What is a response in randomised controlled trials in giant cell arteritis?

Glucocorticoids (GCs) are the gold standard for treatment of giant cell arteritis (GCA); however, there is a need for studies on GC-sparing agents, given that up to 85% of patients receiving GC only develop adverse events. Previous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have applied different primary endpoints, limiting the comparison of treatment effects in meta-analyses and creating an undesired heterogeneity of outcomes. The harmonisation of response assessment is therefore an important unmet need in GCA research. In this viewpoint article, we discuss the challenges and opportunities with the development of new, internationally accepted response criteria. A change of disease activity is a fundamental component of response; however, it is debatable whether the ability to taper GC and/or the maintenance of a disease state for a specific time period, as applied in recent RCTs, should be part of response assessment. The role of imaging and novel laboratory biomarkers as possible objective markers of disease activity needs further investigation but might be a possibility when drugs directly or indirectly influence the levels of traditional acute-phase reactants such as erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C reactive protein. Futures response criteria might be constructed as a multidomain set, but the questions about which domains will be included and what their relative weights will be still need to be answered.Pathophysiology and treatment of rheumatic disease

There is a need for new systemic sclerosis subset criteria. A content analytic approach

Objectives: Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is heterogenous. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the purpose, strengths and limitations of existing SSc subset criteria, and identify ideas among experts about subsets. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with randomly sampled international SSc experts. The interview transcripts underwent an iterative process with text deconstructed to single thought units until a saturated conceptual framework with coding was achieved and respondent occurrence tabulated. Serial cross-referential analyses of clusters were developed. Results: Thirty experts from 13 countries were included; 67% were male, 63% were from Europe and 37% from North America; median experience of 22.5 years, with a median of 55 new SSc patients annually. Three thematic clusters regarding subsetting were identified: research and communication; management; and prognosis (prediction of internal organ involvement, survival). The strength of the limited/diffuse system was its ease of use, however 10% stated this system had marginal value. Shortcomings of the diffuse/limited classification were the risk of misclassification, predictions/generalizations did not always hold true, and that the elbow or knee threshold was arbitrary. Eighty-seven percent use more than 2 subsets including: SSc sine scleroderma, overlap conditions, antibody-determined subsets, speed of progression, and age of onset (juvenile, elderly). Conclusions: We have synthesized an international view of the construct of SSc subsets in the modern era. We found a number of factors underlying the construct of SSc subsets. Considerations for the next phase include rate of change and hierarchal clustering (e.g. limited/diffuse, then by antibodies)