93 research outputs found

    Assessment of the radioanatomic positioning of the osteoarthritic knee in serial radiographs: comparison of three acquisition techniques

    Get PDF
    SummaryObjectiveRecent studies using various standardized radiographic acquisition techniques have demonstrated the necessity of reproducible radioanatomic alignment of the knee to assure precise measurements of medial tibiofemoral joint space width (JSW). The objective of the present study was to characterize the longitudinal performance of several acquisition techniques with respect to long-term reproducibility of positioning of the knee, and the impact of changes in positioning on the rate and variability of joint space narrowing (JSN).MethodsEighty subjects were randomly selected from each of three cohorts followed in recent studies of the radiographic progression of knee osteoarthritis (OA): the Health ABC study (paired fixed-flexion [FF] radiographs taken at a 36-month interval); the Glucosamine Arthritis Intervention Trial (GAIT) (paired metatarsophalangeal [MTP] radiographs obtained at a 12-month interval), and a randomized clinical trial of doxycycline (fluoroscopically assisted semiflexed anteroposterior (AP) radiographs taken at a 16-month interval).Manual measurements were obtained from each radiograph to represent markers of radioanatomic positioning of the knee (alignment of the medial tibial plateau and X-ray beam, knee rotation, femorotibial angle) and to evaluate minimum JSW (mJSW) in the medial tibiofemoral compartment. The effects on the mean annualized rate of JSN and on the variability of that rate of highly reproduced vs variable positioning of the knee in serial radiographs were evaluated.ResultsParallel or near-parallel alignment was achieved significantly more frequently with the fluoroscopically guided positioning used in the semiflexed AP protocol than with either the non-fluoroscopic FF or MTP protocol (68% vs 14% for both FF and MTP protocols when measured at the midpoint of the medial compartment; 75% vs 26% and 34% for the FF and MTP protocols, respectively, when measured at the site of mJSW; P<0.001 for each). Knee rotation was reproduced more frequently in semiflexed AP radiographs than in FF radiographs (66% vs 45%, P<0.01). In contrast, the FF technique yielded a greater proportion of paired radiographs in which the femorotibial angle was accurately reproduced than the semiflexed AP or MTP protocol (78% vs 59% and 56%, respectively, P<0.01 for each). Notably, only paired radiographs with parallel or near-parallel alignment exhibited a mean rate of JSN (±SD) in the OA knee that was more rapid and less variable than that measured in all knees (0.186±0.274mm/year, standardized response to mean [SRM]=0.68 vs 0.128±0.291mm/year, SRM=0.44).ConclusionThis study confirms the importance of parallel radioanatomic alignment of the anterior and posterior margins of the medial tibial plateau in detecting JSN in subjects with knee OA. The use of radiographic methods that assure parallel alignment during serial X-ray examinations will permit the design of more efficient studies of biomarkers of OA progression and of structure modification in knee OA

    The EULAR-OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis MRI reference image atlas: the wrist joint

    Get PDF
    This paper presents the wrist joint MR images of the EULAR–OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis MRI reference image atlas. Reference images for scoring synovitis, bone oedema, and bone erosions according to the OMERACT RA MRI scoring (RAMRIS) system are provided. All grades (0–3) of synovitis are illustrated in each of the three wrist joint areas defined in the scoring system—that is, the distal radioulnar joint, the radiocarpal joint, and the intercarpal-carpometacarpal joints. For reasons of feasibility, examples of bone abnormalities are limited to five selected bones: the radius, scaphoid, lunate, capitate, and a metacarpal base. In these bones, grades 0–3 of bone oedema are illustrated, and for bone erosion, grades 0–3 and examples of higher grades are presented. The presented reference images can be used to guide scoring of wrist joints according to the OMERACT RA MRI scoring system

    A review of the methodological features of systematic reviews in maternal medicine

    Get PDF
    Background In maternal medicine, research evidence is scattered making it difficult to access information for clinical decision making. Systematic reviews of good methodological quality are essential to provide valid inferences and to produce usable evidence summaries to guide management. This review assesses the methodological features of existing systematic reviews in maternal medicine, comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews in maternal medicine. Methods Medline, Embase, Database of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) were searched for relevant reviews published between 2001 and 2006. We selected those reviews in which a minimum of two databases were searched and the primary outcome was related to the maternal condition. The selected reviews were assessed for information on framing of question, literature search and methods of review. Results Out of 2846 citations, 68 reviews were selected. Among these, 39 (57%) were Cochrane reviews. Most of the reviews (50/68, 74%) evaluated therapeutic interventions. Overall, 54/68 (79%) addressed a focussed question. Although 64/68 (94%) reviews had a detailed search description, only 17/68 (25%) searched without language restriction. 32/68 (47%) attempted to include unpublished data and 11/68 (16%) assessed for the risk of missing studies quantitatively. The reviews had deficiencies in the assessment of validity of studies and exploration for heterogeneity. When compared to Cochrane reviews, other reviews were significantly inferior in specifying questions (OR 20.3, 95% CI 1.1–381.3, p = 0.04), framing focussed questions (OR 30.9, 95% CI 3.7- 256.2, p = 0.001), use of unpublished data (OR 5.6, 95% CI 1.9–16.4, p = 0.002), assessment for heterogeneity (OR 38.1, 95%CI 2.1, 688.2, p = 0.01) and use of meta-analyses (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.3–10.8, p = 0.02). Conclusion This study identifies areas which have a strong influence on maternal morbidity and mortality but lack good quality systematic reviews. Overall quality of the existing systematic reviews was variable. Cochrane reviews were of better quality as compared to other reviews. There is a need for good quality systematic reviews to inform practice in maternal medicine

