What do
they want to tell us?
D. van der
Heijde and colleagues just published a paper on certolizumab in the treatment
of psoriatic arthritis [results of the RAPID-PsA]: “Effect of different
imputation approaches on the evaluation of radiographic progression in patients
with psoriatic arthritis: results of the RAPID-PsA 24-week phase III double-blind
randomised placebo-controlled study of certolizumab pegol”. In results we are
told about an “overestimated radiographic progression (least
squares mean placebo, 28.9; CZP, 18.3; p≥0.05).” Too bad that the abstract
doesn’t tell any numbers about the results of the post hoc new imputation. We
just get: “mTSS
non-progression rate was higher in CZP than placebo groups in all analyses.” The
authors concluded: “Inappropriate prespecified imputation
methodology resulted in an unrealistic assessment of progression in all arms. Methodologies
for imputing missing radiographic data can greatly affect assessment and
reporting of mTSS progression.” Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23942869
What do
they really want to tell us? Maybe that they found a method in which
certolizumab looks better on reducing radiographic progression?
Maybe I’m
overreacting as I use certolizumab, but such abstracts just make me feel
uneasy. Maybe someone can ease my scepticism.
No comments:
Post a Comment