Singapore Chapter of Rheumatologists updated consensus statement on the eligibility for government subsidization of biologic and targeted-synthetic therapy for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 30% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) respond inadequately to conventional-synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). However, widespread use of biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) and targeted-synthetic (tsDMARDs) is limited by cost. We formulated updated recommendations for eligibility criteria for government-assisted funding of bDMARDs/tsDMARDs for RA patients in Singapore.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Published guidelines regarding use of bDMARD and tsDMARDs were reviewed. We excluded those without a systematic literature review, formal consensus process or evidence grading. Separately, unpublished national reimbursement guidelines were included.

RESULTS

Eleven recommendations regarding choice of disease activity measure, initiation, order of selection and continuation of bDMARD/tsDMARDs were formulated. A bDMARD/tsDMARD is indicated if a patient has: (a) at least moderately active RA with a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints/erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) score of ≥3.2; (b) failed ≥2 csDMARD strategies, 1 of which must be a combination; (c) received an adequate dose regimen of ≥3 months for each strategy. For the first-line bDMARD/tsDMARD, either tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), non-TNFi (abatacept, tocilizumab, rituximab), or tsDMARDs, may be considered. If a first-line TNFi fails, options include another TNFi, non-TNFi biologic or tsDMARDs. If a first-line non-TNFi biologic or tsDMARD fails, options include TNFi or another non-TNF biologic or tsDMARD. For continued bDMARD/tsDMARD subsidization, a patient must have a documented DAS28-ESR every 3 months and at least a moderate European League Against Rheumatism response by 6 months.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations are useful for guiding funding decisions, making bDMARD/tsDMARDs usage accessible and equitable in RA patients who fail csDMARDs.

Randomised controlled trial of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors against combination intensive therapy with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in established rheumatoid arthritis: the TACIT trial and associated systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is initially treated with methotrexate and other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Active RA patients who fail such treatments can receive tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis), which are effective but expensive.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed whether or not combination DMARDs (cDMARDs) give equivalent clinical benefits at lower costs in RA patients eligible for TNFis.

DESIGN

An open-label, 12-month, pragmatic, randomised, multicentre, two-arm trial [Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors Against Combination Intensive Therapy (TACIT)] compared these treatment strategies. We then systematically reviewed all comparable published trials.

SETTING

The TACIT trial involved 24 English rheumatology clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

Active RA patients eligible for TNFis.

INTERVENTIONS

The TACIT trial compared cDMARDs with TNFis plus methotrexate or another DMARD; 6-month non-responders received (a) TNFis if in the cDMARD group; and (b) a second TNFi if in the TNFi group.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The Heath Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) was the primary outcome measure. The European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), joint damage, Disease Activity Score for 28 Joints (DAS28), withdrawals and adverse effects were secondary outcome measures. Economic evaluation linked costs, HAQ changes and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

In total, 432 patients were screened; 104 started on cDMARDs and 101 started on TNFis. The initial demographic and disease assessments were similar between the groups. In total, 16 patients were lost to follow-up (nine in the cDMARD group, seven in the TNFi group) and 42 discontinued their intervention but were followed up (23 in the cDMARD group and 19 in the TNFi group). Intention-to-treat analysis with multiple imputation methods used for missing data showed greater 12-month HAQ score reductions with initial cDMARDs than with initial TNFis [adjusted linear regression coefficient 0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.003 to 0.31; p = 0.046]. Increases in 12-month EQ-5D scores were greater with initial cDMARDs (adjusted linear regression coefficient -0.11, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.03; p = 0.009) whereas 6-month changes in HAQ and EQ-5D scores and 6- and 12-month changes in joint damage were similar between the initial cDMARD group and the initial TNFi group. Longitudinal analyses (adjusted general estimating equations) showed that the DAS28 was lower in the initial TNFi group in the first 6 months (coefficient -0.63, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.34; p < 0.001) but there were no differences between the groups in months 6-12. In total, 36 patients in the initial cDMARD group and 44 in the initial TNFi group achieved DAS28 remission. The onset of remission did not differ between groups (p = 0.085 on log-rank test). In total, 10 patients in the initial cDMARD group and 18 in the initial TNFi group experienced serious adverse events; stopping therapy because of toxicity occurred in 10 and six patients respectively. Economic evaluation showed that the cDMARD group had similar or better QALY outcomes than TNFi with significantly lower costs at 6 and 12 months. In the systematic reviews we identified 32 trials (including 20-1049 patients) on early RA and 19 trials (including 40-982 patients) on established RA that compared (1) cDMARDs with DMARD monotherapy; (2) TNFis/methotrexate with methotrexate monotherapy; and (3) cDMARDs with TNFis/methotrexate. They showed that cDMARDs and TNFis had similar efficacies and toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

Active RA patients who have failed methotrexate and another DMARD achieve equivalent clinical benefits at a lower cost from starting cDMARDs or from starting TNFis (reserving TNFis for non-responders). Only a minority of patients achieve sustained remission with cDMARDs or TNFis; new strategies are needed to maximise the frequency of remission.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Control Trials ISRCTN37438295.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

DAS28 and Rheumatoid Arthritis: The Need for Standardization

Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints (DAS28) scoring in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is now recommended as a basis for clinical decisions about treatment initiation and alteration. The British Society of Rheumatology suggests that most RA patients should have a DAS28 assessment at every clinic visit, to monitor disease activity and the impact of therapy. Establishing an accurate baseline assessment of DAS28, with regular re-evaluation, is considered crucial, so that progress towards a defined target of remission (or low disease activity) can be measured. The Treat-to-Target initiative, launched in March 2010, is now impacting on clinical practice throughout the UK and Europe. One of its key recommendations is that patients should be regularly monitored using validated composite measures of disease activity that include joint assessments. DAS28 is recommended as one of the most useful of these methods but, although it is becoming more widely adopted and training is ongoing, supported by materials produced by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), the variability inherent in the four components of DAS28 means that standardization of practice methods is now an important issue. This short report details some of the pitfalls that can occur when applying DAS28 in clinical practice and suggests some workable solutions to enable departments to set up their own standard operating procedure.