scholarly journals Canadian Recommendations for Clinical Trials of Pharmacologic Interventions in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Inclusion Criteria and Study Design: Table 1.

2011 ◽  
Vol 38 (10) ◽  
pp. 2095-2104 ◽  
Author(s):  
JACOB KARSH ◽  
EDWARD C. KEYSTONE ◽  
BOULOS HARAOUI ◽  
J. CARTER THORNE ◽  
JANET E. POPE ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Study Design ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Nominal Group ◽  
Consensus Method ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Design Features

Objective.Current clinical trial designs for pharmacologic interventions in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) do not reflect the innovations in RA diagnosis, treatment, and care in countries where new drugs are most often used. The objective of this project was to recommend revised entry criteria and other study design features for RA clinical trials.Methods.Recommendations were developed using a modified nominal group consensus method. Canadian Rheumatology Research Consortium (CRRC) members were polled to rank the greatest challenges to clinical trial recruitment in their practices. Initial recommendations were developed by an expert panel of rheumatology trialists and other experts. A scoping study methodology was then used to examine the evidence available to support or refute each initial recommendation. The potential influence of CRRC recommendations on primary outcomes in future trials was examined. Recommendations were finalized using a consensus process.Results.Recommendations for clinical trial inclusion criteria addressed measures of disease activity [Disease Activity Score 28 using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) > 3.2 PLUS ≥ 3 tender joints using 28-joint count (TJC28) PLUS ≥ 3 swollen joint (SJC28) OR C-reactive protein (CRP) or ESR > upper limit of normal PLUS ≥ 3 TJC28 PLUS ≥ 3 SJC28], functional classification, disease classification and duration, and concomitant RA treatments. Additional recommendations regarding study design addressed rescue strategies and longterm extension.Conclusion.There is an urgent need to modify clinical trial inclusion criteria and other study design features to better reflect the current characteristics of people living with RA in the countries where the new drugs will be used.

scholarly journals Plasma interferon-alpha is associated with double-positivity for autoantibodies but is not a predictor of remission in early rheumatoid arthritis—a spin-off study of the NORD-STAR randomized clinical trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marit Stockfelt ◽  
Anna-Carin Lundell ◽  
Merete Lund Hetland ◽  
Mikkel Østergaard ◽  
Till Uhlig ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Early Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Treatment Initiation ◽  
Certolizumab Pegol ◽  
Type I ◽  
Protein Levels ◽  
Early Ra

Abstract Background The type I interferon (IFN) gene signature is present in a subgroup of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Protein levels of IFNα have not been measured in RA and it is unknown whether they associate with clinical characteristics or treatment effect. Methods Patients with early untreated RA (n = 347) were randomized to methotrexate combined with prednisone, certolizumab-pegol, abatacept, or tocilizumab. Plasma IFNα protein levels were determined by single molecular array (Simoa) before and 24 weeks after treatment initiation and were related to demographic and clinical factors including clinical disease activity index, disease activity score in 28 joints, swollen and tender joint counts, and patient global assessment. Results IFNα protein positivity was found in 26% of the patients, and of these, 92% were double-positive for rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA). IFNα protein levels were reduced 24 weeks after treatment initiation, and the absolute change was similar irrespective of treatment. IFNα protein positivity was associated neither with disease activity nor with achievement of CDAI remission 24 weeks after randomization. Conclusion IFNα protein positivity is present in a subgroup of patients with early RA and associates with double-positivity for autoantibodies but not with disease activity. Pre-treatment IFNα positivity did not predict remission in any of the treatment arms, suggesting that the IFNα system is distinct from the pathways of TNF, IL-6, and T-cell activation in early RA. A spin-off study of the NORD-STAR randomized clinical trial, NCT01491815 (ClinicalTrials), registered 12/08/2011, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01491815.

scholarly journals Practical and conceptual issues of clinical trial registration for Brazilian researchers

2015 ◽  
Vol 134 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolina Gomes Freitas ◽  
Thomas Fernando Coelho Pesavento ◽  
Maurício Reis Pedrosa ◽  
Rachel Riera ◽  
Maria Regina Torloni
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
International Committee ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Trial Registration ◽  
Clinical Trial Registry ◽  
Clinical Trial Registration ◽  
Registration Process ◽  
Trial History ◽  
Definition Of

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Clinical trial registration is a prerequisite for publication in respected scientific journals. Recent Brazilian regulations also require registration of some clinical trials in the Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (ReBEC) but there is little information available about practical issues involved in the registration process. This article discusses the importance of clinical trial registration and the practical issues involved in this process. DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive study conducted by researchers within a postgraduate program at a public university in São Paulo, Brazil. METHODS: Information was obtained from clinical trial registry platforms, article reference lists and websites (last search: September 2014) on the following topics: definition of a clinical trial, history, purpose and importance of registry platforms, the information that should be registered and the registration process. RESULTS: Clinical trial registration aims to avoid publication bias and is required by Brazilian journals indexed in LILACS and SciELO and by journals affiliated to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Recent Brazilian regulations require that all clinical trials (phases I to IV) involving new drugs to be marketed in this country must be registered in ReBEC. The pros and cons of using different clinical trial registration platforms are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trial registration is important and various mechanisms to enforce its implementation now exist. Researchers should take into account national regulations and publication requirements when choosing the platform on which they will register their trial.

