Rheumatoid Arthritis: Siegel J

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.

Furst DE, Cush J, Kaufmann S, Siegel J, Kurth R. · UCLA Medical School, Los Angeles, USA Presbyterian Hospital, Dallas, USA. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #12379625 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Siegel J. · No affiliation provided · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #18671319 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Siegel J. · No affiliation provided · Ann Intern Med. · Pubmed #18195341 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

van der Heijde D, Braun J, McGonagle D, Siegel J. · Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, University Hospital Maastricht, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #12381508 links to  free full text

Abstract: Emerging treatment options in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) are giving new hope to patients with this chronic and potentially disabling disease. Clinical development of new treatments requires that rigorous and well controlled trials be conducted to demonstrate safety and efficacy. A number of classification systems have been developed in recent years as a result of enhanced understanding of the pathogenesis of AS. Although new outcome measures have been developed and a consensus has been reached on the use of assessment instruments in clinical trials, there is still need for improvement and implementation. The ASsessments in Ankylosing Spondylitis (ASAS) Working Group has addressed some of these dilemmas by establishing a core set of domains for the evaluation of AS and by selecting specific assessment methods for each domain. They have also published improvement criteria for assessing short term improvement with symptom modifying antirheumatic drugs and are presently in the process of developing response criteria for disease controlling antirheumatic treatment. Various experts are also currently examining discrepancies and inadequacies of classification systems for AS. Imaging studies, magnetic resonance imaging, in particular, may provide better classification criteria in the near future. In addition to consensus on outcome assessment and classification of AS, lessons learnt from clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may serve as a template for AS. Guidance provided by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for clinical trials in RA may be of particular use. The FDA has defined the claims that sponsors can receive for RA products and the clinical trial data that would be expected to be submitted to support such claims.

Karonitsch T, Aletaha D, Boers M, Bombardieri S, Combe B, Dougados M, Emery P, Felson D, Gomez-Reino J, Keystone E, Kvien TK, Martin-Mola E, Matucci-Cerinic M, Richards P, van Riel P, Siegel J, Smolen JS, Sokka T, van der Heijde D, van Vollenhoven R, Ward M, Wells G, Zink A, Landewe R. · Division of Rheumatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #18791056 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To use an evidence-based and consensus-based approach to elaborate recommendations on how to report disease activity in clinical trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) endorsed by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). METHODS: After an initial expert meeting, during which relevant research questions were identified, a systematic literature search was performed using Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library as sources. To ensure literature retrieved was comprehensive, we emphasised search algorithms that were sensitive rather than specific. The results of the literature search were discussed by the expert panel, modified and expanded, and were used as the basis for the elaboration of the recommendation in the consensus process. Finally, an independent ACR panel approved these items with some minor modifications. RESULTS: The following pieces of evidence were obtained from the literature search: (1) timing and the sustaining of a response is relevant to achieve better outcomes; (2) composite disease activity indices have been used to define low disease activity and remission and these definitions have been validated as has the American Rheumatism Association (ARA) remission criteria. The "patient-reported symptom state" (PASS) is not yet well validated; (3) evidence was obtained to identify those measures, scales and patient-reported instruments, for which there is a documented association with relevant outcomes; (4) baseline disease activity is associated with disease activity levels at the end of follow-up; and (5) there was not sufficient evidence relating the added benefit of MRI or ultrasound over clinical assessments. Most data stemmed from observational studies rather than clinical trials and literature review was supplemented by input from experts. The results served as the basis for the elaboration of the seven recommendations by the experts. CONCLUSIONS: The approach based on scientific evidence from the literature as well as on expert input provided sufficient information to derive recommendations on reporting disease activity in RA clinical trials. The methodology, results and conclusions of this project were endorsed by EULAR and the ACR.

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.