Rheumatoid arthritis treated with 6-months of first-line biologic or biosimilar therapy: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis

Update on tocilizumab in rheumatoid arthritis: a narrative review

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by joint pain, swelling, and stiffness, affecting approximately 1% of the adult population. Tocilizumab (TCZ), a monoclonal antibody targeting the IL-6 receptor, has emerged as an effective treatment for RA. This narrative review provides an update on TCZ's efficacy and safety based on data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world evidence (RWE). TCZ, available in subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) formulations, has shown significant benefits in RA management. Key clinical trials, including SAMURAI, OPTION, RADIATE, and TOWARD, have demonstrated TCZ's efficacy as monotherapy and in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), particularly in patients with inadequate responses to methotrexate or TNF inhibitors. Long-term studies, such as STREAM, have highlighted TCZ's sustained efficacy and favorable safety profile over 5 years. The impact of TCZ on cardiovascular health, lipid profiles, and the risk of infections has been a focal point, with findings suggesting no significant increase in cardiovascular disease risk compared to other RA therapies. RWE further highlights the effectiveness of TCZ, identifying predictors of response, such as age, and emphasizes its suitability for biologic-naïve and overweight patients. Special considerations include TCZ use in RA-associated interstitial lung disease and amyloidosis. Overall, TCZ remains a pivotal option in RA treatment, with a well-established safety and efficacy profile supported by extensive clinical and real-world data.

Initial Treatment with Biological Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis

BACKGROUND

We aimed to analyse the effectiveness, efficiency, and safety of initial treatment with biological therapies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Qualitative study. A group of RA experts was selected. A scoping review in Medline was conducted to analyse the evidence of initial RA treatment with biological therapies. Randomised clinical trials were selected. Two reviewers analysed the articles and compiled the data, whose quality was assessed using the Jadad scale. The experts discussed the review's findings and generated a series of general principles: Results: Seventeen studies were included. Most of the included patients were middle-aged women with early RA (1-7 months) and multiple poor prognostic factors. Initial treatment with TNF-alpha inhibitors combined with methotrexate (MTX) and an IL6R inhibitor (either in mono or combination therapy) is effective (activity, function, radiographic damage, quality of life), safe, and superior to MTX monotherapy in the short and medium term. In the long term, patients who received initial treatment with biologicals presented better results than those whose initial therapy was with MTX.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial treatment of RA with biological therapies is effective, efficient, and safe in the short, medium, and long term, particularly for patients with poor prognostic factors.

A method for assessing robustness of the results of a star-shaped network meta-analysis under the unidentifiable consistency assumption

BACKGROUND

In a star-shaped network, pairwise comparisons link treatments with a reference treatment (often placebo or standard care), but not with each other. Thus, comparisons between non-reference treatments rely on indirect evidence, and are based on the unidentifiable consistency assumption, limiting the reliability of the results. We suggest a method of performing a sensitivity analysis through data imputation to assess the robustness of results with an unknown degree of inconsistency.

METHODS

The method involves imputation of data for randomized controlled trials comparing non-reference treatments, to produce a complete network. The imputed data simulate a situation that would allow mixed treatment comparison, with a statistically acceptable extent of inconsistency. By comparing the agreement between the results obtained from the original star-shaped network meta-analysis and the results after incorporating the imputed data, the robustness of the results of the original star-shaped network meta-analysis can be quantified and assessed. To illustrate this method, we applied it to two real datasets and some simulated datasets.

RESULTS

Applying the method to the star-shaped network formed by discarding all comparisons between non-reference treatments from a real complete network, 33% of the results from the analysis incorporating imputed data under acceptable inconsistency indicated that the treatment ranking would be different from the ranking obtained from the star-shaped network. Through a simulation study, we demonstrated the sensitivity of the results after data imputation for a star-shaped network with different levels of within- and between-study variability. An extended usability of the method was also demonstrated by another example where some head-to-head comparisons were incorporated.

CONCLUSIONS

Our method will serve as a practical technique to assess the reliability of results from a star-shaped network meta-analysis under the unverifiable consistency assumption.

