Magnetic resonance imaging in psoriatic arthritis: a review of the literature

Psoriatic arthritis is a diverse condition that may be characterized by peripheral inflammatory arthritis, axial involvement, dactylitis and enthesitis. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allows visualization of soft tissue, articular and entheseal lesions, and provides a unique picture of the disease process that cannot be gained using other imaging modalities. This review focuses on the literature on MRI in psoriatic arthritis published from 1996 to July 2005. The MRI features discussed include synovitis, tendonitis, dactylitis, bone oedema, bone erosions, soft tissue oedema, spondylitis/sacroiliitis and subclinical arthropathy. Comparisons have been drawn with the more extensive literature describing the MRI features of rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis

Ankylosing Spondylitis Patients Commencing Biologic Therapy Have High Baseline Levels of Comorbidity: A Report from the Australian Rheumatology Association Database

Aims. To compare the baseline characteristics of a population-based cohort of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) commencing biological therapy to the reported characteristics of bDMARD randomised controlled trials (RCTs) participants. Methods. Descriptive analysis of AS participants in the Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD) who were commencing bDMARD therapy. Results. Up to December 2008, 389 patients with AS were enrolled in ARAD. 354 (91.0%) had taken bDMARDs at some time, and 198 (55.9%) completed their entry questionnaire prior to or within 6 months of commencing bDMARDs. 131 (66.1%) had at least one comorbid condition, and 24 (6.8%) had a previous malignancy (15 nonmelanoma skin, 4 melanoma, 2 prostate, 1 breast, cervix, and bowel). Compared with RCT participants, ARAD participants were older, had longer disease duration and higher baseline disease activity. Conclusions. AS patients commencing bDMARDs in routine care are significantly different to RCT participants and have significant baseline comorbidities

Baseline Comorbidities in a Population-Based Cohort of Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Receiving Biological Therapy: Data from the Australian Rheumatology Association Database

Aims. To describe the baseline characteristics of an Australian population-based cohort of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients commencing biological therapy. Methods. Descriptive analysis from the Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD). Results. Up to October 2006, there were 681 RA patients taking biologics enrolled in ARAD. Baseline data were available for 624 (72% female, mean (SD) age 57.0 (12.5) years). Of these, 59.5% reported at least one comorbid condition, most commonly hypertension (35.7%) and osteoporosis (30.4%); 61 (9.8%) had a history of malignancy (35 nonmelanoma skin, 5 breast, 4 bowel, 5 cervix, 3 melanoma, 3 prostate and 1 each of lip, lung, myeloma, testis, uterus, vagina). Self-reported infections within the previous 6 months were common (71.5%). Conclusions. History of comorbidities, including recent infections, is common among Australian RA patients commencing biologics, and 10% have a history of malignancy. This may impact future evaluations of health outcomes among this population, including attribution of adverse events of biologic therapy

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)

<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

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

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

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

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

Musculoskeletal ultrasound including definitions for ultrasonographic pathology

Ultrasound (US) has great potential as an outcome in rheumatoid arthritis trials for detecting bone erosions, synovitis, tendon disease, and enthesopathy. It has a number of distinct advantages over magnetic resonance imaging, including good patient tolerability and ability to scan multiple joints in a short period of time. However, there are scarce data regarding its validity, reproducibility, and responsiveness to change, making interpretation and comparison of studies difficult. In particular, there are limited data describing standardized scanning methodology and standardized definitions of US pathologies. This article presents the first report from the OMERACT ultrasound special interest group, which has compared US against the criteria of the OMERACT filter. Also proposed for the first time are consensus US definitions for common pathological lesions seen in patients with inflammatory arthritis

Reporting of surrogate endpoints in randomised controlled trial protocols (SPIRIT-Surrogate): extension checklist with explanation and elaboration

Randomised controlled trials often use surrogate endpoints to substitute for a target outcome (an outcome of direct interest and relevance to trial participants, clinicians, and other stakeholders—eg, all cause mortality) to improve efficiency (through shortened duration of follow-up, reduced sample size, and lower research costs), and for ethical or practical reasons. However, their use has a fundamental limitation in terms of uncertainty of the intervention effect on the target outcome and limited information on potential intervention harms. There have been increasing calls for improved reporting of trial protocols that use surrogate endpoints. This report presents the SPIRIT-Surrogate, an extension of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist, a consensus driven reporting guideline designed for trial protocols using surrogate endpoints as the primary outcome(s). The SPIRIT-Surrogate extension includes nine items modified from the SPIRIT 2013 checklist. The guideline provides examples and explanations for each item. We recommend that all stakeholders (including trial investigators and sponsors, research ethics reviewers, funders, journal editors, and peer reviewers) use this extension in reporting trial protocols that use surrogate endpoints. Its use will allow for improved design of such trials, improved transparency, and interpretation of findings when trials are completed, and ultimately reduced research waste

Reporting of surrogate endpoints in randomised controlled trial reports (CONSORT-Surrogate): extension checklist with explanation and elaboration

Randomised controlled trials commonly use surrogate endpoints to substitute for a target outcome (outcome of direct interest and relevance to trial participants, clinicians, and other stakeholders—eg, all cause mortality) to improve their efficiency (through shorter trial duration, reduced sample size, and thus lower research costs), or for ethical or practical reasons. But reliance on surrogate endpoints can increase the uncertainty of an intervention’s treatment effect and potential failure to provide adequate information on intervention harms, which has led to calls for improved reporting of trials using surrogate endpoints. This report presents a consensus driven reporting guideline for trials using surrogate endpoints as the primary outcomes—the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extension checklist: CONSORT-Surrogate. The extension includes nine items modified from the CONSORT 2010 checklist and two new items. Examples and explanations for each item are provided. We recommend that all stakeholders (including trial investigators and sponsors, journal editors and peer reviewers, research ethics reviewers, and funders) use this extension in reporting trial reports using surrogate endpoints. Use of this checklist will improve transparency, interpretation, and usefulness of trial findings, and ultimately reduce research waste