Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Response to: ‘Correspondence on ‘Changing the outcome measures, changing the results? The urgent need of a specific disease activity score to adult-onset Still’s disease’’ by Muraviov and Muraviova
  1. Claudia Kedor1,
  2. Jan Zernicke1,
  3. Eugen Feist1,2
  1. 1 Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
  2. 2 Fachklinik Vogelsang/Gommern—Klinik für Rheumatologie, HELIOS Kliniken GmbH, Gommern, Vogelsang/Gommern, Germany
  1. Correspondence to Claudia Kedor, Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin 10117, Germany; claudia.kedor{at}charite.de

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Muraviov and Muraviova are asking for further1 elucidation of the chosen endpoints and a more detailed characterisation of the included patients in our study of canakinumab for the treatment of patients with adult-onset Still’s disease (AOSD) with articular involvement.2

As mentioned in our previous communication, at the time of Canakinumab for treatment of adult ONset StIll’s Disease to achiEve Reduction of arthritic manifestation (CONSIDER) trial conception in 2012, there were no approved drugs and no validated scores available for AOSD. On the other hand, accumulating evidence suggested that inhibition of Interleukin-1 (IL1) could be beneficial for the patients.2–5 Thus, our aim was to investigate the effects of canakinumab in a controlled setting to provide convincing data, which could even be useful for …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Handling editor Josef S Smolen

  • Collaborators The CONSIDER Study was supported by Novartis GmbH Deutschland.

  • Contributors CK undertook the primary duties in writing, editing and submitting the response letter. JZ revised the letter. EF revised the letter critically, advised on additional information to statistical analysis, references, adding important information to the letter.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests CK has received personal advisory board and congress fees from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Sobi. JZ has no competing interests. EF has received advisory board and speaker fees from Novartis, Roche, Sobi, Lilly, Pfizer, Abbvie, BMS, MSD and Sanofi.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles