant research questions (November 2006); 2) systematic literature search (November 2006 to May 2007); and 3) expert consensus on recommendations based on the literature search results (May 2007). In addition, since this is the first joint EULAR/ACR publication on recommendations, an extra step included a meeting with an ACR panel to approve the recommendations elaborated by the expert group (August 2007). RESULTS: Eleven relevant questions were identified for the literature search. Based on the evidence from the literature, the expert panel recommended that each trial should report the following items: 1) disease activity response and disease activity states; 2) appropriate descriptive statistics of the baseline, the endpoints and change of the single variables included in the core set; 3) baseline disease activity levels (in general); 4) the percentage of patients achieving a low disease activity state and remission; 5) time to onset of the primary outcome; 6) sustainability of the primary outcome; 7) fatigue. CONCLUSION: These recommendations endorsed by EULAR and ACR will help harmonize the presentations of results from clinical trials. Adherence to these recommendations will provide the readership of clinical trials with more details of important outcomes, while the higher level of homogeneity may facilitate the comparison of outcomes across different trials and pooling of trial results, such as in meta-analyses.
|
| 2 |
Review Testing of the preliminary OMERACT validation criteria for a biomarker to be regarded as reflecting structural damage endpoints in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials: the example of C-reactive protein. 2007
Keeling SO, Landewe R, van der Heijde D, Bathon J, Boers M, Garnero P, Geusens P, El-Gabalawy H, Inman RD, Kraus VB, Kvien TK, Mease PJ, Ostergaard M, Ritchlin C, Syversen SW, Maksymowych WP. · Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #17343310 No free full text.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: A list of 14 criteria for guiding the validation of a soluble biomarker as reflecting structural damage endpoints in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) clinical trials was drafted by an international working group after a Delphi consensus exercise. C-reactive protein (CRP), a soluble biomarker extensively studied in RA, was then used to test these criteria. Our objectives were: (1) To assess the strength of evidence in support of CRP as a soluble biomarker reflecting structural damage in RA according to the draft validation criteria. (2) To assess the strength of recommendation for inclusion of individual criteria in the draft set. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to elicit evidence in support of each specific criterion composing the 14-criteria draft set. A summary of the key literature findings per criterion was presented to both the working group and to participants in a special interest soluble biomarker group at OMERACT 8. Participants at OMERACT 8 were asked to rate the strength of evidence and the strength of the recommendation in support of each individual criterion on a 0-10 numerical rating scale. Working group members not present at OMERACT voted by a Web-based survey. RESULTS: Minimal data were extracted from the literature pertaining to those criteria listed under the category of truth. Ratings for strength of evidence were moderate to low (< 7) for CRP as a biomarker reflecting structural damage in RA; this was true for all criteria except those listed under the category of feasibility and 2 listed under the category of discrimination pertaining to assay reproducibility and evidence regarding sources of variability. Ratings for strength of recommendation for inclusion of each of the 14 criteria in the draft set were high (> 7) except for those criteria listed under the category of truth. CONCLUSION: The draft criteria serve as a useful template in the evaluation of the strength of evidence in support of a particular soluble biomarker as reflecting structural damage in RA.
|
| 3 |
Review Catastrophizing and pain in arthritis, fibromyalgia, and other rheumatic diseases. free! 2006
Edwards RR, Bingham CO, Bathon J, Haythornthwaite JA. · Dept. of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Meyer 1-101, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #16583384 links to free full text
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Pain is among the most frequently reported, bothersome, and disabling symptoms described by patients with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia, and other musculoskeletal conditions. This review describes a growing body of literature relating catastrophizing, a set of cognitive and emotional processes encompassing magnification of pain-related stimuli, feelings of helplessness, and a generally pessimistic orientation, to the experience of pain and pain-related sequelae across several rheumatic diseases. METHODS: We reviewed published articles in which pain-related catastrophizing was assessed in the context of one or more rheumatic conditions. Because much of the available information on catastrophizing is derived from the more general chronic pain literature, seminal studies in other disease states were also considered. RESULTS: Catastrophizing is positively related, in both cross-sectional and prospective studies across different musculoskeletal conditions, to the reported severity of pain, affective distress, muscle and joint tenderness, pain-related disability, poor outcomes of pain treatment, and, potentially, to inflammatory disease activity. Moreover, these associations generally persist after controlling for symptoms of depression. There appear to be multiple mechanisms by which catastrophizing exerts its harmful effects, from maladaptive influences on the social environment to direct amplification of the central nervous system's processing of pain. CONCLUSION: Catastrophizing is a critically important variable in understanding the experience of pain in rheumatologic disorders as well as other chronic pain conditions. Pain-related catastrophizing may be an important target for both psychosocial and pharmacologic treatment of pain.
