Dataset Information

Comparison of alternative primary outcome measures for use in lupus nephritis clinical trials.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Clinical trials of therapies for lupus nephritis have used many different primary outcome measures, ranging from complete response to time to end-stage renal disease. The objective of this study was to compare several possible outcome measures, using data from a large, multicenter trial of abatacept in lupus nephritis, to gain insight into which outcome measure, if any, was best able to discern differences among treatment groups. METHODS:Study patients received either abatacept or placebo, on a background of mycophenolate mofetil and glucocorticoids. Using data from this trial, the following primary outcome measures at 24 and 52 weeks were compared: complete response rate, major clinical response rate, total response rate (complete plus partial response), improvement in proteinuria, improvement in estimated glomerular filtration rate, and frequency of treatment failure. Time to complete response was also evaluated. RESULTS:Complete response rate, major clinical response rate, and time to complete response were the measures that best discriminated between the abatacept groups and placebo, and the sensitivities of these 3 measures were comparable. For these measures, sample sizes of 50 patients would have been sufficient to demonstrate a statistically significant difference between treatment and control at 52 weeks. Each of the other measures also discriminated between treatment and control, but much larger group sizes would have been required to determine statistical significance. CONCLUSION:The choice of primary outcome measure can substantially influence the ability to detect therapeutic benefit in lupus nephritis trials. This study suggests that complete response rate, major clinical response rate at 52 weeks, and time to complete response may be the most sensitive outcome measures for detecting differences among therapeutic regimens.

SUBMITTER: Wofsy D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4398144 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of alternative primary outcome measures for use in lupus nephritis clinical trials.

Wofsy David D Hillson Jan L JL Diamond Betty B

Arthritis and rheumatism 20130601 6

<h4>Objective</h4>Clinical trials of therapies for lupus nephritis have used many different primary outcome measures, ranging from complete response to time to end-stage renal disease. The objective of this study was to compare several possible outcome measures, using data from a large, multicenter trial of abatacept in lupus nephritis, to gain insight into which outcome measure, if any, was best able to discern differences among treatment groups.<h4>Methods</h4>Study patients received either ab ...[more]

PMID: 23529285

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective: Clinical trials are the most effective method for evaluating therapeutic strategies. The purpose of this study was to comprehensively assess the characteristics of trials on lupus nephritis (LN) and provide a reference for LN treatment and research. Methods: Registered therapeutic trials on drug interventions for LN were obtained from ClinicalTrials.gov up to December 3, 2020. The general characteristics, methodological characteristics, detailed characteristics, investigated drugs, eligibility criteria, and outcome measures of these trials were analyzed. Results: A total of 126 eligible trials were evaluated, and these trials mainly investigated the initial treatment of adult proliferative LN. Half of the trials enrolled <50 participants, and 70.7% of the trials lasted for 6-24 months. In total, 95.2% of trials adopted an interventional study design. Of intervention trials, 56.6% were in phase 2 or phase 3, 76.7% were randomized, 77.5% employed a parallel assignment, and 41.7% were masked. The eligibility criteria and outcome measures of the included trials varied and involved a variety of indicators. Chemical agents and biologics are the most widely studied immunotherapies, of which mycophenolate mofetil, tacrolimus, and rituximab are the most studied. In addition, some trials studied cell transplantation treatment. Conclusions: The majority of clinical trials for LN therapy registered on ClinicalTrials.gov investigated the initial treatment of adult proliferative LN, and most of these trials were randomized, parallel assigned, and insufficiently masked interventional trials with small scale, short duration, various eligibility criteria, and outcome measures. We hope that more large-scale, long-term multicenter, and high-quality RCT trials with standardized inclusion criteria/exclusion criteria and treatment effect evaluation systems will be conducted and that more energy and funding will be put into exploring biological products and stem cell therapies. In addition, trials for membranous LN, childhood-onset LN, and maintenance phase LN are needed to establish optimal treatment strategies.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Acute severe haemorrhage is a common complication of injury, childbirth, surgery, gastrointestinal pathologies and other medical conditions. Bleeding is a major cause of death, but patients also die from non-bleeding causes, the frequency of which varies by the site of haemorrhage and between populations. Because patients can bleed to death within hours, established interventions inevitably take priority over randomisation into a trial. These circumstances raise challenges in selecting appropriate outcome measures for clinical trials of haemostatic interventions. MAIN BODY:We use data from three large randomised controlled trials in acute severe haemorrhage (CRASH-2, WOMAN and HALT-IT) to explore the strengths and limitations of outcome measures commonly used in trials of haemostatic treatments, including all-cause and cause-specific mortality, blood transfusion and surgical interventions. Many deaths following acute severe haemorrhage are due to patient comorbidities or complications rather than bleeding. If non-bleeding deaths are unaffected by a haemostatic intervention, even large trials will have low power to detect an effect on all-cause mortality. Due to the dilution from deaths unaffected or reduced by the trial treatment, all-cause mortality can also obscure important harmful effects. Additionally, because the relative contributions of different causes of death vary within and between patient populations, all-cause mortality is not generalisable. Different causes of death occur at different time intervals from bleeding onset, with bleeding deaths generally occurring early. Time-specific mortality can therefore be used as a proxy for cause in un-blinded trials where bias is a concern or in situations where cause of death cannot be assessed. Urgent treatment is critical, and so post-randomisation blood transfusion and surgery are often planned before or at the time of randomisation and therefore cannot be influenced by the trial treatment. CONCLUSIONS:All-cause mortality has low power, lacks generalisability and can obscure harmful effects. Cause-specific mortality, such as death due to bleeding or thrombosis, avoids these drawbacks. In certain scenarios, time-specific mortality can be used as a proxy for cause-specific mortality. Blood transfusion and surgical procedures have limited utility as outcome measures in trials of haemostatic treatments.

Dataset Information

Comparison of alternative primary outcome measures for use in lupus nephritis clinical trials.

Publications

Comparison of alternative primary outcome measures for use in lupus nephritis clinical trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets