ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 1974

Which ACR Response Definition Should Be Used for Disease Activity Claims in Approval Studies of Rheumatoid Arthritis? A Systematic Evaluation

Andreas Kerschbaumer1, Victoria Konzett2, Josef Smolen1 and Daniel Aletaha3, 1Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, 2Division of Rheumatology / Department of Medicine III / Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, 3Medical University Vienna, Wien, Austria

Meeting: ACR Convergence 2022

Keywords: clinical trial, Outcome measures, Response Criteria, rheumatoid arthritis

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Session Information

Date: Monday, November 14, 2022

Title: RA – Diagnosis, Manifestations, and Outcomes Poster IV

Session Type: Poster Session D

Session Time: 1:00PM-3:00PM

Background/Purpose: The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response definition was developed in 1995 by Felson et al. as a composite outcome and has been the most frequently used response definition in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) clinical trials. The ACR20 response is usually required as a primary outcome to be used for approval of investigative drugs by the FDA. However, in the recent past this threshold has been criticized for its lack of clinical relevance, and higher thresholds, such as ACR50 or ACR70 responses might be better suited.

In this analysis we investigated the consistency of ACR response definitions (20%, 50% or 70%) over the duration of individual trials, and the power to differentiate between active treatment and placebo.

Methods: Based on a systematic literature search using (EMBASE, Medline and the Cochrane Library) we identified all published articles on multi-national, multi-center, phase 3 trials in adult RA patients who had active disease despite methotrexate therapy, investigating biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARD) and targeted synthetic (ts)DMARDs. We only included articles published in English language. All ACR outcomes available in the public domain were extracted using standardized spreadsheets. ACR 20%, 50% and 70% response rates were overlay plotted graphically on scales normalised to their maximum response to visually explore differences in timing of response. We then utilized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistics to calculate p-values per outcome and timepoint for each trial individually. Statistics and visualizations were done using SAS 9.4M5 (Cary, New York, USA).

Results: 12457 articles were screened; most of the papers were excluded because of insufficient reporting of ACR outcomes (such as no time course), trials drug ultimately not being of multi-center/multi-national nature or investigational drugs that were not licensed for use in RA. We ultimately included 14 trials in the analysis, investigating 46 treatment arms of 8 different licensed compounds. ACR20 had the highest discriminant power across the trial duration, followed by ACR50, and ACR70 (Figure 1). The ACR20 also showed best discrimination at early time points and the ACR70 at the latest ones, as evident from the depiction of response rates across thresholds, which were normalized to the maximum response within each threshold (Figure 2). p-values, as shown for individual trials for each outcome, also suggest that ACR20% rates lead to more pronounced statistical effects than ACR50% or ACR70% responses over time (Figure 3). For trials achieving significant ACR20% responses, only 3/14 (21%) of trials had no significant ACR50 response at the given time point, and this number was 10/14 (71%) for ACR70.

Conclusion: Our analyses suggest that the ACR20 response rate is superior to the ACR 50 and ACR 70 response to differentiate between active treatment and placebo in randomized controlled trials in RA, especially if primary endpoints are to be assessed at early time points, such as 12 weeks; using the clinically more relevant ACR50 and ACR70 for discrimination at later timepoints, when their response rates peak, also allowed good discrimination in the majority of studies.

Supporting image 1

Table 1: CMH statistics comparing active treatments vs. placebo per trial and timepoint for each ACR outcome. The color coding refers to the magnitude of the respective p-value.

Supporting image 2

Figure 1: Stacked barcharts showing percent of trials with significant results of active treatment vs. placebo (p<0.05) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic for ACR 20, 50 and 70% response rates per timepoint.

Supporting image 3

Figure 2: Normalized ACR responses (normalized to the maximum response within each threshold) shown separately for each trial analysed.


Disclosures: A. Kerschbaumer, AbbVie/Abbott, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Merck/MSD, Amgen, Janssen, UCB; V. Konzett, None; J. Smolen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos-Gilead, Janssen, Merck-Sharp-Dohme, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Samsung, UCB; D. Aletaha, Novartis, SoBi, Sanofi, Amgen, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Janssen, AbbVie.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Kerschbaumer A, Konzett V, Smolen J, Aletaha D. Which ACR Response Definition Should Be Used for Disease Activity Claims in Approval Studies of Rheumatoid Arthritis? A Systematic Evaluation [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2022; 74 (suppl 9). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/which-acr-response-definition-should-be-used-for-disease-activity-claims-in-approval-studies-of-rheumatoid-arthritis-a-systematic-evaluation/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

« Back to ACR Convergence 2022

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/which-acr-response-definition-should-be-used-for-disease-activity-claims-in-approval-studies-of-rheumatoid-arthritis-a-systematic-evaluation/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology