Vasculitis Foundation

BackgroundUtilizing the traditional centers of excellence approach to conduct clinical trials involving rare diseases remains challenging. Patient-based registries have been shown to be both feasible and valid in several other diseases.ObjectiveThis report outlines the clinical characteristics of a large internet registry cohort of participants with a self-reported diagnosis of granulomatosis with polyangiitis or microscopic polyangiitis.MethodsPatients with a self-reported diagnosis of granulomatosis with polyangiitis or microscopic polyangiitis in an internet-based prospective longitudinal cohort (from the Vasculitis Patient-Powered Research Network) were included. Data on symptoms, diagnostic testing, and treatment were collected using standardized questionnaires.ResultsThe study compared patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (n=762) and patients with microscopic polyangiitis (n=164). Of the cohort, 97.7% (904/925) reported the diagnosis had been confirmed by a physician. Compared to microscopic polyangiitis, patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis reported significantly more ear, nose, and throat manifestations (granulomatosis with polyangiitis: 641/723, 88.7%; microscopic polyangiitis: 89/164, 54.3%; z=10.42, P<.001), fevers (granulomatosis with polyangiitis: 325/588, 55.3%; microscopic polyangiitis: 64/139, 46.0%; z=1.96, P=.05), joint involvement (granulomatosis with polyangiitis: 549/688, 79.8%; microscopic polyangiitis: 106/154, 68.8%; z=2.96, P=.003), and pulmonary involvement (granulomatosis with polyangiitis: 523/734, 71.3%; microscopic polyangiitis: 90/154, 58.4%; z=3.13, P=.002). Compared to microscopic polyangiitis, patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis reported significantly less renal involvement (granulomatosis with polyangiitis: 457/743, 61.5%; microscopic polyangiitis: 135/163, 82.8%; z=–5.18, P<.001) and renal transplantation (granulomatosis with polyangiitis: 10/721, 1.4%; microscopic polyangiitis: 7/164, 4.3%; z=–2.43, P=.02). Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody positivity was reported in 94.2% (652/692) of patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis and 96.1% (147/153) of patients with microscopic polyangiitis. A biopsy showing vasculitis was reported in 77.0% (562/730) of patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis and 81.9% (131/160) of patients with microscopic polyangiitis.ConclusionsIn this large, internet-based cohort of patients with a self-reported diagnosis of granulomatosis with polyangiitis or microscopic polyangiitis, disease manifestations were consistent with expectations for each type of vasculitis. Given the rarity of these and other vasculitides, conducting some types of research through internet-based registries may provide an efficient alternative to inperson, center-of-excellence clinical trials.

BackgroundThe target sample size for clinical trials often necessitates a multicenter (center of excellence, CoE) approach with associated added complexity, cost, and regulatory requirements. Alternative recruitment strategies need to be tested against this standard model.ObjectivesThe aim of our study was to test whether a Web-based direct recruitment approach (patient-centric, PC) using social marketing strategies provides a viable option to the CoE recruitment method.MethodsPC recruitment and Web-based informed consent was compared with CoE recruitment for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of continuing versus stopping low-dose prednisone for maintenance of remission of patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA).ResultsThe PC approach was not as successful as the CoE approach. Enrollment of those confirmed eligible by their physician was 10 of 13 (77%) and 49 of 51 (96%) in the PC and CoE arms, respectively (P=.05). The two approaches were not significantly different in terms of eligibility with 34% of potential participants in the CoE found to be ineligible as compared with 22% in the PC arm (P=.11) nor in provider acceptance, 22% versus 26% (P=.78). There was no difference in the understanding of the trial as reflected in the knowledge surveys of individuals in the PC and CoE arms.ConclusionsPC recruitment was substantially less successful than that achieved by the CoE approach. However, the PC approach was good at confirming eligibility and was as acceptable to providers and as understandable to patients as the CoE approach. The PC approach should be evaluated in other clinical settings to get a better sense of its potential.