Harold E. Paulus

OBJECTIVE: Trials of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatments report the average response in multiple outcome measures for treated patients. It is more clinically relevant to test whether individual patients improve with treatment, and this identifies a single primary efficacy measure. Multiple definitions of improvement are currently in use in different trials. The goal of this study was to promulgate a single definition for use in RA trials. METHODS: Using the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) core set of outcome measures for RA trials, we tested 40 different definitions of improvement, using a 3-step process. First, we performed a survey of rheumatologists, using actual patient cases from trials, to evaluate which definitions corresponded best to rheumatologists' impressions of improvement, eliminating most candidate definitions of improvement. Second, we tested 20 remaining definitions to determine which maximally discriminated effective treatment from placebo treatment and also minimized placebo response rates. With 8 candidate definitions of improvement remaining, we tested to see which were easiest to use and were best in accord with rheumatologists' impressions of improvement. RESULTS: The following definition of improvement was selected: 20% improvement in tender and swollen joint counts and 20% improvement in 3 of the 5 remaining ACR core set measures: patient and physician global assessments, pain, disability, and an acute-phase reactant. Additional validation of this definition was carried out in a comparative trial, and the results suggest that the definition is statistically powerful and does not identify a large percentage of placebo-treated patients as being improved. CONCLUSION: We present a definition of improvement which we hope will be used widely in RA trials.

Peer Reviewed

OBJECTIVE: To develop a set of disease activity measures for use in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) clinical trials, as well as to recommend specific methods for assessing each outcome measure. This is not intended to be a restrictive list, but rather, a core set of measures that should be included in all trials. METHODS: We evaluated disease activity measures commonly used in RA trials, to determine which measures best met each of 5 types of validity: construct, face, content, criterion, and discriminant. The evaluation consisted of an initial structured review of the literature on the validity of measures, with an analysis of data obtained from clinical trials to fill in gaps in this literature. A committee of experts in clinical trials, health services research, and biostatistics reviewed the validity data. A nominal group process method was used to reach consensus on a core set of disease activity measures. This set was then reviewed and finalized at an international conference on outcome measures for RA clinical trials. The committee also selected specific ways to assess each outcome. RESULTS: The core set of disease activity measures consists of a tender joint count, swollen joint count, patient's assessment of pain, patient's and physician's global assessments of disease activity, patient's assessment of physical function, and laboratory evaluation of 1 acute-phase reactant. Together, these measures sample the broad range of improvement in RA (have content validity), and all are at least moderately sensitive to change (have discriminant validity). Many of them predict other important long-term outcomes in RA, including physical disability, radiographic damage, and death. Other disease activity measures frequently used in clinical trials were not chosen for any one of several reasons, including insensitivity to change or duplication of information provided by one of the core measures (e.g., tender joint score and tender joint count). The committee also proposes specific ways of measuring each outcome. CONCLUSION: We propose a core set of outcome measures for RA clinical trials. We hope this will decrease the number of outcomes assessed and standardize outcomes assessments. Further, we hope that these measures will be found useful in long-term studies.

Guidelines and recommendations developed and/or endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) are intended to provide guidance for particular patterns of practice and not to dictate the care of a particular patient. The ACR considers adherence to these guidelines and recommendations to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in light of each patient’s individual circumstances. Guidelines and recommendations are intended to promote beneficial or desirable outcomes but cannot guarantee any specific outcome. Guidelines and recommendations developed or endorsed by the ACR are subject to periodic revision as warranted by the evolution of medical knowledge, technology, and practice.

Low density lipoproteins and the triglyceride-rich lipoproteins of human serum each contain proteins of high molecular weight termed apolipoprotein B, which have previously been thought to be identical. We have isolated four species of apolipoprotein B with unique molecular weights and amino acid compositions. We have assigned numerical designations to these species in a centile system based upon their relative apparent Mr in NaDodSO4. One which we term B-100, with an apparent Mr of 549,000 +/- 7650 (SD) determined by NaDodSO4 gel electrophoresis, predominates in low density and very low density lipoproteins and is also present in chylomicrons from thoracic duct lymph or from plasma. Substantial amounts of two large proteins designated B-74 (apparent Mr 407,000 +/- 5790) and B-26 (apparent Mr 144,500 +/- 8970), which appear to be complementary fragments or constituents of the B-100 protein, are found in the low density lipoproteins of many individuals. A distinct protein, B-48, with an apparent Mr of 264,000 +/- 8150 is a major and constant constituent of chylomicrons from thoracic duct lymph or from plasma.