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.

Randomisation in clinical trials

Randomisation is the process of assigning clinical trial participants to treatment groups. Randomisation gives each participant a known (usually equal) chance of being assigned to any of the groups. Successful randomisation requires that group assignment cannot be predicted in advance.

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.

Experimental chemotherapy of Schistosomiasis III: laboratory and clinical trials with trichlorphone, an organophosphorus compound

Oogram studies have been carried out on mice, hamsters, and Cebus morikeys experimentally infected with Schistosoma mansoni and treated with trichlorphone (0,0-dimethyl 1-hydroxy-2, 2, 2-trichloroethylphosphonate). In mice, despite a slight hepatic shift of schistosomes, all animais presented oogram changes when dosed, per os, at the schedules of 200, and 100 mg/kg/day × 7. In hamsters, antischistosomal activity could be detected only at toxic leveis. In monkeys, trichlorphone showed insignificant action even after oral administration of 30 mg/kg/day for 10 consecutive days. In 5 volunteers, a sharp drop in cholinesterase plasma level was observed 24 hours after a single oral dose of 7.5 mg/kg. However, cholinesterase levels returned to the initial values within a period of 11 to 27 days. Trichlorphone was then administered to 12 schistosome patients (7.5 mg/kg/day, every fort- night, × 5). One month after therapy, interruption of egg laying was observed in 6 patients. Late parasitological control showed that all treated patients continued to pass viable S. mansoni eggs with their stools.

Multivariate analysis applied to clinical analysis data

Dissertação para obtenção do Grau de Mestre em Engenharia e Gestão Industrial

Guidelines on how to assess the validity of results presented in subgroup analysis of clinical trials

In observational studies, identification of associations within particular subgroups is the usual method of investigation. As an exploratory method, it is the bread and butter of epidemiological research. Nearly everything that has been learned in epidemiology has been derived from the analysis of subgroups. In a randomized clinical trial, the entire purpose is the comparison of the test subjects and the controls, and when there is particular interest in the results of treatment in a certain section of trial participants, a subgroup analysis is performed. These subgroups are examined to see if they are liable to a greater benefit or risk from treatment. Thus, analyzing patient subsets is a natural part of the process of improving therapeutic knowledge through clinical trials. Nevertheless, the reliability of subgroup analysis can often be poor because of problems of multiplicity and limitations in the numbers of patients studied. The naive interpretation of the results of such examinations is a cause of great confusion in the therapeutic literature. We emphasize the need for readers to be aware that inferences based on comparisons between subgroups in randomized clinical trials should be approached more cautiously than those based on the main comparison. That is, subgroup analysis results derived from a sound clinical trial are not necessarily valid; one must not jump to conclusions and accept the validity of subgroup analysis results without an appropriate judgment.