BackgroundThe Disease Activity Score (DAS) and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria are the 2 most commonly used measures to assess clinical response in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) trials. DAS28 is a modified DAS to indicate 28 specified joints assessed for tenderness/swelling. ACR20, a responder variable of ≥20% improvement, measures change over time in RA activity. Both are key efficacy endpoints in RA trials. Biosimilars are structurally highly similar versions of marketed biologics that are supported by comparative analytical testing, pre-clinical/clinical trials to demonstrate similarity to their innovator biologics. The study population and design of Phase 3 clinical trial is chosen based on its sensitivity to detect a difference between potential biosimilar and reference product. A notable recent development is CT-P13 (Remsima™; Inflectra™), a biosimilar of Remicade® (infliximab) and the first biosimilar monoclonal antibody approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). As biosimilar drugs and trials become more prevalent, the choice of a margin to demonstrate equivalent efficacy between a biosimilar and its reference remains the most critical element in the design and analysis in biosimilar clinical trials.ObjectivesEstablish an equivalence margin (EM) for a biosimilar trial in RA that excludes clinically meaningful differences in ACR20 or DAS28.MethodsFollowing the principle provided in ICH E9, we derived EMs for ACR20 using a meta-analysis (MA) of historical therapeutic effects demonstrated in 5 randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trials of infliximab. This approach is different to the “weighted average of historical data” method utilised in the CT-P13 biosimilar pivotal trial that yielded an EM of ±15%. We present herein a rigorous and conservative method, ie, MA of historical data, to determine EMs following guidelines for non-inferiority studies for new molecular entities. We present a side-by-side comparison between ACR20 and DAS28 to demonstrate different characteristics of the 2 endpoints, including sample size, metric, margin size, and available historic data.ResultsMA results suggest that, for 2-treatment comparisons, rate difference (RD) is superior to ratio or odds ratio in terms of heterogeneity and reporting bias. EMs of ±14% to ±12% were obtained. These EMs represent 50% of the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for random effects of historical effect size.ConclusionsThe difference in ACR20 response rates is more accepted in terms of clinical relevance. MA of historical trial data is appropriate to determine EMs. Relevance of historical trials, heterogeneity, and reporting bias must be carefully assessed to develop EMs for biosimilar trials. Therefore, the derivation of EM, must account for the unique characteristics of the proposed biosimilar/reference product combination. There is support for the use of either the 2-sided 95% vs 90% CI for the observed RD in ACR20 and DAS28 falling within the margin to conclude equivalence. Ultimately, a globally harmon...

Review question / Objective: The main purpose of this review is to evaluate the effect of transverse force couple training on improving muscle strength and pain relief in patients with scapular dyskinesia. At the same time, we also need to compare the effect of shoulder girdle training and proprioception training. Condition being studied: XScapular dyskinesia is defined as the change of the position or trajectory of the scapula during INPLASY 1

No abstract

Background: it is of great significance for clinical diagnosis, prevention and treatment of osteoporosis to deeply understand the pathogenesis and development process of osteoporosis through animal models of osteoporosis. This systematic review aim to summarize the modeling methods of osteoporosis, reveal the current situation and progress of animal models of osteoporosis, and compare the advantages and disadvantages of various modeling methods, so as to provide reference for clinical research.Methods: CNKI, CBM database, VIP database, Wanfang database, PubMed database and EMBASE database were searched by computer from the database establishment to December 2020 with the key words of "animal model; osteoporosis" in Chinese and English respectively. The literatures were screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. The methods of osteoporosis modeling, the improvement of the methods and the advantages and disadvantages of each method are summarized.Discussion: a total of 9303 related literatures were collected, and 112 eligible literatures were included. The establishment of an appropriate animal model is the key to the etiology, pathophysiology and drug therapy of osteoporosis. As the causes and pathophysiological changes of different types of OP have their own characteristics, the modeling methods are also different. Therefore, different modeling methods and experimental animals should be selected according to different experimental requirements.Systematic review registration: No