OBJECTIVE: A secondary analysis of a previously conducted one year randomised controlled trial to evaluate the capacity of responder criteria based on the WOMAC index to detect between treatment group differences. METHODS:255 patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomised to "appropriate care with hylan G-F 20" (AC+H) or "appropriate care without hylan G-F 20" (AC). In the original analysis, two definitions of patient response from baseline to month 12 were used: (1) at least a 20% reduction in WOMAC pain score (WOMAC 20P); (2) at least a 20% reduction in WOMAC pain score and at least a 20% reduction in either WOMAC function or stiffness score (WOMAC 20PFS). For this analysis, a responder was identified using 50% and 70% minimum clinically important response levels to investigate how increasing response affects the ability to detect treatment group differences. RESULTS: The hylan G-F 20 group had numerically more responders using all patient responder criteria. Increasing the response level from 20% to 50% detected similar differences between treatment groups (25% to 29%). Increasing the response level to 70% reduced the differences between treatment groups (11% to 12%) to a point where the differences were not significant after Bonferroni adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide evidence for incorporating response levels (WOMAC 50) in clinical trials. While differences at the highest threshold (WOMAC 70) were not statistically detectable, an appropriately powered study may be capable of detecting differences even at this very high level of improvement.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: A secondary analysis of a previously conducted one year randomised controlled trial to evaluate the capacity of responder criteria based on the WOMAC index to detect between treatment group differences. METHODS: 255 patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomised to "appropriate care with hylan G-F 20" (AC+H) or "appropriate care without hylan G-F 20" (AC). In the original analysis, two definitions of patient response from baseline to month 12 were used: (1) at least a 20% reduction in WOMAC pain score (WOMAC 20P); (2) at least a 20% reduction in WOMAC pain score and at least a 20% reduction in either WOMAC function or stiffness score (WOMAC 20PFS). For this analysis, a responder was identified using 50% and 70% minimum clinically important response levels to investigate how increasing response affects the ability to detect treatment group differences. RESULTS: The hylan G-F 20 group had numerically more responders using all patient responder criteria. Increasing the response level from 20% to 50% detected similar differences between treatment groups (25% to 29%). Increasing the response level to 70% reduced the differences between treatment groups (11% to 12%) to a point where the differences were not significant after Bonferroni adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide evidence for incorporating response levels (WOMAC 50) in clinical trials. While differences at the highest threshold (WOMAC 70) were not statistically detectable, an appropriately powered study may be capable of detecting differences even at this very high level of improvement.
Authors: Thao Pham; Désirée Van Der Heijde; Marissa Lassere; Roy D Altman; Jennifer J Anderson; Nicholas Bellamy; Marc Hochberg; Lee Simon; Vibeke Strand; Thasia Woodworth; Maxime Dougados Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Stanley Cohen; Eric Hurd; John Cush; Michael Schiff; Michael E Weinblatt; Larry W Moreland; Joel Kremer; Moraye B Bear; William J Rich; Dorothy McCabe Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2002-03
Authors: Joel M Kremer; Michael E Weinblatt; Arthur D Bankhurst; Ken J Bulpitt; Roy M Fleischmann; Christopher G Jackson; Kelly M Atkins; Anyang Feng; Daniel J Burge Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2003-06
Authors: G W Torrance; J P Raynauld; V Walker; C H Goldsmith; N Bellamy; P A Band; M Schultz; P Tugwell Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: J-P Raynauld; G W Torrance; P A Band; C H Goldsmith; P Tugwell; V Walker; M Schultz; N Bellamy Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Michael H Weisman; Larry W Moreland; Daniel E Furst; Michael E Weinblatt; Edward C Keystone; Harold E Paulus; Leah S Teoh; Raja B Velagapudi; Peter A Noertersheuser; G Richard Granneman; Steven A Fischkoff; Elliot K Chartash Journal: Clin Ther Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 3.393
Authors: Maria E Suarez-Almazor; Carol Looney; Yanfang Liu; Vanessa Cox; Kenneth Pietz; Donald M Marcus; Richard L Street Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Cyrus Cooper; Jonathan D Adachi; Thomas Bardin; Francis Berenbaum; Bruno Flamion; Helgi Jonsson; John A Kanis; Franz Pelousse; Willem F Lems; Jean-Pierre Pelletier; Johanne Martel-Pelletier; Susanne Reiter; Jean-Yves Reginster; René Rizzoli; Olivier Bruyère Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2013-04-17 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: Garry R Barton; Tracey H Sach; Anthony J Avery; Michael Doherty; Claire Jenkinson; Kenneth R Muir Journal: Cost Eff Resour Alloc Date: 2009-07-17