Long-Term Efficacy of Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors for the Treatment of Methotrexate-Naïve Rheumatoid Arthritis: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Real-world effectiveness of biological therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a chronic systemic inflammatory autoimmune disease, is based on disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Typically, it starts with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs), and depending on the patient’s response to the treatment and the adverse events experienced, biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) are initiated. bDMARDs are more specific to inflammatory factors than csDMARDs and more efficient in inducing remission and low disease activity. Thus, this study aimed to assess the effectiveness of biological therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in administrative health databases.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, Lilacs, Ovid, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to 21 October 2021, to identify observational studies that evaluated the effectiveness of biological therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis using administrative databases and real-world data. The methodological quality was assessed by the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS). A fixed or random-effects model estimated risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. The analysis was divided into four groups: tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) versus non-TNFi; TNFi versus TNFi (adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab versus infliximab); bDMARDs versus Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi); and bDMARDs monotherapy versus combination therapy (bDMARDs and MTX).

Results: Twenty-one records were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis; seven population-based cohorts, eight prospective, and six retrospective cohort studies. Overall, 182,098 rheumatoid arthritis patients were evaluated. In the meta-analysis, lower effectiveness was observed among TNFi users than in non-TNFi (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.81–0.95; p < 0.01; I² = 94.0%) and bDMARDs than in JAKi (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.79–0.94; p < 0.01; I² = 93.0%). Higher effectiveness among adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab than in infliximab (RR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.05–1.36; p < 0.01; I² = 96.0%) was found. No significant differences in the effectiveness of bDMARD monotherapy compared to combination therapy (RR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.68–1.00; p < 0.01; I² = 81.0%) was observed. E-value analysis indicated that the estimates were not robust against unmeasured confounding.

Conclusion: According to the available real-world data, our results suggest that biological therapy effectively treats patients with rheumatoid arthritis, indicating higher effectiveness with non-TNFi and JAKi than with TNFi.

Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID#CRD42020190838, identifier CRD42020190838.

Two-year cost-effectiveness of different COBRA-like intensive remission induction schemes in early rheumatoid arthritis: a piggyback study on the pragmatic randomised controlled CareRA trial

Objectives

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treat-to-target strategies among recently diagnosed patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using methotrexate (MTX) and a step-down glucocorticoid (GC) scheme (COBRA Slim) compared with (1) this combination with either sulphasalazine (COBRA Classic) or leflunomide (COBRA Avant-Garde) in high-risk patients and (2) MTX without GCs (Tight-Step-Up, TSU) in low-risk patients.

Methods

The incremental cost-utility was calculated from a healthcare perspective in the intention-to-treat population (n=379) of the 2-year open-label pragmatic randomised controlled Care in early RA trial. Healthcare costs were collected prospectively through electronic trial records. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using mapping algorithms for EuroQoL-5 Dimension. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data and bootstrapping to calculate CIs. Robustness was tested with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs at biosimilar prices.

Results

In the high-risk group, Classic (∆k€1.464, 95% CI −0.198 to 3.127) and Avant-Garde (∆k€0.636, 95% CI −0.987 to 2.258) were more expensive compared with Slim and QALYs were slightly worse for Classic (∆−0.002, 95% CI −0.086 to 0.082) and Avant-Garde (∆−0.009, 95% CI −0.102 to 0.084). This resulted in the domination of Classic and Avant-Garde by Slim. In the low-risk group, Slim was cheaper (∆k€−0.617, 95% CI −2.799 to 1.566) and QALYs were higher (∆0.141, 95% CI 0.008 to 0.274) compared with TSU, indicating Slim dominated. Results were robust against the price of biosimilars.

Conclusions

The combination of MTX with a GC bridging scheme is less expensive with comparable health utility than more intensive step-down combination strategies or a conventional step-up approach 2 years after initial treatment.

Trial registration number

NCT01172639.