Skip Navigation


Rheumatology Advance Access originally published online on February 10, 2005
Rheumatology 2005 44(5):629-632; doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keh565
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
44/5/629    most recent
keh565v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kingsley, G. H.
Right arrow Articles by Scott, D. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kingsley, G. H.
Right arrow Articles by Scott, D. L.
Related Collections
Right arrow Rheumatoid Arthritis
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org

Are clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis generalizable to routine practice? A re-evaluation of trial entry criteria

G. H. Kingsley1,3, B. Khoshaba1, C. M. Smith1, E. H. Choy1,2 and D. L. Scott1,2

Department of Rheumatology, 1 GKT School of Medicine, Weston Education Centre, Kings College, 10 Cutcombe Road, London SE5 9RS, 2 Kings College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9RS and 3 University Hospital Lewisham, Lewisham High Street, London SE13 6LH, UK.

Correspondence to: G. H. Kingsley, Department of Rheumatology, GKT School of Medicine, Weston Education Centre, Kings College, Cutcombe Road, London SE5, UK. E-mails: gabrielle.kingsley{at}kcl.ac.uk and janice.jimenez{at}kcl.ac.uk

Objective. Trials of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) enrol active rheumatoid arthritis patients identified using standard criteria (three out of four of: ≥6 tender joints, ≥6 swollen joints, ESR ≥ 28 mm/h, ≥45 min morning stiffness). Concern has been expressed about generalizability, as many patients in routine practice have less active disease. Furthermore, these criteria do not map onto standard disease activity and treatment response measures. We examined how many routine patients were sufficiently active to meet trial recruitment criteria and whether alternative definitions of active disease were more appropriate.

Methods. We studied 504 patients in a cross-sectional study, 156 in a longitudinal study and 94 starting new DMARDs or biologics. Patients were classified as ‘trial active’ (met entry criteria), in remission or ‘intermediately active’ (between the two). We also evaluated the effect of amendments to criteria.

Results. Cross-sectionally only 38% patients were ‘trial active’, but longitudinally 68% were ‘trial active’ at least once. Thus, many clinic patients do have disease activity below the level required for trial entry, but over time most reach eligibility levels. More (62%) of the cohort starting new treatment were ‘trial active’, suggesting that recruitment criteria relate to clinical decisions. Criteria omitting morning stiffness and a disease activity score (DAS28) ≥5.4 replicated the classification given by current criteria.

Conclusions. Trial results can be generalized to routine practice because most clinic patients are ‘trial active’ when their therapy is changed and most become ‘trial active’ over time. As DAS-based criteria are simpler and relate directly to response measures, their use should be considered in future.

KEY WORDS: Rheumatoid arthritis, Clinical assessment, Clinical trial methodologies


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.