1 / 14

Perspectives on Clinical Outcomes of Studies of Products for Use in Cartilage Repair

Perspectives on Clinical Outcomes of Studies of Products for Use in Cartilage Repair. Marc C. Hochberg, MD, MPH Professor of Medicine Head, Division of Rheumatology University of Maryland School of Medicine Baltimore, MD, USA. Outline.

kalista
Download Presentation

Perspectives on Clinical Outcomes of Studies of Products for Use in Cartilage Repair

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Perspectives on Clinical Outcomes of Studies of Products for Use in Cartilage Repair Marc C. Hochberg, MD, MPH Professor of Medicine Head, Division of Rheumatology University of Maryland School of Medicine Baltimore, MD, USA

  2. Outline • FDA Guidance for Development of Products for the Treatment of OA • Newer methods for measuring symptomatic outcomes • State measures • KOOS • Newer methods for measuring structural outcomes

  3. Guidance for Industry:Clinical Development Programs for Products Intended for the Treatment of Osteoarthritis Food and Drug Administration July 1999

  4. Potential Claims for OA • Symptomatic treatment of pain and function • Delay in structural progression • Prevention of the occurrence of OA

  5. Symptomatic Treatment of Pain and Function • Efficacy endpoints as specified in OARSI Recommendations and at OMERACT 3 • Pain and function should be disaggregated • Patient global assessment • Measurement of structure (x-ray) if trial lasts a year or more for risk-benefit assessment • Effects on non-signal joints and effects of potential confounders should be standardized in protocol and analysis

  6. Prevention of Occurrence of OA • Defined as incident symptomatic OA using clinical and radiographic criteria • Additional joints in patients with prevalent OA • New joints in persons at risk for OA

  7. Measurement of clinical outcomes • WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index • Lequesne Algofunctional Index • GREES: Ann Rheum Dis 1996;55:552-7. • Altman et al: OA Cart 1996;4:217-26. • Bellamy et al: J Rheumatol 1997;24:799-802.

  8. State Measures - 1 • OARSI Responder Criteria • Dougados et al: Osteoarthritis Cart 2000;8:395-403.

  9. OARSI Response Criteria • Derived from analysis of data from 14 clinical trials of 1886 patients with either hip or knee OA • Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group trials • Variety of interventions • Oral NSAIDs • Oral and IA OA specific drugs Dougados et al: Osteoarthritis Cart 2000;8:395-403.

  10. OARSI Response Criteria • Two sets of criteria (Propositions A and B) • Optimal cut-points differed by proposition, joint group, type of intervention, and “high” or “moderate” improvement • Requirement for both absolute and percent change • Limitations • 62% of screened studies not included • Lack of simplicity • Increase in precision questionable • Not validated in other datasets

  11. State Measures - 1 • OARSI Responder Criteria • Dougados et al: Osteoarthritis Cart 2000;8:395-403. • OMERACT-OARSI Responder Index • Pham T et al: J Rheumatol 2003;30:1648-54

  12. OMERACT-OARSI Responder Index • Objective: Development of a simplified set of criteria • Procedure: Compare performance of 6 different scenarios using two databases • Original database (14 studies with 1886 patients) • Revisit database (15 studies with 8164 patients) • Expert opinion approach applied to results at OMERACT 6 meeting

  13. OMERACT-OARSI Responder Index High improvement in pain or function > 50% and absolute change > 20 Yes No Responder • Improvement in > 2 of the following 3 • Pain > 20% with absolute change > 10 • Function > 20% and absolute change > 10 • PGA > 20% and absolute change > 10 Yes No Responder Non-responder Pham T et al: J Rheumatol 2003;30:1648-54

  14. Thank you for your time and attention.

More Related