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.

Highlights

  • We examined the primary outcome variables from randomized controlled trial (RCT) using similar inclusion criteria to determine if there was any significant influence on expected short-term and longterm outcomes for American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response[19], European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response[20], and radiographic progression

  • The low response rate is attributed to the limited response window, as it was circulated just prior to the 1-day workshop

  • Issues related to the limitations of traditional and current clinical trial design and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) outcomes and endpoints were the subject of much discussion and are the focus of a current Canadian Rheumatology Research Consortium (CRRC) scoping study

Read more

Summary

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The CRRC recommendations were developed using a modified nominal group consensus method[17]. A followup questionnaire was administered (with a very limited response period) to collect additional information about problematic trial eligibility criteria. Initial recommendations were developed by an expert panel of rheumatology trialists and other experts affiliated with the CRRC. A scoping study methodology was used to examine the evidence available to support or refute each initial recommendation[18]. The potential effects of CRRC recommendations on primary outcomes in future trials were considered. We examined the primary outcome variables from RCT using similar inclusion criteria to determine if there was any significant influence on expected short-term and longterm outcomes for American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response[19], European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response[20], and radiographic progression.

RESULTS
Literature search
DISCUSSION

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.