scholarly journals Awareness and Opinions of Research Professionals on India's New Drug and Clinical Trials Regulations: Protocol for a Cross-Sectional Web-Based Survey Study

10.2196/14744 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e14744
Author(s):  
Vishal Vennu ◽  
Saurabh Dahiya
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Survey Study ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Google Docs ◽  
New Drug ◽  
Research Professionals

Background Although several studies have been conducted and several articles have been published on India's new clinical trial regulations, very few have examined the views of investigators and ethics board members regarding modifications to the previous regulations. Overall, they have neglected to find out the opinions of other relevant professionals, such as research assistants, coordinators, associates, and managers. To our knowledge, no study has yet investigated the awareness and opinions of Indian research professionals on the new 2019 regulations. Objective This study aims to describe the awareness and opinions of Indian research professionals on the new drug and clinical trial regulations. Methods In this cross-sectional, Web-based study, we will conduct an open survey for various Indian research professionals. These professionals will be selected randomly using multiple sources. The survey questionnaires, which have already been validated, were developed using the form function in Google docs. A Web link was generated for participants to take the survey. Descriptive statistics will be shown as means and standard deviations for constant variables, whereas certain variables will instead be shown as numbers and percentages. Results The survey was opened in July 2019. Enrollment has already started and will be completed in three months. The results calculations are expected to begin in October 2019. Conclusions The results of the survey are expected to represent the views of research professionals on the new regulations that will support the development of clinical research and the pharmaceutical industry in India. These regulations are expected to help advance clinical trials, help with the approval of new drugs, and enhance ethical norms in the country. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) PRR1-10.2196/14744

scholarly journals Clinical Trial Regulations In India : Past, Present and Future

JMS SKIMS ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-17
Author(s):  
Haroon Rashid
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Disease Burden ◽  
International Standards ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Regulatory Bodies ◽  
Guidance Documents ◽  
Human Use

Clinical trials are the only way of establishing the safety and efficacy of any new drug before its introduction in the market for human use. Clinical trials (with safeguards) are necessary for introduction of new drugs for a country like India, considering its disease burden and emergence of new variants of disease.The regulatory bodies need to frame guidelines and regulatory approval processes on a par with international standards. Many of the new laws, guidance documents, notifications and initiatives for regulating pharmaceutical industry were in the charts for quite a long time. Indian regulatory authorities have started looking into speedy implementation and providing support in terms ofnecessary infrastructure and investment. JMS 2017; 20(1):5-17

scholarly journals Tackling rare diseases: Clinical trials on chips

2020 ◽  
Vol 245 (13) ◽  
pp. 1155-1162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra H Blumenrath ◽  
Bo Y Lee ◽  
Lucie Low ◽  
Ranjini Prithviraj ◽  
Danilo Tagle
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Rare Disease ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Rare Diseases ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Design Data ◽  
Chip Technology ◽  
Microphysiological Systems

Technological advances with organs-on-chips and induced pluripotent stem cells promise to overcome hurdles associated with developing medical products, especially for rare diseases. Organs-on-chips—bioengineered “microphysiological systems” that mimic human tissue and organ functionality—may overcome clinical trial challenges with real-world patients by offering ways to conduct “clinical trials-on-chips” (CToCs) to inform the design and implementation of rare disease clinical studies in ways not possible with other culture systems. If applied properly, CToCs can substantially impact clinical trial design with regard to anticipated key outcomes, assessment of clinical benefit and risk, safety and tolerability profiles, population stratification, value and efficiency, and scalability. To discuss how tissue chips are best used to move the development of rare disease therapies forward, a working group of experts from industry, academia, and FDA as well as patient representatives addressed questions related to disease setting, test agents for microphysiological systems, study design and feasibility, data collection and use, the benefits and risks associated with this approach, and how to engage stakeholders. While rare diseases with no current therapies were considered the ultimate target, participants cautioned against stepping onto too many unknown territories when using rare disease as initial test beds. Among the disease categories considered ideal for initial CToC tests were well-defined diseases with known clinical outcomes; diseases where tissues on chips can serve as an alternative to risky first-in-human studies, such as in pediatric oncology; and diseases that lend itself to immuno-engineering or genome editing. Participants also considered important challenges, such as hosting the chip technology in-house, the high variability of cell batches and the resulting regulatory concerns, as well as the financial risk associated with the new technology. To make progress in this area and increase confidence with the use of tissue chips, the re-purposing of approved drugs ought to be the very first step. Impact statement Designing and conducting clinical trials are extremely difficult in rare diseases. Adapting tissue chips for rare disease therapy development is pivotal in assuring that treatments are available, especially for severe diseases that are difficult to treat. Thus far, the NCATS-led National Institutes of Health (NIH) Tissue Chip program has focused on deploying the technology towards in vitro tools for safety and efficacy assessments of therapeutics. However, exploring the feasibility and best possible approach to expanding this focus towards the development phase of therapeutics is critical to moving the field of CToCs forward and increasing confidence with the use of tissue chips. The working group of stakeholders and experts convened by NCATS and the Drug Information Association (DIA) addresses important questions related to disease setting, test agents, study design, data collection, benefit/risk, and stakeholder engagement—exploring both current and future best use cases and important prerequisites for progress in this area.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the Disease Activity Score in Twenty‐Eight Joints–Based Flare Definitions in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Data From a Three‐Year Clinical Trial

