OARSI-OMERACT initiative: defining thresholds for symptomatic severity and structural changes in disease modifying osteoarthritis drug (DMOAD) clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Total joint replacement has been proposed as an endpoint in disease modifying osteoarthritis drug (DMOAD) randomized clinical trials (RCTs); however, disparities have generated concerns regarding this outcome. A combined Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI)/Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) initiative was launched in 2004 to develop a composite index ['virtual total joint replacement' (VJR)] as a surrogate outcome for osteoarthritis (OA) progression in DMOAD RCTs. Our objective was to evaluate the prevalence of patients fulfilling different thresholds of sustained pain, reduced function, and X-ray change in existing DMOAD RCTs. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of summary data from the placebo arm of eight DMOAD RCTs. RESULTS: Eight OA RCTs representing 1379 patients were included. Pain was assessed by WOMAC and/or VAS and function by WOMAC and/or Lequesne. Among six knee and two hip studies, 248 (22%) and 132 (51%) patients respectively had X-ray progression [decrease joint space width (JSW) ≥0.5 mm]. The prevalence of patients fulfilling clinical and radiographic criteria was highest (n = 163, 12%) in the least stringent scenario (pain + function ≥80 at ≥2 visits); with few patients (n = 129, 2%) in the most stringent scenario (pain + function ≥80 at ≥4 visits). Using these prevalence data, a sample size of 352-2144 per group would be needed to demonstrate a 50% difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of patients with sustained symptomatic OA of at least a moderate degree with X-ray progression is low. Even using lenient criteria to define VJR, large patient numbers would be required to detect differences between groups in DMOAD RCTs. Investigation of the optimal cutoff threshold and combination of symptoms and radiographic change should be pursued.

Alterations of cardiac structure in patients with isolated office, ambulatory, or home hypertension: Data from the general population (Pressione Arteriose Monitorate E Loro Associazioni [PAMELA] Study).

BACKGROUND: The prevalence and clinical significance of isolated office (or white coat) hypertension is controversial, and population data are limited. We studied the prevalence of this condition and its association with echocardiographic left ventricular mass in the general population of the PAMELA (Pressione Arteriose Monitorate E Loro Associazioni) Study. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study involved a large, randomized sample (n=3200) representative of the Monza (Milan) population, 25 to 74 years of age. Participants in the study (64% of the sample) underwent measurements of office, home, 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure, and echocardiography. Isolated office hypertension was defined as systolic or diastolic values >/=140 mm Hg or >/=90 mm Hg, respectively. Home and ambulatory normotension were defined according to criteria previously established from the PAMELA Study, for example, <132/83 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic) for home and 125/79 mm Hg for 24-hour average blood pressure. Treated hypertensive subjects were excluded from analysis that was made on a total of 1637 subjects. Depending on normotension being established on systolic or diastolic blood pressure measured at home or over 24 hours, the prevalence of isolated office hypertension ranged from 9% to 12%. In these subjects, left ventricular mass index was greater (P<0.01) than in subjects with normotension both in and outside the office. This was the case also for prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy. Left ventricular mass index and hypertrophy were similarly greater in subjects found to have normal office but elevated home or ambulatory blood pressure ( approximately 10% of the population). CONCLUSIONS: Isolated office hypertension has a noticeable prevalence in the population and is accompanied by structural cardiac alterations, suggesting that it is not an entirely harmless phenomenon. This is the case also for the opposite condition, that is, normal office but elevated home or ambulatory blood pressure, which implies that limiting blood pressure measurements to office values may not suffice in identification of subjects at risk.