|
| 4 |
Clinical Conference Safety and efficacy of additional courses of rituximab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: an open-label extension analysis. free! 2007
Keystone E, Fleischmann R, Emery P, Furst DE, van Vollenhoven R, Bathon J, Dougados M, Baldassare A, Ferraccioli G, Chubick A, Udell J, Cravets MW, Agarwal S, Cooper S, Magrini F. · Mount Sinai Hospital, and University of Toronto, 600 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #18050221 links to free full text
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and efficacy of additional courses of rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: An open-label extension analysis of RA patients previously treated with rituximab was conducted. Patients who had participated in any of 3 double-blind trials were eligible for additional courses (2 infusions of 1,000 mg given 2 weeks apart) if they exhibited a swollen joint count and tender joint count of > or =8 with > or =16 weeks elapsing after the previous course. Safety was assessed in patients receiving all or a portion of a rituximab course. Efficacy was assessed 24 weeks after each course, using the American College of Rheumatology 20% criteria for improvement (ACR20), ACR50, ACR70, European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, the disability index of the Health Assessment Questionnaire, and Short Form 36 scores, stratified according to prior tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure. RESULTS: A total of 1,039 patients received > or =1 course of rituximab. Of these, 570 received 2 courses, 191 received 3 courses, and 40 received 4 courses, for a total of 1,669 patient-years. Irrespective of prior TNF inhibitor exposure, ACR20 responses were comparable at week 24 after course 1 and at week 24 after course 2 (65% versus 72%), as were ACR50 and ACR70 responses. EULAR moderate/good responses were also comparable in course 2 relative to course 1 (88% versus 79%), with EULAR remission occurring in a 2-fold higher proportion of patients after course 2 than after course 1 (13% versus 6%). The most common adverse events, which were mild-to-moderate acute infusion-related events, decreased with each course. The serious infection rate after course 1 (5.1 per 100 patient-years) remained stable through additional courses. The proportion of patients with circulating IgM and IgG levels below the lower limit of normal (LLN) increased with subsequent courses; however, serious infection rates in these patients (5.6 per 100 patient-years in patients with low IgM levels and 4.8 per 100 patient-years in patients with low IgG levels were comparable with those in patients with immunoglobulin levels above the LLN (4.7 per 100 patient-years). Patients with human antichimeric antibody (9.2%) did not exhibit decreasing efficacy or present additional safety concerns. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that patients treated with repeated courses of rituximab have sustained clinical responses with no new adverse events.
|
| 5 |
Clinical Conference Combination leflunomide and methotrexate (MTX) therapy for patients with active rheumatoid arthritis failing MTX monotherapy: open-label extension of a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial. 2004
Kremer J, Genovese M, Cannon GW, Caldwell J, Cush J, Furst DE, Luggen M, Keystone E, Bathon J, Kavanaugh A, Ruderman E, Coleman P, Curtis D, Kopp E, Kantor S, Weisman M, Waltuck J, Lindsley HB, Markenson J, Crawford B, Fernando I, Simpson K, Strand V. · Center for Rheumatology, Albany, New York 12206, USA. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #15290730 No free full text.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To obtain additional safety and efficacy data on leflunomide (LEF) treatment in combination with methotrexate (MTX) therapy in an open-label extension study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Following a 24 week, randomized, double-blind trial of adding placebo (PLA) or LEF to stable MTX therapy, patients could enter a 24 week extension. Subjects randomized to LEF and MTX continued treatment [(LEF/LEF) + MTX]. Subjects randomized to PLA and MTX switched to LEF (10 mg/day, no loading dose) and MTX [(PLA/LEF) + MTX]. The double-blind regarding initial randomization was maintained. RESULTS: For subjects in the extension phase, American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) responder rates for the (LEF/LEF) + MTX group were maintained from Week 24 (57/96, 59.4%) to Week 48 (53/96, 55.2%). ACR20 responder rates improved in patients switched to LEF from PLA at Week 24 [(PLA/LEF) + MTX] from 25.0% (24/96) at Week 24 to 57.3% (55/96) at Week 48. Patients in the extension who switched from PLA to LEF without a loading dose exhibited a lower incidence of elevated transaminases compared to patients initially randomized to LEF. Diarrhea and nausea were less frequent during the open-label extension in patients who did not receive a LEF loading dose. CONCLUSION: Response to therapy was maintained to 48 weeks of treatment in patients who continued to receive LEF and MTX during the extension. Importantly, ACR20 response rates after 24 weeks of LEF therapy were similar between patients switched from PLA to LEF without loading dose, and those who received a loading does of LEF (100 mg/day x 2 days) at randomization. Fewer adverse events were reported in patients switched to LEF without a loading dose.