Systematic Literature Review of Economic Evaluations of Biological Treatment Sequences for Patients with Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis Previously Treated with Disease-Modifying Anti-rheumatic Drugs

OBJECTIVE

This systematic literature review (SLR) had two objectives: to analyse published economic evaluations of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) previously treated with DMARDs and to assess the quality of those that included sequences of treatments.

METHODS

We performed an SLR on PubMed, Central, Cochrane, and French databases from January 2000 to December 2018. The search focused on cost-effectiveness/utility/benefit analyses. We extracted data on treatment sequences, outcomes (e.g. quality-adjusted life year) and choices of economic evaluation methods (e.g. model type, type of analysis, and method of utility estimation). We analysed the improvement of methods by comparing two sub-periods (2000-2009 and 2010-2018). The quality of reporting and the quality of the methods were assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and a set of eight key aspects for a reference case for economic evaluation of bDMARDs based on the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) and Drummond checklists. Data extraction and study assessment were performed independently by two health economists.

RESULTS

From the 824 records identified in the initial search, 51 publications were selected. Of these, 31 included sequences. Individual models such as discrete-event simulations were used in over two-fifths (22/51, 43%) of the selected studies. Few studies (7/51, 14%) used utility scores based on generic instruments (e.g. EQ-5D). Estimation of hospitalization costs was described in only approximately one-third of studies (19/51). Loss of quality of life (QoL) related to adverse events such as tuberculosis and pneumonia was included in one-tenth (5/51, 10%) of the studies. It was difficult to compare the results of the economic evaluations (i.e. incremental cost-effectiveness ratios) due to the high heterogeneity of studies in terms of disease stage, data sources, inputs, and methods of health outcome assessment used. For identified studies including sequences, the CHEERS assessment of reporting quality showed insufficient reporting of uncertainty analyses and utility weights in more than a third of the studies (11/31, 35%; 9/25, 36%). An in-depth assessment of the quality of the studies revealed that only seven, mostly conducted during the sub-period 2010-2018, addressed the majority of methodological quality assessment issues such as the simulation of patient sequence pathways, the use of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of comparative effectiveness, the choice of treatment sequence, and rules for switching.

CONCLUSION

Our SLR identified a lack of high-quality evaluations assessing bDMARD sequences, although some improvements were made in the reporting and modelling of patients' pathways in studies published after 2010. In order to improve economic evaluations of RA, clear health technology assessment guidance on RA health-related QoL instruments must be provided, and data including long-term disease progression must be made available.

Economic Evaluation of Sequences of Biological Treatments for Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis and Inadequate Response or Intolerance to Methotrexate in France

OBJECTIVES

Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are prescribed sequentially in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Healthcare decision makers continue to debate their use, mainly because of their high costs. Our aim was to perform an economic evaluation for France of bDMARD sequences for treatment of moderate-to-severe RA after inadequate response or intolerance to conventional DMARDs (eg, methotrexate).

METHODS

A discretely integrated condition event simulation was developed to track the course of patients from first bDMARD through switches to further lines in a sequence. The model included 11 events, 91 conditions, and 21 controlling equations. Inputs were obtained from a meta-analysis of clinical trials, a French registry, national drug lists, and databases. Survival, time with minimal activity, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and total costs were output. Structural and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Sequences starting with etanercept biosimilars (ETB) cost less, with ETB-abatacept-infliximab the least expensive: the mean lifetime discounted total cost was €116 912 per patient, with a mean of 11.166 QALYs. Most other strategies were dominated or led to small QALY gains (0.0008-0.0329). Only ETB-tocilizumab-abatacept made it onto the efficiency frontier, but at €955 778 per QALY gained. These results were confirmed in several scenarios and uncertainty analyses.

CONCLUSION

Given minor differences in QALYs gained between bDMARD sequences with large cost differences, starting with biosimilars was more efficient than starting with branded products. Our model and findings should provide French and other decision makers with useful tools to address the challenges of comparing sequences of treatments for RA.