    Is blood pressure reduction a valid surrogate endpoint for stroke prevention? an analysis incorporating a systematic review of randomised controlled trials, a by-trial weighted errors-in-variables regression, the surrogate threshold effect (STE) and the biomarker-surrogacy (BioSurrogate) evaluation schema (BSES)

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Blood pressure is considered to be a leading example of a valid surrogate endpoint. The aims of this study were to (i) formally evaluate systolic and diastolic blood pressure reduction as a surrogate endpoint for stroke prevention and (ii) determine what blood pressure reduction would predict a stroke benefit.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We identified randomised trials of at least six months duration comparing any pharmacologic anti-hypertensive treatment to placebo or no treatment, and reporting baseline blood pressure, on-trial blood pressure, and fatal and non-fatal stroke. Trials with fewer than five strokes in at least one arm were excluded. Errors-in-variables weighted least squares regression modelled the reduction in stroke as a function of systolic blood pressure reduction and diastolic blood pressure reduction respectively. The lower 95% prediction band was used to determine the minimum systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure difference, the surrogate threshold effect (STE), below which there would be no predicted stroke benefit. The STE was used to generate the surrogate threshold effect proportion (STEP), a surrogacy metric, which with the R-squared trial-level association was used to evaluate blood pressure as a surrogate endpoint for stroke using the Biomarker-Surrogacy Evaluation Schema (BSES3).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In 18 qualifying trials representing all pharmacologic drug classes of antihypertensives, assuming a reliability coefficient of 0.9, the surrogate threshold effect for a stroke benefit was 7.1 mmHg for systolic blood pressure and 2.4 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure. The trial-level association was 0.41 and 0.64 and the STEP was 66% and 78% for systolic and diastolic blood pressure respectively. The STE and STEP were more robust to measurement error in the independent variable than R-squared trial-level associations. Using the BSES3, assuming a reliability coefficient of 0.9, systolic blood pressure was a B + grade and diastolic blood pressure was an A grade surrogate endpoint for stroke prevention. In comparison, using the same stroke data sets, no STEs could be estimated for cardiovascular (CV) mortality or all-cause mortality reduction, although the STE for CV mortality approached 25 mmHg for systolic blood pressure.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In this report we provide the first surrogate threshold effect (STE) values for systolic and diastolic blood pressure. We suggest the STEs have face and content validity, evidenced by the inclusivity of trial populations, subject populations and pharmacologic intervention populations in their calculation. We propose that the STE and STEP metrics offer another method of evaluating the evidence supporting surrogate endpoints. We demonstrate how surrogacy evaluations are strengthened if formally evaluated within specific-context evaluation frameworks using the Biomarker- Surrogate Evaluation Schema (BSES3), and we discuss the implications of our evaluation of blood pressure on other biomarkers and patient-reported instruments in relation to surrogacy metrics and trial design.</p

    Relationship between time-integrated disease activity estimated by DAS28-CRP and radiographic progression of anatomical damage in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The main aim of the study was to investigate the relationship between persistent disease activity and radiographic progression of joint damage in early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Forty-eight patients with active ERA was assessed every 3 months for disease activity for 3 years. Radiographic damage was measured by the Sharp/van der Heijde method (SHS). The cumulative inflammatory burden was estimated by the time-integrated values (area under the curve-AUC) of Disease Activity Score 28 joint based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) in rapid progressors versus non-progressors. Bland and Altman's 95% limits of agreement method were used to estimate the smallest detectable difference (SDD) of radiographic progression. The relationship between clinical and laboratory predictors of radiographic progression and their interactions with time was analysed by logistic regression model.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>After 3-years of follow-up, radiographic progression was observed in 54.2% (95%CI: 39.8% to 67.5%) of patients and SDD was 9.5 for total SHS. The percentage of patients with erosive disease increased from 33.3% at baseline to 76% at 36 months. The total SHS of the progressors worsened from a median (interquartile range) of 18.5 (15-20) at baseline to 38.5 (34-42) after 3 years (p < 0.0001) whereas non-progressors worsened from a median of 14.5 (13-20) at baseline to 22.5 (20-30) after 3 years (p < 0.001). In the regression model, time-integrated values of DAS28-CRP and anti-CCP positivity have the highest positive predictive value for progression (both at level of p < 0.0001). Radiographic progression was also predicted by a positive IgM-RF (p0.0009), and a high baseline joint damage (p = 0.0044).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>These data indicate that the level of disease activity, as measured by time-integrated DAS28-CRP, anti-CCP and IgM-RF positivity and a high baseline joint damage, affects subsequent progression of radiographic damage in ERA.</p

