Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 14, 2025
The bm12 Inducible Model of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus SLE in C57BL/6 Mice
Published on: November 1, 2015
Selection of indicators reporting response rate in pharmaceutical trials for systemic lupus erythematosus: preference
Jingru Tian1,2, Shuntong Kang3, Dingyao Zhang4,5
1Institute of Dermatology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China qianlu5860@pumcderm.cams.cn jingru.tian@pumcderm.cams.cn zhaoming301@pumcderm.cams.cn.
Objective:
SLE is a common multisystem autoimmune disease with chronic inflammation. Many efficacy evaluation indicators of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) for SLE have been proposed but the comparability remains unknown. We aim to explore the preference and comparability of indicators reporting response rate and provide basis for primary outcome selection when evaluating the efficacy of SLE pharmaceutical treatment.
Methods:
We systematically searched three databases and three registries to identify pharmacological intervention-controlled SLE RCTs. Relative discriminations between indicators were assessed by the Bayesian hierarchical linear mixed model.
Results:
33 RCTs met our inclusion criteria and we compared eight of the most commonly used indicators reporting response rate. SLE Disease Activity Index 4 (SLEDAI-4) and SLE Responder Index 4 were considered the best recommended indicators reporting response rate to discriminate the pharmacological efficacy. Indicator preference was altered by disease severity, classification of drugs and outcome of trials, but SLEDAI-4 had robust efficacy in discriminating ability for most interventions. Of note, BILAG Index-based Combined Lupus Assessment showed efficacy in trials covering all-severity patients, as well as non-biologics RCTs. The British Isles Lupus Assessment Group response and Physician's Global Assessment response were more cautious in evaluating disease changes. Serious adverse event was often applied to evaluate the safety and tolerability of treatments rather than efficacy.
Conclusions:
The impressionable efficacy discrimination ability of indicators highlights the importance of flexibility and comprehensiveness when choosing primary outcome(s). As for trials that are only evaluated by SLEDAI-4, attention should be paid to outcome interpretation to avoid the exaggeration of treatment efficacy. Further subgroup analyses are limited by the number of included RCTs.
Prospero Registration Number:
CRD42022334517.
