THU0076 THE IMPACT OF VARYING EXCLUSION CRITERIA ON TREATMENT RESPONSE: REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE TO GUIDE THE DESIGN OF FUTURE CLINICAL TRIALS. (June 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Frisell, Thomas; Jelinsky, Scott; Peterson, Mark; Askling, Johan
• Is Part Of: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. Volume 78(2019)Supplement 2
• Page Start: 307
• Page End: 308
• Publication Date: 2019-06
• Subjects: Rheumatism -- Periodicals; 616.723005
• DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.1022
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0003-4967

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Clinical trials of novel pharmaceuticals in Rheumatoid Arthritis routinely use strict inclusion/exclusion criteria aimed at selecting a defined homogeneous population and producing a non-confounded demonstration of the agent's clinically relevant pharmacologic effect. However, the act of strictly defining numerous individual criteria has the potential for impacting the observed response rates, while the effect upon limiting the pool of eligible subjects is often poorly understood. Unnecessarily narrow criteria may limit the generalizability of trial results to real world patient populations. Conversely, certain patient characteristics may be associated with high or low probabilities of response to active treatment or to placebo. Objectives: To assess the impact of applying a range of different exclusion criteria on the proportion eligible subjects, and on the observed treatment response rates, in a large real-world patient population. Methods: Data on RA characteristics, demographics, and co-morbidities among RA patients were identified by linking the Swedish Rheumatology register (SRQ) to the nationwide and virtually complete Swedish census and healthcare registries. Representing an early RA trial scenario, we identified patients starting methotrexate monotherapy as first ever DMARD (N=8981) between 2007 and 2016. The cohort was assessed overall and stratified by baseline DAS28. Treatment outcome was defined as the proportions reaching (1) EULAR Good Response and (2) Low Disease Activity, and the change in (3) HAQ and (4) CDAI at 3 and 6 months. Exclusions were made based on age, baseline disease activity, sex, RF, predefined comorbidities, degree of healthcare utilization history, education, and taxed income level (cut-offs for continuous variables were based on distributions from recent clinical trials of tofacitinib). In total, 165 different definitions of exclusion criteria were evaluated. Results: Within the entire cohort, 50% of patients achieved EULAR DAS28 good response at 3 months. Exclusions based on age, sex, RF status, or duration of RA symptoms before RA diagnosis generally lead to large reductions in number of eligible subjects but did not appreciably affect (< 5% change) the proportion of EULAR good responders. Exclusions based on HAQ had a noticeable drop in the proportion of EULAR good response (-10%, see Figure), although exclusions above 80% was necessary to observe an effect. A similar pattern was observed for TJC, patient's global health and ESR but exclusions based on SJC or CRP did not impact EULAR response. Exclusions of specific comorbidities, such as history of myocardial infarction, history of joint replacement, generally had no or modest impact on the observed response rate. Exclusions based on health care use (total number of drugs, hospitalizations), affected response rates (+/- around 5%), while exclusions based on educational level, work ability, or income did not. The impact of exclusions was very similar on the 3 and 6 month responses. Conclusion: Exclusions in a range of criteria commonly used in clinical trials had only a modest impact on observed treatment outcome, while impacting on the enrollment pool – sometimes dramatically. More extreme restrictions (excluding well above half the potentially eligible patients) were generally necessary to shift the proportion EULAR Good Response by more than 5 percentage points. This should not be a surprise given the lack of identified strong predictors of treatment outcome in RA, but may raise the question of whether the lowered generalizability and impacts on enrollment rates caused by strict inclusion criteria in clinical trials is warranted by the aspiration to increase chances of demonstrating clinically meaningful effects. Disclosure of Interests: Thomas Frisell: None declared, Scott Jelinsky Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Pfizer, Mark Peterson Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Pfizer, Johan Askling Grant/research support from: Karolinska Institutet (JA) has or has had research agreements with the following pharmaceutical companies, mainly in the context of the ATRIS national safety monitoring programme for rheumatology biologicals: Abbvie, BMS, MSD, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB., Consultant for: Karolinska Institutet has received remuneration for JA participating in ad boards arranged by Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer.