Performance of the 2016 ACR-EULAR Myositis Response Criteria in adult dermatomyositis/polymyositis therapeutic trials and consensus profiles
Authors' conclusion
The ACR-EULAR MRC performs consistently across multiple studies, further supporting its use as an efficacy end point in future myositis therapeutic trials.
Study context
- Population
- Adults with DM/PM from rituximab, etanercept and abatacept trials and consensus patient profiles
- Participants
- 412 adults
- Comparison
- Rituximab trial vs Etanercept trial vs Abatacept trial vs Consensus patient profiles
- Rituximab trialn = 147
- Etanercept trialn = 14
- Abatacept trialn = 19
- Consensus patient profilesn = 232
- Outcome
- Performance of the ACR-EULAR MRC: contribution of each CSM, strength vs extramuscular improvement, PROM representation and CSM worsening
Methodological detailssecondary analysis of trial data and consensus patient profiles, pooled data from rituximab, etanercept and abatacept trials, regression analysis
- Secondary analysis of trial data and consensus patient profiles
- Pooled data from rituximab, etanercept and abatacept trials
- Regression analysis
Performance
As reported in the abstract
MRC improvement category
- No Myositis Response Criteria (MRC) improvement
- 37%
- Minimal MRC improvement
- 24%
- Moderate MRC improvement
- 25%
- Major MRC improvement
- 14%
- At least minimal improvement: improvement in muscle-related measures
- 95%
- At least minimal improvement: improvement in patient-reported outcome measures (PROM)
- 84%
- Minimal improvement: median number of worsening core set measures (CSMs)
- 1
Original publication
Performance of the 2016 ACR-EULAR Myositis Response Criteria in adult dermatomyositis/polymyositis therapeutic trials and consensus profiles. Rheumatology (Oxford). Published 17 March 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →