4.3 Article

Development of the Asia Pacific Lupus Collaboration cohort

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 425-433

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1756-185X.13431

关键词

Asia Pacific region; lupus low disease activity state; systemic lupus erythematous

资金

  1. Janssen
  2. GlaxoSmithKline
  3. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  4. UCB
  5. AstraZeneca

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim The aim of this manuscript is to describe the development of the Asia Pacific Lupus Collaboration (APLC) cohort. Method The APLC cohort is an ongoing, prospective longitudinal cohort. Adult patients who meet either the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Modified Classification Criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), or the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) Classification Criteria, and provide informed consent are recruited into the cohort. Patients are routinely followed up at 3- to 6-monthly intervals. Information on demographics, clinical manifestations, treatment, pathology results, outcomes, and patient-reported quality of life (Short-form 36 version 2) are collected using a standardized case report form. Each site is responsible for obtaining local ethics and governance approval, patient recruitment, data collection, and data transfer into a centralized APLC database. Results The latest APLC cohort comprises 2160 patients with >12 000 visits from Australia, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand. The APLC has proposed the Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS) as a treat-to-target (T2T) endpoint, and reported several retrospective and cross-sectional analyses consistent with the validity of LLDAS. Longitudinal validation of LLDAS as a T2T endpoint is currently underway. Conclusion The APLC cohort is one of the largest contemporary SLE patient cohorts in the world. It is the only cohort with substantial representation of Asian patients. This cohort represents a unique resource for future clinical research including evaluation of other endpoints and quality of care.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据