ArticleACR open rheumatology2022
External Validation of the Lupus Multivariable Outcome Score for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Trials.
Article in ACR open rheumatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meeting report: the ALPHA project: a stakeholder meeting on lupus clinical trial outcome measures and the patient perspective.Lupus science & medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDevelopment of new systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) treatments requires an effective responder index. Toward this end, we have recently developed a new Lupus Multivariable Outcome Score (LuMOS) to optimize discrimination between actively treated patients and those on placebo. We now report on external validation of LuMOS in two independent clinical trials.
methodsValidation was performed with the Illuminate data sets that evaluated tabalumab (TB) in SLE. To accommodate laboratory results assessed on different platforms, we developed a standardized LuMOS 2.0 model that uses z score transformations of biomarker values. For validation, we calculated LuMOS 2.0 scores at week 52 for all participants. Effect size (ES), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), compared the ability of LuMOS and the SLE Responder Index-5 (SRI-5) to discriminate between outcomes in patients randomized to TB dosage and outcomes in those randomized to a placebo.
resultsMean LuMOS 2.0 scores were significantly higher (P < 0.0001) for the TB groups than the placebo group, including the Illuminate-1 trial, in which the SRI-5 did not identify significant treatment effects. For both TB groups in both trials, LuMOS 2.0-based ES indicated moderately strong treatment effects (>0.4) in contrast to weak SRI-5 effects (<0.25). For monthly TB, LuMOS 2.0-based ES were 0.44 (95% CI: 0.30-0.59) and 0.54 (95% CI: 0.39-0.68) for the Illuminate-1 and Illuminate-2 trials versus corresponding SRI-5-based ES of 0.13 (95% CI: -0.02 to +0.27) and 0.15 (95% CI: 0.01-0.30).
conclusionLuMOS 2.0 detected significantly greater treatment effects compared with the SRI-5 in the Illuminate trials. Additional validation of LuMOS 2.0 in trials of non-B cell-directed therapies will be necessary to document its universality as an outcome measure.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.