SAGE Journals Online
Advertisement
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Lupus
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Strand, V
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Strand, V
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Clinical trial design in systemic lupus erythematosus: lessons learned and future directions

V Strand

Division of Immunology and Rheumatology, Stanford University, Portola Valley, CA, USA, vstrand{at}aol.com

Designing successful randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) poses many challenges. It remains difficult to correlate alterations in biologic markers with clinical outcome, especially when signs and symptoms are intermittent and broadly variable between patients. Disease activity indices were not designed specifically as outcome measures in RCTs, as they were developed in the context of longitudinal observational studies. Although all disease activity indices have been validatedagainsteach other and demonstratedto show change, organ system manifestations are variably weighted; fatigue and autoantibodytiters are scored in some and not in others. Due to the variability of the underlying disease course an assessment of disease activity may most accurately be portrayed as change over time, such as an area under the curve analysis. Another lesson learned is that ’responder indices’ proposed in the absence of prospective validation in RCTs do not function well. The argument can always be made that any response criteria will work if the treatment is effective;but without the precedent of a product specifically approved for use in SLE, this is hard to prove. The ACR/Systemic Lupus International Cooperating Clinics (SLICC) damage index was designed to score irreversible manifestations of disease or consequences of its treatment, provided they had been present for at least six months. The damage index may best be utilized to stratify patients or balance randomization at baseline. It may also be incorporated into an endpoint analysis, to ensure that treatment or disease associated deterioration in organ system function (that may be overlooked in scoring disease activity alone) has not occurred. Patient cohort data have demonstrated that the medical outcomes survey short form-36 (SF-36) reflected the effects of SLE better than other patient reported measures. Worsening SF-36 domain scores best correlate with higher disease activity, increased glucocorticoid doses and use of cytotoxic agents. It has been shown sensitive to change in RCTs and observationalcohorts, and reflects the impact of treatment with high dose glucocorticoids and immunosuppressiveagents, as well as end stage renal disease. There is now a body of data derived from RCTs in SLE. Albeit limited, yet to result in an approved therapy, evidence is accumulating that indicate ’early markers’ of response can be defined which may correlate with longer term clinical outcomes. This should inform us in our ongoing efforts to clinically test a broad variety of promising interventions.

Key Words: clinical trials • outcome measures • SLE

Lupus, Vol. 13, No. 5, 406-411 (2004)
DOI: 10.1191/0961203303lu1034oa


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Ann Rheum DisHome page
G Bertsias, J P A Ioannidis, J Boletis, S Bombardieri, R Cervera, C Dostal, J Font, I M Gilboe, F Houssiau, T Huizinga, et al.
EULAR recommendations for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus. Report of a Task Force of the EULAR Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutics
Ann Rheum Dis, February 1, 2008; 67(2): 195 - 205.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
LupusHome page
K Mcelhone, J Abbott, and L -S Teh
A review of health related quality of life in systemic lupus erythematosus
Lupus, October 1, 2006; 15(10): 633 - 643.
[Abstract] [PDF]



Advertisement