4.5 Review

Creative trial design in RA: optimizing patient outcomes

Journal

NATURE REVIEWS RHEUMATOLOGY
Volume 9, Issue 3, Pages 183-194

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nrrheum.2013.5

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institute of Health Research
  2. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0508-10299] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Versus Arthritis
  4. Cancer Research UK [18475] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The rheumatology community has witnessed remarkable advances in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) made possible by the development of highly effective biologic DMARDs. Robust randomized controlled trials of clinical efficacy, equipped with validated outcome measures, ensured these therapies could enter the clinical arena and thus substantially improve patient outcomes. Current management principles, which follow a 'treat-to-target' paradigm, advocate tight control of disease activity with the aim of achieving clinical remission. However, efficacy trials are not yet aligned with this approach, hampering patient recruitment. This impediment and the usual approach of inclusion of previously failed treatment arms (to protect methodological concerns) is prompting reappraisal of RA trial design and the consideration of more pragmatic studies that reflect real-life practice. In addition, the aspirations of the rheumatology community to strive for personalized medicine means innovative approaches to trial design are needed to complement the efficacy trial. This Review appraises the current trial landscape and provides insights and key concepts from other fields such as oncology as to the potential utility (as well as the limitations) of pragmatic trial designs such as adaptive trials and biomarker-driven trials. Buch, M. H. etal. Nat. Rev. Rheumatol. 9, 183-194(2013); published online 5 February 2013; doi:10.1038/nrrheum.2013.5

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available