|
| 6 |
Article Enhanced reactivity to pain in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. free! 2009
Edwards RR, Wasan AD, Bingham CO, Bathon J, Haythornthwaite JA, Smith MT, Page GG. · Department of Anesthesiology, Harvard Medical School, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467, USA. · Arthritis Res Ther. · Pubmed #19413909 links to free full text
Abstract: INTRODUCTION: Maladaptive physiological responses to stress appear to play a role in chronic inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, relatively little stress research in RA patients has involved the study of pain, the most commonly reported and most impairing stressor in RA. In the present study, we compared psychophysical and physiological responses to standardized noxious stimulation in 19 RA patients and 21 healthy controls. METHODS: Participants underwent a single psychophysical testing session in which responses to a variety of painful stimuli were recorded, and blood samples were taken at multiple time points to evaluate the reactivity of cortisol, interleukin-6 (IL-6), and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) to the experience of acute pain. RESULTS: The findings suggest that RA patients display a fairly general hyperalgesia to mechanical and thermal stimuli across several body sites. In addition, while serum cortisol levels did not differ at baseline or following pain testing in patients relative to controls, the RA patients tended to show elevations in serum IL-6 and demonstrated enhanced pain-reactivity of serum levels of TNF-alpha compared with the healthy controls (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the importance of pain as a stressor in RA patients and add to a small body of literature documenting amplified responses to pain in RA. Future studies of the pathophysiology of RA would benefit from the consideration of acute pain levels when comparing RA patients with other groups, and future trials of analgesic interventions in RA patients may benefit from evaluating the effects of such interventions on inflammatory activity.
|
| 7 |
Article Reporting disease activity in clinical trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: EULAR/ACR collaborative recommendations. 2008
Aletaha D, Landewe R, Karonitsch T, Bathon J, Boers M, Bombardier C, Bombardieri S, Choi H, Combe B, Dougados M, Emery P, Gomez-Reino J, Keystone E, Koch G, Kvien TK, Martin-Mola E, Matucci-Cerinic M, Michaud K, O'Dell J, Paulus H, Pincus T, Richards P, Simon L, Siegel J, Smolen JS, Sokka T, Strand V, Tugwell P, van der Heijde D, van Riel P, Vlad S, van Vollenhoven R, Ward M, Weinblatt M, Wells G, White B, Wolfe F, Zhang B, Zink A, Felson D. · Division of Rheumatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #18791055 No free full text.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To make recommendations on how to report disease activity in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) endorsed by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). METHODS: The project followed the EULAR standardised operating procedures, which use a three-step approach: (1) expert-based definition of relevant research questions (November 2006); (2) systematic literature search (November 2006 to May 2007); and (3) expert consensus on recommendations based on the literature search results (May 2007). In addition, since this is the first joint EULAR/ACR publication on recommendations, an extra step included a meeting with an ACR panel to approve the recommendations elaborated by the expert group (August 2007). RESULTS: Eleven relevant questions were identified for the literature search. Based on the evidence from the literature the expert panel recommended that each trial should report the following items: (1) disease activity response and disease activity states; (2) appropriate descriptive statistics of the baseline, the endpoints and change of the single variables included in the core set; (3) baseline disease activity levels (in general); (4) the percentage of patients achieving a low disease activity state and remission; (5) time to onset of the primary outcome; (6) sustainability of the primary outcome; (7) fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations endorsed by EULAR and ACR will help harmonise the presentations of results from clinical trials. Adherence to these recommendations will provide the readership of clinical trials with more details of important outcomes, while the higher level of homogeneity may facilitate the comparison of outcomes across different trials and pooling of trial results, such as in meta-analyses.
|
| 8 |
Article Formative research in clinical trial development: attitudes of patients with arthritis in enhancing prevention trials. 2007
Taylor HA, Sugarman J, Pisetsky DS, Bathon J. · Berman Institute of Bioethics, Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University, Hampton House, 353 624 N Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #16984939 No free full text.
Abstract: In preparation for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with early inflammatory arthritis (EIA), formative research was conducted to enhance the design of such trials. The objectives of this research were to (1) determine patients' educational needs as they relate to the necessary elements of informed consent; and (2) assess patients' interest in enrolling in a hypothetical prevention trial. In-depth interviews were conducted with nine patients. Seven patients were women and all but one white. The mean age was 48 years. During the 4-month enrolment period, only three patients with EIA were identified; six patients with longer duration of symptoms were also interviewed. Most patients were able to express the primary aim of a hypothetical prevention trial presented. Factors cited by patients favouring enrolment were potential for direct medical benefit and knowledge that they would be withdrawn from the trial if they developed symptoms. Factors cited by patients against enrolment were the inclusion of a placebo and general uncertainty regarding treatment required by the RCT design. Pending larger-scale empirical projects to explore patients' attitudes about prevention trials, small-scale formative research in advance of such trials ought to be conducted.
|
|
|