Christian M Stach1, Victor S Sloan2,3, Thasia G Woodworth4, Brian Kilgallen5, Daniel E Furst6,7,8. 1. UCB Biosciences GmbH, Monheim, Germany. 2. UCB Biosciences Inc, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. 3. Rutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. 4. Division of Rheumatology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, 1000 Veterans Ave, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA. tgwoodworth@me.com. 5. SDC, Tempe, AZ, USA. 6. Division of Rheumatology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, 1000 Veterans Ave, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA. 7. University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 8. University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) Rheumatology Common Toxicity Criteria (RCTC) version 2.0 was published in 2007 by the OMERACT Drug Safety Working Group, building on limited experience with RCTC version 1.0, to facilitate standardization of assessment (grading) and reporting of adverse events (AEs) commonly seen in rheumatic disease clinical trials (Woodworth et al. in J Rheumatol 34:1401-1414, 2007). OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to (1) report the real-world performance of RCTC 2.0; (2) report immediately correctable errors in RCTC 2.0, and provide a revised RCTC 2.1; and (3) begin to identify the need for a comprehensive revision of RCTC 2.0. METHODS: Safety data outputs for several large rheumatic/autoimmune disease clinical trials in which RCTC 2.0 was used were evaluated for accuracy of reporting and the ability to assess differences among treatments. We examined RCTC 2.0 tables for errors, as well as for omission of terms for AEs that commonly occur in more recent rheumatology clinical trials. We also considered recommendations from recent US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and international initiatives such CDISC (Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium) to improve the consistency of safety data collection and interpretability of safety data analyses. RESULTS: RCTC 2.0 enabled comparisons of safety data across treatment groups, including grading. However, we discovered inaccuracies in laboratory results grading and omission of AE terms now recognized to occur in rheumatic disease clinical trials. CONCLUSION: The RCTC 2.0 performed as intended, although some inaccuracies and omissions were found. We provide a corrected version, RCTC 2.1, and also recommend further revision of the RCTC within OMERACT guidances to include AEs that have been reported in rheumatology clinical trials since RCTC 2.0 was published. Ideally, a revised RCTC 3.0 would not only facilitate standardized assessment and reporting of AEs, but would also expand and encourage accurate comparison of the safety profiles of treatments for rheumatic/autoimmune diseases.
INTRODUCTION: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) Rheumatology Common Toxicity Criteria (RCTC) version 2.0 was published in 2007 by the OMERACT Drug Safety Working Group, building on limited experience with RCTC version 1.0, to facilitate standardization of assessment (grading) and reporting of adverse events (AEs) commonly seen in rheumatic disease clinical trials (Woodworth et al. in J Rheumatol 34:1401-1414, 2007). OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to (1) report the real-world performance of RCTC 2.0; (2) report immediately correctable errors in RCTC 2.0, and provide a revised RCTC 2.1; and (3) begin to identify the need for a comprehensive revision of RCTC 2.0. METHODS: Safety data outputs for several large rheumatic/autoimmune disease clinical trials in which RCTC 2.0 was used were evaluated for accuracy of reporting and the ability to assess differences among treatments. We examined RCTC 2.0 tables for errors, as well as for omission of terms for AEs that commonly occur in more recent rheumatology clinical trials. We also considered recommendations from recent US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and international initiatives such CDISC (Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium) to improve the consistency of safety data collection and interpretability of safety data analyses. RESULTS: RCTC 2.0 enabled comparisons of safety data across treatment groups, including grading. However, we discovered inaccuracies in laboratory results grading and omission of AE terms now recognized to occur in rheumatic disease clinical trials. CONCLUSION: The RCTC 2.0 performed as intended, although some inaccuracies and omissions were found. We provide a corrected version, RCTC 2.1, and also recommend further revision of the RCTC within OMERACT guidances to include AEs that have been reported in rheumatology clinical trials since RCTC 2.0 was published. Ideally, a revised RCTC 3.0 would not only facilitate standardized assessment and reporting of AEs, but would also expand and encourage accurate comparison of the safety profiles of treatments for rheumatic/autoimmune diseases.
Authors: John P A Ioannidis; Stephen J W Evans; Peter C Gøtzsche; Robert T O'Neill; Douglas G Altman; Kenneth Schulz; David Moher Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-11-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: T G Woodworth; D E Furst; V Strand; J Kempeni; H Fenner; C S Lau; F Miller; R Day; J Lipani; P Brooks Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Thasia Woodworth; Daniel E Furst; Rieke Alten; Clifton O Bingham; Clifton Bingham; David Yocum; Victor Sloan; Wayne Tsuji; Randall Stevens; James Fries; James Witter; Kent Johnson; Marissa Lassere; Peter Brooks Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Christina Charles-Schoeman; Miguel A Gonzalez-Gay; Irina Kaplan; Mary Boy; Jamie Geier; Zhen Luo; Andrea Zuckerman; Richard Riese Journal: Semin Arthritis Rheum Date: 2016-03-09 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Marianne A Messelink; Matthijs S van der Leeuw; Alfons A den Broeder; Janneke Tekstra; Marlies C van der Goes; Marloes W Heijstek; Floris Lafeber; Paco M J Welsing Journal: Trials Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 2.728
Authors: Andrew Blauvelt; Craig L Leonardi; Melinda Gooderham; Kim A Papp; Sandra Philipp; Jashin J Wu; Atsuyuki Igarashi; Mary Flack; Ziqian Geng; Tianshuang Wu; Anne Camez; David Williams; Richard G Langley Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 10.282