2015 ◽  
Vol 67 (12) ◽  
pp. 1762-1766 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maxime Dougados ◽  
Tom W. J. Huizinga ◽  
Ernest H. Choy ◽  
Clifton O. Bingham ◽  
Maher Aassi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Disease Activity Score ◽  
Activity Score ◽  
Rheumatoid Arthritis Data

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patterns of care: Implications for clinical trial design

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4079-4079 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. S. Denlinger ◽  
M. A. Collins ◽  
Y. Wong ◽  
S. Litwin ◽  
N. J. Meropol
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Trial Design ◽  
Clinical Trial Design ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Treatment Change ◽  
Therapy Regimen

4079 Background: New approaches have expanded options for patients (pts) with mCRC. To characterize current practice paradigms that might bear on clinical trial design, we analyzed decision-making and treatment patterns in pts treated at a Comprehensive Cancer Center since the introduction of cetuximab (CET), and bevacizumab (BV). Methods: A retrospective review of all pts diagnosed with mCRC between 3/1/04 and 8/28/06 treated at Fox Chase Cancer Center. Results: 160 pts were treated, with 157 pts receiving at least one therapy regimen by 10 attending oncologists. There were 350 changes in therapy with 246 (70%) including continuation of at least one prior drug (92 BV, 111 fluoropyrimidines, 43 other). The most common reasons for treatment change were toxicity (33%), progressive disease (PD) (29%), treatment breaks (15%), and metastasectomy (11%) ( Table ). PD was a more common cause for treatment discontinuation in later phases of treatment (18% initial regimen vs. 36% subsequent regimens, p=0.0002). 24% of pts treated with oxaliplatin (OX) discontinued due to neuropathy. Hypersensitivity caused discontinuation in 5% of pts with OX and 7% of pts with CET. Resection of metastases was undertaken in 38% of pts. 43% of these pts received neoadjuvant therapy, and 56% received adjuvant therapy. 30% of pts have died, 29% remain on active treatment, 28% are on a treatment break, 3% are on hospice, and 11% are lost to follow-up. Conclusions: PD is no longer the primary reason for change of therapy in pts with mCRC. Metastasectomy is common and OX neuropathy is often treatment-limiting. These findings have important implications for endpoint selection and design of clinical trials in mCRC. Future clinical trials in mCRC must recognize treatment complexities and capture key components of decision-making that may result in prolonged survival. Furthermore, treatment breaks represent a potential window for the evaluation of new drugs. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Effect of the Application of Trial Inclusion Criteria on the Efficacy of Adalimumab Therapy in a Rheumatoid Arthritis Cohort

2011 ◽  
Vol 38 (9) ◽  
pp. 1884-1890 ◽  
Author(s):  
INGRID M. VISMAN ◽  
GEERTJE M. BARTELDS ◽  
WOUTER OUWERKERK ◽  
ANITA C.J. RAVELLI ◽  
LINDA M. PEELEN ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Daily Practice ◽  
Joint Disease ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Rheumatoid Arthritis Cohort ◽  
Adalimumab Therapy ◽  
Adalimumab Treatment ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Large Prospective Cohort

Objective.To evaluate the influence of inclusion criteria used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) trials with adalimumab on clinical outcome and response.Methods.The different inclusion criteria of published trials of adalimumab in RA were separately applied to a large prospective cohort of patients with RA treated with adalimumab (AdRA cohort), thereby mimicking patient selection for a clinical trial. Clinical response and outcome in the resulting 11 projection groups were compared using the 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) and time-averaged DAS28 as outcome measures of efficacy.Results.Thirteen trials (n = 54–799) with 11 different sets of entry criteria were identified, resulting in 11 projection groups (n = 22–168). The DAS28 at baseline was similar in the original trial and each projection group based on this trial (5.1–6.4, total AdRA cohort 5.1). After 28 weeks, the efficacy varied substantially among the 11 projected groups (change from baseline DAS28: −1.65 to −2.65, time-averaged DAS28 3.67–4.53). Expressed as outcome (DAS28 at 28 weeks), the efficacy was much more similar for almost all projection groups (3.5–4.0) and thus appeared to be mostly independent of disease activity at baseline.Conclusion.We observed that different inclusion criteria for clinical trials can have a marked effect on the expected response, i.e., improvement from baseline. A novel finding is that final disease activity appeared much less dependent on initial disease activity. Our study suggests that for daily practice, one can assume that adalimumab treatment will on average result in a DAS28 between 3.5 and 4.0 after 28 weeks of treatment, regardless of baseline disease activity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document