Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38360028›Full record

ReviewLupus science & medicine2024

Clinical trial outcomes for SLE: what we have and what we need.

Laurent Arnaud, Ioannis Parodis, Hervé Devilliers, Francois Chasset

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Lupus science & medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Selenium: 48-year journey of global clinical trials.Molecular and cellular biochemistry · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Laurent ArnaudService de rhumatologie, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Université de Strasbourg, Centre National de Référence Maladies Rares Est Sud-Ouest (RESO), Strasbourg, France laurent.arnaud@chru-strasbourg.fr.ORCID 0000-0002-8077-8394
Ioannis ParodisService de rhumatologie, Institut Karolinska, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-4875-5395
Hervé DevilliersServide de Médecine interne, CHU Dijon - Bourgogne, Hôpital F. MITTERRAND, Dijon, France.
Francois ChassetSorbonne Université, Faculté de médecine, AP-HP, Service de Dermatologie et Allergologie, Hôpital Tenon, and INSERM U1135, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-2580-8607
Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg · FRInserm · FRKarolinska Institutet · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The paradigm of drug approval in SLE currently relies on successful large phase III randomised controlled trials and a set of primary, secondary and additional end points. Taken together, these outcomes offer a nuanced understanding of the efficacy and safety of the investigational agent. In this review, we thoroughly examine the main outcomes used in SLE trials and highlight unmet requirements as well as potential venues for future trial design in SLE. Disease activity indices can be broadly categorised into global-specific and organ-specific indices, in particular for skin, joints and kidneys, but there is no universal consensus about their use in clinical trials. Because each of these instruments has its own intrinsic strengths and weaknesses, the assessment of treatment response has progressed from relying solely on one individual disease activity index to using composite responder definitions. Those are typically measured from the trial baseline to the end point assessment date and may be combined with the need to taper and maintain glucocorticoids (GCs) within prespecified ranges. Remission and low disease activity are two critical states in the perspective of 'Treat-to-Target' trials, but are not fully recognised by regulators. While significant progress has been made in clinical trial outcomes for SLE, there is a clear need for continued innovation. Addressing these challenges will require collaboration between researchers, clinicians, patients as well as with regulatory agencies to refine existing outcome measures, incorporate meaningful and ethnically diverse patient perspectives, foster relevant digital opportunities and explore new therapeutic avenues, including early use of investigational agents. By doing so, we can advance our ability to manage SLE effectively and safely and improve the lives of those living with this complex and impactful autoimmune disease.

Indexed as

Lupus Erythematosus, SystemicClinical Trials as TopicClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicDrug ApprovalGlucocorticoidsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignSeverity of Illness IndexTreatment OutcomeGlucocorticoidsautoimmune diseasesclinical trialdisease activitysystemic lupus erythematosus

Identifiers

PMID38360028
PMCPMC10875561
OpenAlexW4391849336

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.