Article Type
Changed
Tue, 07/21/2020 - 14:18

– A new way to assess clinically meaningful, multiorgan changes in patients receiving treatment for systemic sclerosis has transformed the way new drugs for this disease are judged.

The Combined Response Index for Systemic Sclerosis (CRISS) “will change how we look at drugs” for systemic sclerosis, Daniel E. Furst, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

Dr, Daniel E. Furst, rheumatologist, Los Angeles
Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
Dr. Daniel E. Furst
Dr. Furst was one of several researchers who collaborated on developing the CRISS (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Feb;68[2]:299-311). As the authors said in their 2016 report, the CRISS “was developed with the goal of summarizing changes in clinical and patient‐reported outcomes in a single composite score that conveys the likelihood (or probability) that a patient with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis [dcSSc] has improved. The purpose of the CRISS is to assess whether new pharmacologic agents have an impact on overall disease activity/severity. Our hope is that its use in clinical trials of dcSSc will greatly facilitate the interpretation of results and form the basis for drug approvals.”

The CRISS was close to 10 years in the making. “First we had to decide what measures were important, then we had to run a prospective study entering all the data, and then we had to do a very sophisticated statistical analysis and put the results in front of experts and ask: Does this make sense?” Dr. Furst recalled in an interview. Now the combined endpoint measure has been “fully validated,” and is under consideration by the Food and Drug Administration as an endpoint for drug trials, he noted.

“I think that now, after 10 years, we finally came up with what will be the equivalent” of the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR 20) in core-set measures of rheumatoid arthritis (Arthritis Res Ther. 2014 Jan 3;16[1]:101). “I think CRISS will make a huge difference because when you do a combined measure, like the ACR 20, it becomes more clinically and statistically powerful,” said Dr. Furst, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, an adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy). He is also in part-time practice in Los Angeles and Seattle.

In a talk he gave at the meeting on recent clinical studies of new drugs for treating patients with systemic sclerosis, many of the reports included CRISS as a measure of patient response to treatment.

The CRISS involves a two-step assessment of how a patient has responded to therapy. First, patients are considered not improved by their treatment if they develop any one of these four outcomes following treatment if it appears linked to the disease process:

  • A new scleroderma renal crisis.
  • A decline in forced vital capacity of 15% or more of predicted.
  • A new decline of left ventricular ejection fraction to 45% or less.
  • New onset of pulmonary arterial hypertension that requires treatment.
 

 

If none of these apply, the next step is to assess treatment response by measuring changes in five parameters and then integrating them into a single number using a mathematical formula. The five elements in the equation are:

  • Modified Rodnan skin score.
  • Percent of predicted forced vital capacity.
  • Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index.
  • Patient’s global assessment.
  • Physician’s global assessment.

When factored together, changes in these five measures determine the probability that the patient responded to the intervention.

One limitation of the CRISS is that it only measures change from baseline, which makes it similar to the ACR 20, Dr. Furst noted. Another useful score would be one that reflects the status of a patient with systemic sclerosis at a specific point in time, a type of disease activity score. Dr. Furst said that he and others active in the systemic sclerosis field would like to develop a method that provides this type of patient assessment. Another addition would be to develop a “minimally clinically important change” in the score, which would make the CRISS more intuitive to understand.

Dr. Furst has received research support from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Corbus, Genentech-Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Furst DE. EULAR 2018. Abstract SP0012.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event
Related Articles

– A new way to assess clinically meaningful, multiorgan changes in patients receiving treatment for systemic sclerosis has transformed the way new drugs for this disease are judged.

The Combined Response Index for Systemic Sclerosis (CRISS) “will change how we look at drugs” for systemic sclerosis, Daniel E. Furst, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

Dr, Daniel E. Furst, rheumatologist, Los Angeles
Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
Dr. Daniel E. Furst
Dr. Furst was one of several researchers who collaborated on developing the CRISS (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Feb;68[2]:299-311). As the authors said in their 2016 report, the CRISS “was developed with the goal of summarizing changes in clinical and patient‐reported outcomes in a single composite score that conveys the likelihood (or probability) that a patient with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis [dcSSc] has improved. The purpose of the CRISS is to assess whether new pharmacologic agents have an impact on overall disease activity/severity. Our hope is that its use in clinical trials of dcSSc will greatly facilitate the interpretation of results and form the basis for drug approvals.”

The CRISS was close to 10 years in the making. “First we had to decide what measures were important, then we had to run a prospective study entering all the data, and then we had to do a very sophisticated statistical analysis and put the results in front of experts and ask: Does this make sense?” Dr. Furst recalled in an interview. Now the combined endpoint measure has been “fully validated,” and is under consideration by the Food and Drug Administration as an endpoint for drug trials, he noted.

“I think that now, after 10 years, we finally came up with what will be the equivalent” of the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR 20) in core-set measures of rheumatoid arthritis (Arthritis Res Ther. 2014 Jan 3;16[1]:101). “I think CRISS will make a huge difference because when you do a combined measure, like the ACR 20, it becomes more clinically and statistically powerful,” said Dr. Furst, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, an adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy). He is also in part-time practice in Los Angeles and Seattle.

In a talk he gave at the meeting on recent clinical studies of new drugs for treating patients with systemic sclerosis, many of the reports included CRISS as a measure of patient response to treatment.

The CRISS involves a two-step assessment of how a patient has responded to therapy. First, patients are considered not improved by their treatment if they develop any one of these four outcomes following treatment if it appears linked to the disease process:

  • A new scleroderma renal crisis.
  • A decline in forced vital capacity of 15% or more of predicted.
  • A new decline of left ventricular ejection fraction to 45% or less.
  • New onset of pulmonary arterial hypertension that requires treatment.
 

 

If none of these apply, the next step is to assess treatment response by measuring changes in five parameters and then integrating them into a single number using a mathematical formula. The five elements in the equation are:

  • Modified Rodnan skin score.
  • Percent of predicted forced vital capacity.
  • Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index.
  • Patient’s global assessment.
  • Physician’s global assessment.

When factored together, changes in these five measures determine the probability that the patient responded to the intervention.

One limitation of the CRISS is that it only measures change from baseline, which makes it similar to the ACR 20, Dr. Furst noted. Another useful score would be one that reflects the status of a patient with systemic sclerosis at a specific point in time, a type of disease activity score. Dr. Furst said that he and others active in the systemic sclerosis field would like to develop a method that provides this type of patient assessment. Another addition would be to develop a “minimally clinically important change” in the score, which would make the CRISS more intuitive to understand.

Dr. Furst has received research support from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Corbus, Genentech-Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Furst DE. EULAR 2018. Abstract SP0012.

– A new way to assess clinically meaningful, multiorgan changes in patients receiving treatment for systemic sclerosis has transformed the way new drugs for this disease are judged.

The Combined Response Index for Systemic Sclerosis (CRISS) “will change how we look at drugs” for systemic sclerosis, Daniel E. Furst, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

Dr, Daniel E. Furst, rheumatologist, Los Angeles
Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
Dr. Daniel E. Furst
Dr. Furst was one of several researchers who collaborated on developing the CRISS (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Feb;68[2]:299-311). As the authors said in their 2016 report, the CRISS “was developed with the goal of summarizing changes in clinical and patient‐reported outcomes in a single composite score that conveys the likelihood (or probability) that a patient with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis [dcSSc] has improved. The purpose of the CRISS is to assess whether new pharmacologic agents have an impact on overall disease activity/severity. Our hope is that its use in clinical trials of dcSSc will greatly facilitate the interpretation of results and form the basis for drug approvals.”

The CRISS was close to 10 years in the making. “First we had to decide what measures were important, then we had to run a prospective study entering all the data, and then we had to do a very sophisticated statistical analysis and put the results in front of experts and ask: Does this make sense?” Dr. Furst recalled in an interview. Now the combined endpoint measure has been “fully validated,” and is under consideration by the Food and Drug Administration as an endpoint for drug trials, he noted.

“I think that now, after 10 years, we finally came up with what will be the equivalent” of the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR 20) in core-set measures of rheumatoid arthritis (Arthritis Res Ther. 2014 Jan 3;16[1]:101). “I think CRISS will make a huge difference because when you do a combined measure, like the ACR 20, it becomes more clinically and statistically powerful,” said Dr. Furst, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, an adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy). He is also in part-time practice in Los Angeles and Seattle.

In a talk he gave at the meeting on recent clinical studies of new drugs for treating patients with systemic sclerosis, many of the reports included CRISS as a measure of patient response to treatment.

The CRISS involves a two-step assessment of how a patient has responded to therapy. First, patients are considered not improved by their treatment if they develop any one of these four outcomes following treatment if it appears linked to the disease process:

  • A new scleroderma renal crisis.
  • A decline in forced vital capacity of 15% or more of predicted.
  • A new decline of left ventricular ejection fraction to 45% or less.
  • New onset of pulmonary arterial hypertension that requires treatment.
 

 

If none of these apply, the next step is to assess treatment response by measuring changes in five parameters and then integrating them into a single number using a mathematical formula. The five elements in the equation are:

  • Modified Rodnan skin score.
  • Percent of predicted forced vital capacity.
  • Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index.
  • Patient’s global assessment.
  • Physician’s global assessment.

When factored together, changes in these five measures determine the probability that the patient responded to the intervention.

One limitation of the CRISS is that it only measures change from baseline, which makes it similar to the ACR 20, Dr. Furst noted. Another useful score would be one that reflects the status of a patient with systemic sclerosis at a specific point in time, a type of disease activity score. Dr. Furst said that he and others active in the systemic sclerosis field would like to develop a method that provides this type of patient assessment. Another addition would be to develop a “minimally clinically important change” in the score, which would make the CRISS more intuitive to understand.

Dr. Furst has received research support from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Corbus, Genentech-Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Furst DE. EULAR 2018. Abstract SP0012.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM THE EULAR 2018 CONGRESS

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica