Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34301852›Full record

ArticleLupus science & medicine2021

Lupus clinical trial eligibility in a real-world setting: results from the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-Biologics Register (BILAG-BR).

Sarah Dyball, Sophie Collinson, Emily Sutton, Eoghan M McCarthy, Ian N Bruce, Ben Parker

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Lupus science & medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Lupus clinical trials and the promise of future therapies.Rheumatology and immunology research · 2023
    Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Sarah DyballCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Division of Musculoskeletal & Dermatological Sciences, The University of Manchester Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6201-7391
Sophie CollinsonThe Kellgren Centre for Rheumatology, NIHR Manchester Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Emily SuttonCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Division of Musculoskeletal & Dermatological Sciences, The University of Manchester Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, Manchester, UK.
Eoghan M McCarthyThe Kellgren Centre for Rheumatology, NIHR Manchester Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Ian N BruceCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Division of Musculoskeletal & Dermatological Sciences, The University of Manchester Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3047-500X
Ben ParkerThe Kellgren Centre for Rheumatology, NIHR Manchester Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK ben.parker@mft.nhs.uk.
University of Manchester · GB

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council MR/M01665X/1Medical Research Council MR/N025989/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo quantify how well phase III randomised clinical trials in both SLE and lupus nephritis (LN) represents a real-world SLE cohort.

methodsLiterature reviews were performed of major published phase III SLE (n=12) and LN (n=6) clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.gov). Inclusion and exclusion criteria common across these trials were collated for non-renal SLE or LN trials, and applied to patients recruited to the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-Biologics Register (BILAG-BR) starting either biological or standard-of-care (SOC) therapies.

resultsWe recruited 837 patients to the BILAG-BR from September 2010 to June 2018, starting either SOC (n=125, 15%) or a biological medication (n=712, 85%). Active LN, defined as a BILAG A in the renal domain occurred in 20% (n=166). Overall, 530 (63%) patients were ineligible to participate in non-renal SLE clinical trials and 72 (43%) patients with active LN would be ineligible for LN trials. The most common reasons for ineligibility from the non-renal lupus trials included active renal involvement (n=166, 20%) and low disease activity (n=114, 15%). For LN trials, the most common exclusion met was pre-existing renal impairment (n=15, 9%). Patients with fewer comorbidities were more likely to be eligible to participate in non-renal SLE trials.

conclusionsIn this national register of patients with moderate-to-severe SLE, nearly two-thirds would not be eligible for recruitment to key SLE clinical trials nor would almost half of those with active LN. Eligibility criteria may excessively constrain enrolment and thus, how we can generalise trial results in a real-world setting.

Indexed as

Biological ProductsLupus NephritisClinical Trials as TopicCohort StudiesHumansKidneyUnited KingdomBiological Productsbiological productsepidemiologylupus erythematosuslupus nephritissystemictherapeutics

Identifiers

PMID34301852
PMCPMC8311338
OpenAlexW3185737038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.