Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37798046›Full record

SynthesisLupus science & medicine2023

Selection of indicators reporting response rate in pharmaceutical trials for systemic lupus erythematosus: preference and relative sensitivity.

Jingru Tian, Shuntong Kang, Dingyao Zhang, Yaqing Huang, Xu Yao, Ming Zhao, Qianjin Lu

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Lupus science & medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
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

7 authors.

Jingru Tian *Institute of Dermatology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China qianlu5860@pumcderm.cams.cn jingru.tian@pumcderm.cams.cn zhaoming301@pumcderm.cams.cn.
Shuntong Kang *Department of Dermatology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Dingyao ZhangGraduate Program in Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Yaqing HuangDepartment of Pathology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Xu YaoInstitute of Dermatology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Ming ZhaoInstitute of Dermatology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China qianlu5860@pumcderm.cams.cn jingru.tian@pumcderm.cams.cn zhaoming301@pumcderm.cams.cn.
Qianjin LuInstitute of Dermatology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China qianlu5860@pumcderm.cams.cn jingru.tian@pumcderm.cams.cn zhaoming301@pumcderm.cams.cn.ORCID 0000-0002-4192-4897

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveSLE is a common multisystem autoimmune disease with chronic inflammation. Many efficacy evaluation indicators of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) for SLE have been proposed but the comparability remains unknown. We aim to explore the preference and comparability of indicators reporting response rate and provide basis for primary outcome selection when evaluating the efficacy of SLE pharmaceutical treatment.

methodsWe systematically searched three databases and three registries to identify pharmacological intervention-controlled SLE RCTs. Relative discriminations between indicators were assessed by the Bayesian hierarchical linear mixed model.

results33 RCTs met our inclusion criteria and we compared eight of the most commonly used indicators reporting response rate. SLE Disease Activity Index 4 (SLEDAI-4) and SLE Responder Index 4 were considered the best recommended indicators reporting response rate to discriminate the pharmacological efficacy. Indicator preference was altered by disease severity, classification of drugs and outcome of trials, but SLEDAI-4 had robust efficacy in discriminating ability for most interventions. Of note, BILAG Index-based Combined Lupus Assessment showed efficacy in trials covering all-severity patients, as well as non-biologics RCTs. The British Isles Lupus Assessment Group response and Physician's Global Assessment response were more cautious in evaluating disease changes. Serious adverse event was often applied to evaluate the safety and tolerability of treatments rather than efficacy.

conclusionsThe impressionable efficacy discrimination ability of indicators highlights the importance of flexibility and comprehensiveness when choosing primary outcome(s). As for trials that are only evaluated by SLEDAI-4, attention should be paid to outcome interpretation to avoid the exaggeration of treatment efficacy. Further subgroup analyses are limited by the number of included RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022334517.

Indexed as

Antibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedLupus Erythematosus, SystemicHumansPharmaceutical PreparationsSeverity of Illness IndexTreatment OutcomeAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedPharmaceutical PreparationsClinical TrialOutcome Assessment, Health CareSystemic Lupus Erythematosus

Identifiers

PMID37798046
PMCPMC10565300

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.