Standardizing assessment of adverse effects in rheumatology clinical trials. Status of OMERACT Toxicity Working Group March 2000: Towards a common understanding of comparative toxicity/safety profiles for antirheumatic therapies

This paper describes the background and current status of an OMERACT facilitated effort to improve the consistency of adverse event reporting in rheumatology clinical trials, The overall goal is the development of an adverse event assessment tool that would provide a basis for use of common terminology and improve the consistency of reporting severity of side effects within rheumatology clinical trials and during postmarketing surveillance. The resulting Rheumatology Common Toxicity Criteria Index encompassed the following organ systems: allergic/immunologic, cardiac, ENT, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, neuropsychiatric, ophthalmologic, pulmonary and skin/integument. Before this tool is widely accepted, its validity, consistency, and feasibility need to be assessed in clinical trials.

Patient based method of assessing adverse events in clinical trials in rheumatology: the revised Stanford Toxicity Index

We describe the progress towards developing a patient rated toxicity index that meets all of the patient-important attributes defined by the OMERACT Drug Safety Working Party, These attributes are frequency, severity. importance to patient, importance to the clinician, impact on economics, impact on activities, and integration of adverse effects with benefits. The Stanford Toxicity Index (STI) has been revised to collect all attributes with the exception of impact on activities. However, since the STI is a part of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). impact on activities is collected by the HAQ. In particular, a new question asks patients to rate overall satisfaction, taking into consideration both benefits and adverse effects. The nest step in the development of this tool is to ensure that the STI meets the OMERACT filter of truth, discrimination, and feasibility. Although truth and feasibility have been confirmed by comparisons within the ARAMIS database, discrimination needs to be assessed in clinical trials.

Clinical trials with glycoprotein IIB/IIIA antagonists - No benefit without bleeding?

As the glycoprotein GPIIb/IIIa receptor is the final common pathway in platelet aggregation, antagonists of this receptor cause a profound inhibition of aggregation induced by any agonist. The short-term efficacy and safety of GPIIb/IIIa antagonists in patients undergoing coronary angioplasty was demonstrated with murine 7E3 Fab, but this antibody was immunogenic. Abciximab is a chimeric human-mouse monoclonal antibody that is less immunogenic. The first major trial with a GPIIb/IIIa antagonist was the EPIC trial with abciximab, which showed that abciximab reduced the ischemic complications of coronary balloon angioplasty and atherectomy in high-risk patients, but increased the risk of bleeding. Subsequent studies showed that using less concurrent heparin reduced bleeding. Abciximab also reduced the rate of revascularization. Further studies have shown that the benefits of abciximab extended to all patients undergoing angioplasty (EPILOG), including patients with unstable angina (CAPTURE) and acute myocardial infarction (RAPPORT). Clinical trials with eptifibatide and tirofiban have failed to demonstrate benefit, at the doses used, in angioplasty. Abciximab and eptifibatide, but not oral xemilofiban, improve the safety of the coronary stenting procedure. Shortterm intravenous treatment with lamifiban, eptifibatide or tirofiban is beneficial in acute coronary syndromes (unstable angina, non-Q wave myocardial infarction). Orally active GPIIb/IIIa antagonists are being developed for use in acute coronary syndromes and myocardial infarction. However, no benefit has been shown with lefradafiban in acute coronary syndromes and sibrafiban and orbofiban are harmful. Eptifibatide, lamifiban and abciximab improve coronary patency in myocardial infarction, and long-term trials of GPIIb/IIIa antagonists are being conducted in acute myocardial infarction. Abciximab can cause thrombocytopenia, and all the GPIIb/IIIa antagonists increase the incidence of bleeding, but there is no excess of intracranial hemorrhage. (C) 2001 Prous Science. All rights reserved.

Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations

Objective. To provide recommendations for the core outcome domains that should be considered by investigators conducting clinical trials of the efficacy and effectiveness of treatments for chronic pain. Development of a core set of outcome domains would facilitate comparison and pooling of data, encourage more complete reporting of outcomes, simplify the preparation and review of research proposals and manuscripts, and allow clinicians to make informed decisions regarding the risks and benefits of treatment. Methods. Under the auspices of the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT), 27 specialists from academia. governmental agencies, and the pharmaceutical industry participated in a consensus meeting and identified core outcome domains that should be considered in clinical trials of treatments for chronic pain. Conclusions. There was a consensus that chronic pain clinical trials should assess outcomes representing six core domains: (1) pain, (2) physical functioning, (3) emotional functioning, (4) participant ratings of improvement and satisfaction with treatment, (5) symptoms and adverse events, (6) participant disposition (e.g. adherence to the treatment regimen and reasons for premature withdrawal from the trial). Although consideration should be given to the assessment of each of these domains, there may be exceptions to the general recommendation to include all of these domains in chronic pain trials. When this occurs, the rationale for not including domains should be provided. It is not the intention of these recommendations that assessment of the core domains should be considered a requirement for approval of product applications by regulatory agencies or that a treatment must demonstrate statistically significant effects for all of the relevant core domains to establish evidence of its efficacy. (C) 2003 International Association for the Study of Pain.

Outcome variables for osteoarthritis clinical trials: the OMERACT-OARSI set of responder criteria

Improvement in analysis and reporting results of osteoarthritis (OA) clinical trials has been recently obtained because of harmonization and standardization of the selection of outcome variables (OMERACT 3 and OARSI). Moreover, OARSI has recently proposed the OARSI responder criteria. This composite index permits presentation of results of symptom modifying clinical trials in OA based on individual patient responses (responder yes/no). The 2 organizations (OMERACT and OARSI) established. a task force aimed at evaluating: (1) the variability of observed placebo and active treatment effects using the OARSI responder criteria; and (2) the possibility of proposing a simplified set of criteria. The conclusions of the task force were presented and discussed during the OMERACT 6 conference, where a simplified set of responder criteria (OMERACT-OARSI set of criteria) was proposed.