34
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Using serum urate as a validated surrogate end point for flares in patients with gout: protocol for a systematic review and meta-regression analysis

      protocol

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Gout is the most common inflammatory arthritis in men over 40 years of age. Long-term urate-lowering therapy is considered a key strategy for effective gout management. The primary outcome measure for efficacy in clinical trials of urate-lowering therapy is serum urate levels, effectively acting as a surrogate for patient-centred outcomes such as frequency of gout attacks or pain. Yet it is not clearly demonstrated that the strength of the relationship between serum urate and clinically relevant outcomes is sufficiently strong for serum urate to be considered an adequate surrogate. Our objective is to investigate the strength of the relationship between changes in serum urate in randomised controlled trials and changes in clinically relevant outcomes according to the ‘Biomarker-Surrogacy Evaluation Schema version 3’ (BSES3), documenting the validity of selected instruments by applying the ‘OMERACT Filter 2.0’.

          Methods and analysis

          A systematic review described in terms of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines will identify all relevant studies. Standardised data elements will be extracted from each study by 2 independent reviewers and disagreements are resolved by discussion. The data will be analysed by meta-regression of the between-arm differences in the change in serum urate level (independent variable) from baseline to 3 months (or 6 and 12 months if 3-month values are not available) against flare rate, tophus size and number and pain at the final study visit (dependent variables).

          Ethics and dissemination

          This study will not require specific ethics approval since it is based on analysis of published (aggregated) data. The intended audience will include healthcare researchers, policymakers and clinicians. Results of the study will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publications.

          Trial registration number

          CRD42016026991.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Preliminary criteria for the classification of the acute arthritis of primary gout.

          The American Rheumatism Association sub-committe on classification criteria for gout analyzed data from more than 700 patients with gout, pseudogout, rheumatoid arthritis, or septic arthritis. Criteria for classifying a patient as having gout were a) the presence of characteristic urate crystals in the joint fluid, and/or b) a topus proved to contain urate crystals by chemical or polarized light microscopic means, and/or c) the presence of six of the twelve clinical, laboratory, and X-ray phenomena listed in Table 5.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            British Society for Rheumatology and British Health Professionals in Rheumatology guideline for the management of gout.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Response rate or time to progression as predictors of survival in trials of metastatic colorectal cancer or non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis.

              The duration and cost of cancer clinical trials could be reduced if a surrogate endpoint were used in place of survival. We did a meta-analysis to assess the extent to which two surrogates, tumour response and time to progression, are predictive of mortality in metastatic colorectal cancer and non-small-cell lung cancer. Summary data (median time to progression, proportion of patients responding to treatment, and median overall survival) from randomised trials of first-line treatment in colorectal cancer (146 trials) and lung cancer (191 trials) were identified. Data were extracted and analysed by linear regression. We used prediction bands for trials with 250, 500, and 750 patients to identify the surrogate threshold effect that would predict a significant difference in survival. Response to treatment and time to progression correlated with improvement in survival for both lung cancer (p<0.0001 and p=0.0003, respectively) and colorectal cancer (p<0.0001 for both). To predict a significant survival gain in colorectal cancer trials, an improvement of 20% in the number of patients responding to treatment was required in trials with 750 patients, increasing to 26% in trials with 500 patients and 38% in trials with 250 patients. In lung cancer trials, the same prediction required differences in response of 18% for 750 patients, 21% for 500 patients, and 30% for 250 patients. For time to progression for both cancer types, the incremental gain needed to predict a survival improvement was a median of 1.8 months for trials with 750 patients, 2.2 months for 500 patients, and 3.3 months for 250 patients. Irrespective of trial size, large differences in tumour response rate are needed to predict a significant survival benefit. If surrogates are chosen as the primary endpoint in a clinical trial, time to progression is the preferred measure because more modest and achievable differences are needed for a significant survival benefit. Trials in metastatic lung cancer and colorectal cancer should measure survival as their primary outcome unless the surrogate outcome difference is anticipated to exceed the threshold effect size.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2016
                20 September 2016
                : 6
                : 9
                : e012026
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Musculoskeletal Statistics Unit, Department of Rheumatology, The Parker Institute, Copenhagen University Hospitals, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg , Frederiksberg, Denmark
                [2 ]Department of Rheumatology, Odense University Hospital , Svendborg, Denmark
                [3 ]Department of Medicine, University of Otago , Christchurch, New Zealand
                [4 ]Department of Medicine, University of Otago , Wellington, New Zealand
                [5 ]JF Department of Rheumatology, Radboud University Medical Centre , Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                [6 ]Department of Medicine, University of Auckland , Auckland, New Zealand
                [7 ]Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham & Birmingham Veterans Affairs Medical Center , Birmingham, Alabama, USA
                [8 ]Department of Rheumatology, St George Hospital, University of NSW , Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Melanie Birger Morillon; melanie.birger.morillon@ 123456rsyd.dk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6600-0631
                Article
                bmjopen-2016-012026
                10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012026
                5051435
                27650765
                3ff15d52-032c-4e92-af77-813413c6f0bb
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 23 March 2016
                : 16 August 2016
                : 30 August 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: Oak Foundation, http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100001275;
                Categories
                Rheumatology
                Protocol
                1506
                1732
                1732

                Medicine
                gout,biomarker,rheumatology,surrogate,outcome
                Medicine
                gout, biomarker, rheumatology, surrogate, outcome

                Comments

                Comment on this article