Clinical trial outcome comparison methodology can affect trial efficiency and interpretation. Our goal was to describe current trends in clinical trial outcome comparison methods among high-impact dermatology trials and perform simulations comparing direct comparison (DC), change-score based (CS), and baseline-adjusted analyses (BAA) to demonstrate the more subtle differences in these methods. We performed a cross-sectional examination of top-cited dermatology clinical trials over five years. Trials were retrieved from journal websites and extracted from PubMed. All clinical trials published in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (JAAD), JAMA Dermatology, Journal of Investigative Dermatology (JID), The British Journal of Dermatology (BJD), and The Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (JEADV) from 2015–2019. Clinical trial analysis type including DC, CS, BAA, percent change from baseline (PoB), and responder analysis (RA). We evaluated the proportion of trials reporting each endpoint were reported and simulations assessing impact of analysis type on outcomes. Among 252 eligible trials, outcome comparison techniques included DC (75/252), CS (40/252), PoB (36/252), RA (98/252), and BAA (3/252). Among trials using CS, PoB, or RA, 25/174 adjusted for baseline score. No trials discussed relationship between baseline and final values; 85/252 selected patients based on baseline score; 8/85 gathered a post-randomization baseline score; 20/85 used a pre-randomization run-in period. Simulations demonstrated that BAA maximized trial efficiency for continuous outcomes. CS, PoB, and RA were common; however, when trials have continuous or ordinal outcomes, BAA is most efficient. PoB and RA are particularly inefficient. RA can promote misleading inference. Use of BAA optimizes inference, trial efficiency, and resource utilization.
We present a case of anti-melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 (Anti-MDA5) dermatomyositis (DM) in a 30-year-old female. Anti-MDA5 dermatomyositis, previously termed clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis, was first recognized in 2005. Most cases present with varying combinations of cutaneous and oral ulcerations, palmar papules, respiratory symptoms, and minor muscle involvement (most commonly in the shoulders, upper arms, hips, thighs, and neck). This subtype of disease is most notable for its association with an increased risk of rapidly progressive interstitial lung disease. Our patient presented initially with only complaints of cutaneous ulcerations on the dorsal aspect of her hands. Following several months of no true diagnosis, she developed muscle weakness and joint pain. This led to retrieval of a punch biopsy which suggested anti-MDA5 DM at the top of the differential diagnoses. Immunoprecipitation revealed the presence of melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 (MDA5) antibodies, confirming the diagnosis of anti-MDA5 dermatomyositis. This case demonstrates the importance of pinpointing the diagnosis of this rare disease subtype in a timely manner to prevent a fatal course, and we hope to inform dermatologists, rheumatologists, pulmonologists, and internists alike of the uncommon presentation of anti-MDA5 in an unsuspected, young patient.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.