Presentation and analysis of data on radiographic outcome in clinical trials: experience from the TEMPO study.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate different methods of presentation and analysis of radiographic data in a rheumatoid arthritis (RA) randomized controlled trial. METHODS A double-blind randomized controlled trial including 682 patients with active RA who were treated with methotrexate, etanercept, or a combination of the 2 drugs was used for this study. Probability plots of the change from baseline to year 1 were produced to visualize progression, and were compared with usual descriptive statistics. The primary analysis of the trial (based on annualized actual mean change from baseline in total Sharp score at 1 year, using linear imputation) was challenged using various ways of handling missing information with alternative imputation methods, and by various statistical analyses including analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and mixed model analysis on both raw and log-transformed data. RESULTS Probability plots provided detailed insight into the differentiated treatment effects between the 3 arms of this study. As adjuncts to formal hypothesis testing, these plots were more useful for presenting data than were summary descriptive statistics or use of preset cutoff points to define lack of progression. Additional analyses presented here support the results obtained with the per-protocol analysis that showed an advantage of the combination treatment compared with the monotherapy arms and for etanercept versus methotrexate alone. Various ways of handling missing information confirmed the robustness of the results. In addition, both ANCOVA and mixed model analyses on raw and on log-transformed data produced similar results. CONCLUSION We suggest a panel of alternative analysis methods and alternative ways of handling missing information to verify that the radiographic results reported in an randomized controlled trial are not influenced by technical factors, such as interpolation, handling of missing data, and choice of statistical tests.

[1]  P. Jones,et al.  Patterns of radiological progression in early rheumatoid arthritis: results of an 8 year prospective study. , 1998, The Journal of rheumatology.

[2]  R. Rau,et al.  Identification of radiologic healing phenomena in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. , 2001, The Journal of rheumatology.

[3]  Y. Hochberg.  A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance , 1988 .

[4]  H. Genant,et al.  Repair of erosions in rheumatoid arthritis does occur. Results from 2 studies by the OMERACT Subcommittee on Healing of Erosions. , 2003, The Journal of rheumatology.

[5]  Sharp Jt.  Scoring radiographic abnormalities in rheumatoid arthritis. , 1989 .

[6]  F. Wolfe,et al.  Radiographic outcome of recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis: a 19-year study of radiographic progression. , 1998, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[7]  G. Jones,et al.  The effect of treatment on radiological progression in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of randomized placebo-controlled trials. , 2003, Rheumatology.

[8]  M. Boers,et al.  How to interpret radiological progression in randomized clinical trials? , 2003, Rheumatology.

[9]  M. Boers,et al.  Smallest detectable difference in radiological progression. , 1999, The Journal of rheumatology.

[10]  Peter Lipsky,et al.  How to report radiographic data in randomized clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis: guidelines from a roundtable discussion. , 2002, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[11]  Rene Westhovens,et al.  COBRA combination therapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: long-term structural benefits of a brief intervention. , 2002, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[12]  D. M. van der Heijde,et al.  OMERACT workshop: repair of structural damage in rheumatoid arthritis. , 2003, Journal of Rheumatology.

[13]  H K Genant,et al.  How many joints in the hands and wrists should be included in a score of radiologic abnormalities used to assess rheumatoid arthritis? , 1985, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[14]  D. M. van der Heijde,et al.  Radiographic progression depicted by probability plots: presenting data with optimal use of individual values. , 2004, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[15]  P. Shekelle,et al.  How to read radiographs according to the Sharp/van der Heijde method. , 1999 .

[16]  M. O’Brien,et al.  Cerebral-cortex-perfusion rates in migraine. , 1967, Lancet.

[17]  D. M. van der Heijde,et al.  The course of radiologic damage during the first six years of rheumatoid arthritis. , 2000, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[18]  D. M. van der Heijde,et al.  Using estimated yearly progression rates to compare radiographic data across recent randomised controlled trials in rheumatoid arthritis , 2002, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[19]  H. Menninger,et al.  Progression and repair in radiographs of hands and forefeet in early rheumatoid arthritis. , 1995, The Journal of rheumatology.

[20]  D. Heijde.  Structural damage in rheumatoid arthritis as visualized through radiographs , 2002 .

[21]  L. Klareskog,et al.  Therapeutic effect of the combination of etanercept and methotrexate compared with each treatment alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: double-blind randomised controlled trial , 2004, The Lancet.

[22]  D. Heijde,et al.  EFFECTS OF HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE AND SULPHASALAZINE ON PROGRESSION OF JOINT DAMAGE IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS , 1989, The Lancet.

[23]  D. M. van der Heijde,et al.  Imaging: do erosions heal? , 2003, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.