The comparative responsiveness of Hospital Universitario Princesa Index and other composite indices for assessing rheumatoid arthritis activity

Objective To evaluate the responsiveness in terms of correlation of the Hospital Universitario La Princesa Index (HUPI) comparatively to the traditional composite indices used to assess disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to compare the performance of HUPI-based response criteria with that of the EULAR response criteria. Methods Secondary data analysis from the following studies: ACT-RAY (clinical trial), PROAR (early RA cohort) and EMECAR (pre-biologic era long term RA cohort). Responsiveness was evaluated by: 1) comparing change from baseline (Delta) of HUPI with Delta in other scores by calculating correlation coefficients; 2) calculating standardised effect sizes. The accuracy of response by HUPI and by EULAR criteria was analyzed using linear regressions in which the dependent variable was change in global assessment by physician (Delta GDA-Phy). Results Delta HUPI correlation with change in all other indices ranged from 0.387 to 0.791); HUPI's standardized effect size was larger than those from the other indices in each database used. In ACT-RAY, depending on visit, between 65 and 80% of patients were equally classified by HUPI and EULAR response criteria. However, HUPI criteria were slightly more stringent, with higher percentage of patients classified as non-responder, especially at early visits. HUPI response criteria showed a slightly higher accuracy than EULAR response criteria when using Delta GDA-Phy as gold standard. Conclusion HUPI shows good responsiveness in terms of correlation in each studied scenario (clinical trial, early RA cohort, and established RA cohort). Response criteria by HUPI seem more stringent than EULAR''s

PERTINENT - PERindopril-Thrombosis, InflammatioN, endothelial dysfunction and neurohormonal activation trial: A sub-study of the EUROPA study

BACKGROUND: Markers of thrombosis, inflammation, endothelial dysfunction and neurohumoral activation such as fibrinogen, D-dimer, C-reactive protein, von Willebrand factor, tumour necrosis factor-alpha and chromogranin-A are reported to be linked to the increase of cardiovascular risk for atherosclerosis progression and events in patients with cardiovascular diseases. METHODS: EUROPA is a double blind, placebo-controlled trial on 12,231 patients that evaluates the effect of an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor--perindopril--on prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease. PERTINENT is a sub-study of EUROPA that evaluates (a) in Part A (300 patients): the influence of perindopril vs. placebo on fibrinogen, D-dimer, C-reactive protein, von Willebrand factor, tumour necrosis factor-alpha and chromogranin-A. In addition, NOS expression and induction of apoptosis on human umbilical vein endothelial cells and angiotensin converting enzyme levels are also studied; (b) in Part B (about 1200 patients): the predictive role of plasma levels of C-reactive protein and von Willebrand factor on the occurrence of cardiovascular events. To this end, matched case-control analyses are planned (patients with vs. patients without events). STATUS OF PERTINENT: Blood analyses are in progress in four specialised laboratories: (a) Gaubius Laboratory, Leiden, TNO-PG, The Netherlands; (b) University Department of Medicine, Birmingham, UK; (c) University of Pavia, Italy; (d) Fondazione Salvatore Maugeri, Cardiovascular Research Centre, Gussago, Italy. CONCLUSIONS: The PERTINENT sub-study might help elucidating the phenomena contributing to the pathophysiology of cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease and the role of perindopril in such context

Efficacy of perindopril in reduction of cardiovascular events among patients with stable coronary artery disease: randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial (the EUROPA study)

BACKGROUND: Treatment with angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduces the rate of cardiovascular events among patients with left-ventricular dysfunction and those at high risk of such events. We assessed whether the ACE inhibitor perindopril reduced cardiovascular risk in a low-risk population with stable coronary heart disease and no apparent heart failure. METHODS: We recruited patients from October, 1997, to June, 2000. 13655 patients were registered with previous myocardial infarction (64%), angiographic evidence of coronary artery disease (61%), coronary revascularisation (55%), or a positive stress test only (5%). After a run-in period of 4 weeks, in which all patients received perindopril, 12218 patients were randomly assigned perindopril 8 mg once daily (n=6110), or matching placebo (n=6108). The mean follow-up was 4.2 years, and the primary endpoint was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or cardiac arrest. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Mean age of patients was 60 years (SD 9), 85% were male, 92% were taking platelet inhibitors, 62% beta blockers, and 58% lipid-lowering therapy. 603 (10%) placebo and 488 (8%) perindopril patients experienced the primary endpoint, which yields a 20% relative risk reduction (95% CI 9-29, p=0.0003) with perindopril. These benefits were consistent in all predefined subgroups and secondary endpoints. Perindopril was well tolerated. INTERPRETATION: Among patients with stable coronary heart disease without apparent heart failure, perindopril can significantly improve outcome. About 50 patients need to be treated for a period of 4 years to prevent one major cardiovascular event. Treatment with perindopril, on top of other preventive medications, should be considered in all patients with coronary heart disease