The impact of endpoint measures in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials

https://doi.org/10.1016/0049-0172(92)90022-6Get rights and content

Abstract

In clinical trials on the effectiveness of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), it is common to apply a large number of endpoint measures. This practice has several disadvantages. To determine which endpoint measures are most valuable, reports of 32 clinical trials on six DMARDs were reviewed. The frequency with which each endpoint measure was used is described and discussed, as well as the frequency with which the values of each endpoint were significantly different in statistical comparisons within or between groups, thus showing ability to discriminate between drugs not equally effective. The results of this review are discussed and compared with other reports in the literature on the choice of endpoint measures in RA clinical trials. The authors conclude that it is still common practice to evaluate multiple outcome measures. The number of measures could be reduced by using only those that are generally considered important, are sensitive to change, and are able to differentiate between drugs in clinical trials. A joint count, assessment of pain, a questionnaire on functional status, and measurement of erythrocyte sedimentation rate are sufficient.

References (64)

  • C Bombardier et al.

    Auranofin Cooperating Group: Auranofin therapy and quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Results of a multicenter trial

    Am J Med

    (1986)
  • BS Bull et al.

    Efficacy of tests used to monitor rheumatoid arthritis

    Lancet

    (1989)
  • N Bellamy et al.

    Clinical evaluation in rheumatic diseases

  • DT Felson et al.

    Time for changes in the design, analysis, and reporting of rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials

    Arthritis Rheum

    (1990)
  • HA Smythe et al.

    Selection and combination of outcome measures

    J Rheumatol

    (1982)
  • DMFM van der Heijde et al.

    Judging disease activity in clinical practice in rheumatoid arthritis: First step in the development of a disease activity score

    Ann Rheum Dis

    (1990)
  • HE Paulus et al.

    Cooperative Systematic Studies of Rheumatic Diseases Group: Analysis of improvement in individual rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs based on the findings in patients treated with placebo

    Arthritis Rheum

    (1990)
  • MJ Davis et al.

    Comparison and evaluation of a disease activity index for use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

    Br J Rheumatol

    (1990)
  • RK Mallya et al.

    The assessment of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis using a multivariate analysis

    Rheumatol Rehabil

    (1981)
  • JF Fries et al.

    Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis

    Arthritis Rheum

    (1980)
  • RF Meenan et al.

    Measuring health status in arthritis: The Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale

    Arthritis Rheum

    (1980)
  • T Pincus et al.

    Self-report questionnaire scores in rheumatoid arthritis compared with traditional physical, radiographic, and laboratory measures

    Ann Intern Med

    (1989)
  • MW Ropes et al.

    1958 revision of diagnostic criteria for rheumatoid arthritis

    Bull Rheum Dis

    (1958)
  • FC Arnett et al.

    The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis

    Arthritis Rheum

    (1988)
  • MH Arnold et al.

    Comparative controlled trial of low-dose weekly methotrexate versus azathioprine in rheumatoid arthritis: 3-year prospective study

    Br J Rheumatol

    (1990)
  • G Borg et al.

    Auranofin improves outcome in early rheumatoid arthritis. Results from a 2-year, double blind, placebo controlled study

    J Rheumatol

    (1988)
  • GW Cannon et al.

    Clinical and laboratory outcomes during the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with methotrexate

    Scand J Rheumatol

    (1990)
  • HA Capell et al.

    A three year follow up of patients allocated to placebo, or orally or injectable gold therapy for rheumatoid arthritis

    Ann Rheum Dis

    (1986)
  • GJ Carroll et al.

    Sulphasalazine versus penicillamine in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

    Rheumatol Int

    (1989)
  • GD Champion et al.

    Dose response studies and longterm evaluation of auranofin in rheumatoid arthritis

    J Rheumatol

    (1988)
  • DE Furst et al.

    Increasing methotrexate effect with increasing dose in the treatment of resistant rheumatoid arthritis

    J Rheumatol

    (1989)
  • T Gibson et al.

    Combined d-penicillamine and chloroquine treatment of rheumatoid arthritis—A comparative study

    Br J Rheumatol

    (1987)
  • H Hamdy et al.

    Low-dose methotrexate compared with azathioprine in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. A twenty-four-week controlled clinical trial

    Arthritis Rheum

    (1987)
  • M Harth et al.

    Comparison between sodium aurothiomalate and auranofin in rheumatoid arthritis. Results of a two-year open randomized study

    Scand J Rheumatol

    (1987)
  • DM van der Heyde et al.

    Effects of hydroxychloroquine and sulphasalazine on progression of joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis

    Lancet

    (1989)
  • DM van der Heyde et al.

    Sensitivity of a Dutch health assessment questionnaire in a trial comparing hydroxychloroquine vs. sulphasalazine

    Scand J Rheumatol

    (1990)
  • MC Hochberg

    Auranofin or d-penicillamine in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

    Ann Intern Med

    (1986)
  • V Johnsen et al.

    Auranofin (SK&F) in early rheumatoid arthritis: results from a 24-month double-blind, placebo-controlled study

    Scand J Rheumatol

    (1989)
  • R Manthorpe et al.

    Auranofin versus penicillamine in rheumatoid arthritis. One-year results from a prospective clinical investigation

    Scand J Rheumatol

    (1986)
  • P Morassut et al.

    Gold sodium thiomalate compared to low dose methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis—A randomized, double blind 26-week trial

    J Rheumatol

    (1989)
  • A prospective five-year comparison of treatment which included penicillamine with that excluding penicillamine in early rheumatoid arthritis

    Br J Rheumatol

    (1986)
  • IH Nuver-Zwart et al.

    A double blind comparative study of sulphasalazine and hydroxychloroquine in rheumatoid arthritis: Evidence of an earlier effect of sulphasalazine

    Ann Rheum Dis

    (1989)
  • Cited by (0)

    1

    From the cooperating Departments of Rheumatology of the University Hospital, Utrecht; St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein; Diakonessen Hospital, Utrecht; and Eemland Hospital, Amersfoort, the Netherlands.

    2

    Dr van der Heide's research is funded by the “Nationaal Reumafonds” (Dutch Arthritis Foundation).

    View full text