Challenges in the design and implementation of the Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment (MUST) Trial-lessons for comparative effectiveness trials

Clinical Trials

Volumn 8, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 736-743

  Holbrook, Janet T ^a   Kempen, John H ^b   Prusakowski, Nancy A ^a   Altaweel, Michael M ^c   Jabs, Douglas A ^d  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^d MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FLUOCINOLONE ACETONIDE;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; MULTICENTER STUDY (TOPIC); OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STEROID THERAPY; STUDY DESIGN; UVEITIS; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL DISORDER;

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; FLUOCINOLONE ACETONIDE; GLUCOCORTICOIDS; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT SELECTION; PROSTHESES AND IMPLANTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UVEITIS;

EID: 83455213468     PISSN: 17407745     EISSN: 17407753     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1740774511423682     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press ; 2009 :
2. Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, et al. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): A tool for trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 ; 62: 464-75
3. Jabs DA, Rosenbaum JT, Foster CS, et al. Guidelines for the use of immunosuppressive drugs in patients with ocular inflammatory disorders: Recommendations of an expert panel. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000 ; 130: 492-513
4. Rochester, NY: ; 2009 :
5. Bausch & Lomb Inc. Retisert Drug Implant Receives Product Specific Billing Code and Medicare Reimbursement Rate. Available at http://www.bausch.co. uk/en-US/corporate/corpcomm/news/retisert-03RT-012307.aspx (accessed September 26, 2011).
6. Callanan DG, Jaffe GJ, Martin DF, Pearson PA, Comstock TL. Treatment of posterior uveitis with a fluocinolone acetonide implant. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008 ; 126: 1191-201
7. Pavesio C, Zierhut M, Bairi K, Comstock CL, Usner DW. Evaluation of an intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant versus standard systemic therapy in noninfectious posterior uveitis. Ophthalmology. 2010 ; 117: 567-75
8. Jaffe GJ, Martin DF, Callanan D, et al. Fluocinolone acetonide implant (Retisert) for noninfectious posterior uveitis: Thirty-four week results of a multicenter randomized clinical study. Ophthalmology. 2006 ; 113: 1020-27 (Pubitemid 43795240)
9. The Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment Trial: Rationale, design, and baseline characteristics. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010 ; 149: 550-61
10. Randomized comparison of systemic anti-inflammatory therapy versus fluocinolone acetonide implant for intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis: The Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment Trial. Ophthalmology. 2011 ;:
11. Freemantle N, Strach T. Real-world effectiveness of new medicines should be evaluated by appropriately designed clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 ; 63: 1053-58
12. Jabs DA, Nussenblatt RB, Rosenbaum JT. Standardization of uveitis nomenclature for reporting clinical data. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005 ; 140: 509-16
13. Durrani OM, Meads CA, Murray PI. Uveitis: A potentially blinding disease. Ophthalmologica. 2004 ; 218: 223-36 (Pubitemid 38969828)
14. Zeger SL, Liang KY. Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics. 1986 ; 42 (1). 121-30
15. Verteporfin therapy of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration: Two-year results of a randomized clinical trial including lesions with occult with no classic choroidal neovascularization-verteporfin in photodynamic therapy report 2. Am J Ophthalmol. 2001 ; 131: 541-60
16. Tufail A, Patel PJ, Egan C, et al. for the ABC Trial Investigators. Bevacizumab for neovascular age related macular degeneration (ABC Trial): Multicentre randomized double masked study. Brit Med J. 2010 ; 340: c2459
17. Ferris FL, Kassof A, Bresnick GH, Bailey I. New visual acuity charts for clinical research. Am J Ophthalmol. 1982 ; 94 (1). 91-96 (Pubitemid 12080556)
18. Mangione CM, Lee PP, Gutierrez PR, et al. Development of the 25-Item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Arch of Ophthalmol. 2001 ; 119: 1050-58 (Pubitemid 32652197)
19. Cole SR, Beck RW, Moke PS, Gal RL, Long DT. The National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire: Experience of the ONTT. Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2000 ; 41 (5). 1017-21 (Pubitemid 30187536)
20. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Medical Care. 1993 ; 31 (3). 247-63
21. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care. 1997 ; 35 (11). 1095-108 (Pubitemid 127453463)
22. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coon SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: Development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Medical Care. 2005 ; 43 (3). 203-20 (Pubitemid 40353904)
23. Beck RW, Maguire MG, Bressler NM, et al. Visual acuity as an outcome measure in clinical trials of retinal diseases. Ophthalmology. 2007 ; 114: 1804-09 (Pubitemid 47483941)
24. Beck RW, Moke PS, Turpin AH, et al. A computerized method of visual acuity testing: Adaption of the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study testing protocol. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003 ; 135: 194-205 (Pubitemid 36151797)
25. Curfman GD, Morissey S, Drazen JM. Products at risk. N Engl J Med. 2010 ; 363: 1763
26. Martin DF, Maguire MG, Fine SL. Identifying and eliminating roadblocks to comparative-effectiveness research. N Engl J Med. 2010 ; 363: 105-07