    CB1 Signaling in Forebrain and Sympathetic Neurons Is a Key Determinant of Endocannabinoid Actions on Energy Balance

    Get PDF
    SummaryThe endocannabinoid system (ECS) plays a critical role in obesity development. The pharmacological blockade of cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1) has been shown to reduce body weight and to alleviate obesity-related metabolic disorders. An unsolved question is at which anatomical level CB1 modulates energy balance and the mechanisms involved in its action. Here, we demonstrate that CB1 receptors expressed in forebrain and sympathetic neurons play a key role in the pathophysiological development of diet-induced obesity. Conditional mutant mice lacking CB1 expression in neurons known to control energy balance, but not in nonneuronal peripheral organs, displayed a lean phenotype and resistance to diet-induced obesity. This phenotype results from an increase in lipid oxidation and thermogenesis as a consequence of an enhanced sympathetic tone and a decrease in energy absorption. In conclusion, CB1 signaling in the forebrain and sympathetic neurons is a key determinant of the ECS control of energy balance

    A framework for the definition and interpretation of the use of surrogate endpoints in interventional trials

    Get PDF
    Background: Interventional trials that evaluate treatment effects using surrogate endpoints have become increasingly common. This paper describes four linked empirical studies and the development of a framework for defining, interpreting and reporting surrogate endpoints in trials. Methods: As part of developing the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) extensions for randomised trials reporting surrogate endpoints, we undertook a scoping review, e-Delphi study, consensus meeting, and a web survey to examine current definitions and stakeholder (including clinicians, trial investigators, patients and public partners, journal editors, and health technology experts) interpretations of surrogate endpoints as primary outcome measures in trials. Findings: Current surrogate endpoint definitional frameworks are inconsistent and unclear. Surrogate endpoints are used in trials as a substitute of the treatment effects of an intervention on the target outcome(s) of ultimate interest, events measuring how patients feel, function, or survive. Traditionally the consideration of surrogate endpoints in trials has focused on biomarkers (e.g., HDL cholesterol, blood pressure, tumour response), especially in the medical product regulatory setting. Nevertheless, the concept of surrogacy in trials is potentially broader. Intermediate outcomes that include a measure of function or symptoms (e.g., angina frequency, exercise tolerance) can also be used as substitute for target outcomes (e.g., all-cause mortality)—thereby acting as surrogate endpoints. However, we found a lack of consensus among stakeholders on accepting and interpreting intermediate outcomes in trials as surrogate endpoints or target outcomes. In our assessment, patients and health technology assessment experts appeared more likely to consider intermediate outcomes to be surrogate endpoints than clinicians and regulators. Interpretation: There is an urgent need for better understanding and reporting on the use of surrogate endpoints, especially in the setting of interventional trials. We provide a framework for the definition of surrogate endpoints (biomarkers and intermediate outcomes) and target outcomes in trials to improve future reporting and aid stakeholders' interpretation and use of trial surrogate endpoint evidence

    A framework for the definition and interpretation of the use of surrogate endpoints in interventional trials

    Get PDF
    Background: Interventional trials that evaluate treatment effects using surrogate endpoints have become increasingly common. This paper describes four linked empirical studies and the development of a framework for defining, interpreting and reporting surrogate endpoints in trials. Methods: As part of developing the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) extensions for randomised trials reporting surrogate endpoints, we undertook a scoping review, e-Delphi study, consensus meeting, and a web survey to examine current definitions and stakeholder (including clinicians, trial investigators, patients and public partners, journal editors, and health technology experts) interpretations of surrogate endpoints as primary outcome measures in trials. Findings: Current surrogate endpoint definitional frameworks are inconsistent and unclear. Surrogate endpoints are used in trials as a substitute of the treatment effects of an intervention on the target outcome(s) of ultimate interest, events measuring how patients feel, function, or survive. Traditionally the consideration of surrogate endpoints in trials has focused on biomarkers (e.g., HDL cholesterol, blood pressure, tumour response), especially in the medical product regulatory setting. Nevertheless, the concept of surrogacy in trials is potentially broader. Intermediate outcomes that include a measure of function or symptoms (e.g., angina frequency, exercise tolerance) can also be used as substitute for target outcomes (e.g., all-cause mortality)-thereby acting as surrogate endpoints. However, we found a lack of consensus among stakeholders on accepting and interpreting intermediate outcomes in trials as surrogate endpoints or target outcomes. In our assessment, patients and health technology assessment experts appeared more likely to consider intermediate outcomes to be surrogate endpoints than clinicians and regulators. Interpretation: There is an urgent need for better understanding and reporting on the use of surrogate endpoints, especially in the setting of interventional trials. We provide a framework for the definition of surrogate endpoints (biomarkers and intermediate outcomes) and target outcomes in trials to improve future reporting and aid stakeholders' interpretation and use of trial surrogate endpoint evidence. Funding: SPIRIT-SURROGATE/CONSORT-SURROGATE project is Medical Research Council Better Research Better Health (MR/V038400/1) funded
    • …
    corecore